Foxholes.

Tim Niesen

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
146
Country
llUnited States
Foxhole rules are somewhat obscure in that in standard scenarios, they are very seldom dug. They are usually there in the order of battle. My friend Don Carlucci told me that he had never dug a foxhole in all of his years of playing ASL! Here are my questions: A. Does digging them allow defensive first fire, subsequent first fire, or even final protective fire? B. Is digging them a form of movement penalities for FFO or NAM? C. Does digging them in a AP minefield cause the mine to attack the digger? Tim
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
A. Entrenching occurs during the Prep Fire Phase, so there are no opportunities for DFF.
B. Again, there is no movement or specific penalties against Defensive Fire attacks. Indeed, you would gain foxhole benefit immediately if the Entrenching attempt was successful.
C. I don't see any restrictions to foxholes in minefield Locations, but you would be attacked upon entering/leaving your own foxhole's hex.

P.S. there are good opportunities/reasons for digging, particularly in longer scenarios when certain defensive points have time before becoming engaged...
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
I can think of only one occasion when I tried to dig foxholes in play - and it turns out there was an explicit SSR prohibiting it (it was First Day of Diadem, where my Germans had some time when they could not move forward for fear of activating the enemy OBA early, and having them in Foxholes would precisely have been a good protection against the same upcoming OBA).

P.S. there are good opportunities/reasons for digging, particularly in longer scenarios when certain defensive points have time before becoming engaged...
The current trend towards shorter scenario, where both sides are in contact very quickly, makes digging an often less interesting proposition. In longer games where there are threats of OBA and/or Overruns, they make for excellent protection, even though they can turn into "death traps".

The Lone Canuck CG rules (and maybe others, but I've read LCP rules recently) makes all Entrenchments into "Tactical Locations", which means they are all-important when determining perimeters, especially on maps with few "natural" Tactical Locations (typically, rural fights). Having some guys dig holes in well-chosen places can be a good way of connecting those perimeters together.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Even in a short scenario where the Attacker needs to exit units across relatively open terrain, it's easy to imagine situations to leave a unit or two in the back of your line (along the exit-edge) to create an ad hoc strongpoint.
 

Tim Niesen

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
146
Country
llUnited States
In this campaign game that we are playing, foxholes help establish the forward line for the next session. They are important in this context. We are one hex away from the perfect position for a pillbox for the next session-on the high ground overlooking our objective. Tim
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Foxholes are good for :
- protection vs OBA
- paving rout paths
- defending vs OVR (especially when the AFV owner doesn't know how to use MG and Ordnance otherwise)
- protection vs indirect fire in woods (mitigates Air Burst effects)
- behind walls and hedges, an infantry can move out of LOS of same or lower level units by entering an entrenchment

They are problematic in open ground if you need to leave them during MPh under enemy defensive fire.
In 0 TEM terrain (Grain, Brush, Kunai) they are less problematic, but the 1 MF exit expenditure in the hex still allows defensive first fire vs. the exiting unit.

So digging FH during play is not very frequent, as terrain either is OG or offers better protection - barring the protection vs. OBA.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Foxholes are, in general, a death trap. The requirement to expend a MF to enter/exit the foxhole after/before entering/exiting the hex/location is very problematic. The moving unit has to take Dfire without the +2 Foxhole TEM before entering or after leaving the Foxhole. A Foxhole is the antithesis of skulking...because once in it the risk of leaving under enemy fire is usually not worth it...similarly...trying to enter the Foxhole under enemy fire is also usually not worth it. Usually one is taking a +0/+1 (depending on AM or NAM) DFire shot after/before exit/entry due to the other (normally) available TEM in the Foxhole hex.

When I have them in scenarios and I have dummies, I will setup dummies in Foxholes to increase their believability. In campaign games entrenchments are usually strategic locations. So I buy/dig them to keep my perimeter(s) (depending on the CG rules) contiguous/linked. In most other cases where I have Foxholes in my OB I tend not to use them (barring scenario specifics to the contrary) for units but rather to create safe(r) rout paths...owing to the fact that, for some strange reason, broken units can combine MF for both hex exit/entry and foxhole exit/entry. If GO units could move through foxholes in the same manner as brokies, the over all utility of foxholes would increase exponentially.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
In ASL, yes, but were they in "real life?" Are the ASL rules making them act like death traps by design?
The question is, putting aside one's idea of reality, why exiting a FH is easier during the RtPh than in the MPh - with a different way of computing the exit MF.
Even though those two phases are different, combining (or not) the exit MF with the MF cost of the next hex moved into is a strange difference.
ASL is not realist, of course, so you will also find blind fanatics who would even justify foxholes being dug in ponds or on treetops if the rules allowed that - for them all is fine and daring contest even a comma of the rules is heresy.
It is a hopelessly flawed debate.

So, whatever one thinks of the rules, one simply will do as for other rules: adapt and overcome - e.g. creating rout paths rather set up units in them (EXC vs OBA, etc.). Which doesn't mean being ecstatic about their design choices...
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
In ASL, yes, but were they in "real life?" Are the ASL rules making them act like death traps by design?
Well, in the infantry we called them hasty graves, but they were more preferred than being a bullet magnet in the open. As we often said, "I found a home in the Army", inferred was the thought "and I dug it myself".
 
Top