Need for proper foxholes

[wrongway149]

Here's another possible "fix" of foxholes, but coming from a completely different direction. Foxholes were used in real life by infantry to protect against artillery seems to be the #1 historical lesson. Well, make OBA and OBA equivalents more common on the ASL battlefield. I propose a "sniper OBA" to be placed by each side. On all DRs of a 2 or 12 in Prep, Movement, Defensive Fire and Advancing Fire Phases ones sides (randomly selected, it could be both sides) sniper OBA is activated. Roll direction and extent of error and some level of OBA rains down. (Seems like 60mm - 80mm would work best, or even implement it as harrassing fire)

This would encourage ASL commanders to consider keeping their infantry in foxholes. It doesn't "make" anybody do anything that they don't wish to do (like mandated SSR set-up rules) but rather adds a little fuel to the thought process when considering not using foxholes for any reason.

I like it, Bob. You have a bright future in scenario design, should you choose to take that path, grasshopper.

 

[Blackcloud6]

I came up with a similar but not as elegant idea like Bob's. A scenario designer could force a more "historical" use of foxholes by putting in the fear of artillery like Bob suggests. I was going to say the SSR could be:

The defender may set up all units in foxholes. If after set-up the defender has any units not in foxholes, trenches, pillboxes or buildings, the attacker receiver one modules of XXmm OBA (or a pre-game bombardment). So then it does not force the player into foxholes and thus Fort's concern is alleviated but the defender will now have to consider the use of foxholes or face artillery.

See, this is not a problem of the games rules; it is a problem of scenario design. A scenario certainly can do things to force a "historical" use of foxholes if he intends to do so and feels it fits the historical situation he is trying to portray or decisions of the filed commander he trying to replicate. This is the real beauty of ASL.

 

[Blackcloud6]

And, there is nothing wrong with SSRs that "force" a player to do something; there are many of them in ASL sceanrios. As long as the scenario is tested with such and reaches a modicum of the mythical holy grail of Balance then all is good.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

We seem to be approaching consensus. Here's the SSR as I have it. Any suggestions to improve it? The example should not be necessary, but I want no doubts in the Gor-Gor Mini as I won't get there until the 3rd round so I'm not there to answer questions. However, if this sees widespread use then the example can be deleted. The part about trenches is technically unnecessary as the rule specifically references foxholes and not entrenchments. Therefore, the SSR could be made quite short if space on the card becomes tight.

"Foxholes & Crest –The 1 MF for exiting a Foxhole (or Crest as per B20.93) is considered spent in the next Location entered for DFF if the unit is Assault Moving. However, concealment is lost as per the existing rules. Note that exiting Trenches is unaffected. (Example: a concealed squad in a Foxhole in OG Assault Moves to an adjacent Woods hex. The squad can only be fired upon in the Woods hex, but it is considered to expend 3 MF there. Also, the squad would lose concealment if the enemy has a unit with LOS to the Foxhole hex.)"

Please let me know if the wording can be refined.

Thanks,
Steve

Overall it reads pretty well - I think the only wording change I'd consider is the "However" is somewhat extraneous and could be dropped if brevity was priority one.

Considering things from the opposite viewpoint. It seems that foxholes are actually modeled relatively well in ASL as they were meant to be fought from and not moved out of. The problem is relative to other terrain in ASL where skulking is possible making them far better defensive terrain for ASL than foxholes. And it's pretty much a given we're not going to legislate out skulking at this point. So...Can we add some form of skulking to foxholes? Something along the lines of:

"Foxholes - During the MPh a unit in a foxhole may be designated as a 'skulker' which entitles it to the +4 Foxhole TEM versus all fire directed at it for the remainder of that player turn. Skulking units may not Advance Fire and skulking status ends at the end of the CCPh."

Being totally immune to all fire seems overkill to guys hiding in the bottom of a foxhole, but a +4 makes a unit pretty safe statistically to all but the highest FP or luckiest dice. I debated allowing AdvFire as if pinned...

I'm not saying I prefer it to Steve's suggested SSR, just taking a viewpoint from the other side to see if it has any legs and is worth discussing or not. It doesn't affect Crest at all (after all they can skulk easily enough by dropping crest status), but it seems most people use crest to advance out of and save the CX for advancing into a woods/building as it's only 3MF instead of 4 and thus it's not that often that a unit in crest is hung out to dry while moving out of crest.

Thoughts?

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

Overall it reads pretty well - I think the only wording change I'd consider is the "However" is somewhat extraneous and could be dropped if brevity was priority one.

Considering things from the opposite viewpoint. It seems that foxholes are actually modeled relatively well in ASL as they were meant to be fought from and not moved out of. The problem is relative to other terrain in ASL where skulking is possible making them far better defensive terrain for ASL than foxholes. And it's pretty much a given we're not going to legislate out skulking at this point. So...Can we add some form of skulking to foxholes? Something along the lines of:

"Foxholes - During the MPh a unit in a foxhole may be designated as a 'skulker' which entitles it to the +4 Foxhole TEM versus all fire directed at it for the remainder of that player turn. Skulking units may not Advance Fire and skulking status ends at the end of the CCPh."

Being totally immune to all fire seems overkill to guys hiding in the bottom of a foxhole, but a +4 makes a unit pretty safe statistically to all but the highest FP or luckiest dice. I debated allowing AdvFire as if pinned...

I'm not saying I prefer it to Steve's suggested SSR, just taking a viewpoint from the other side to see if it has any legs and is worth discussing or not. It doesn't affect Crest at all (after all they can skulk easily enough by dropping crest status), but it seems most people use crest to advance out of and save the CX for advancing into a woods/building as it's only 3MF instead of 4 and thus it's not that often that a unit in crest is hung out to dry while moving out of crest.

Thoughts?

Bret:

That makes sense to me (which probably means it's ridiculous ). I said a few pages back that the problem isn't with foxholes really, it's with everything else and the problem might be that the TEM of foxholes just isn't good enough to make them a choice. Giving them a "heads down" option would seem to increase the viability of the tactical decision. I like it, at least as an alternative. It would work better in wide open terrain where you might have to fight from the foxholes.

S

 

[wrongway149]

Overall it reads pretty well - I think the only wording change I'd consider is the "However" is somewhat extraneous and could be dropped if brevity was priority one.

Considering things from the opposite viewpoint. It seems that foxholes are actually modeled relatively well in ASL as they were meant to be fought from and not moved out of. The problem is relative to other terrain in ASL where skulking is possible making them far better defensive terrain for ASL than foxholes. And it's pretty much a given we're not going to legislate out skulking at this point. So...Can we add some form of skulking to foxholes? Something along the lines of:

"Foxholes - During the MPh a unit in a foxhole may be designated as a 'skulker' which entitles it to the +4 Foxhole TEM versus all fire directed at it for the remainder of that player turn. Skulking units may not Advance Fire and skulking status ends at the end of the CCPh."

Being totally immune to all fire seems overkill to guys hiding in the bottom of a foxhole, but a +4 makes a unit pretty safe statistically to all but the highest FP or luckiest dice. I debated allowing AdvFire as if pinned...

I'm not saying I prefer it to Steve's suggested SSR, just taking a viewpoint from the other side to see if it has any legs and is worth discussing or not. It doesn't affect Crest at all (after all they can skulk easily enough by dropping crest status), but it seems most people use crest to advance out of and save the CX for advancing into a woods/building as it's only 3MF instead of 4 and thus it's not that often that a unit in crest is hung out to dry while moving out of crest.

Thoughts?

Another good SSR, should a designer wish to model that.

Alternately, one could allow the +4 to a unit conceald in a foxhole. (or simply allow a unit in a FH not marked with Prep Fire to gain concealment in the movement phase, counting as a move.)

Solves more problems than it creates, anyway.

 

[Steven Pleva]

I thought about a heads down option. The enemy 9-2 MG stack can still dish out some damage with +4 TEM. In some scenarios, this would have the desired outcome. In other scenarios, not so much. I might make the heads down TEM +3 for PBF (grenades being more effective) and +5 for non-PBF. Alternatively, you could make the heads down immune to non-PBF MG and small arms and +4 TEM for everything else. My initial reaction is to go with the original SSR, but I'll think about this one for a bit. It's not like we have to decide right away. Thanks for the input!

Steve

 

[John Fedoriw]

Another thing with foxholes thats in need of a fix is the fact that if I have a hip unit in one the foxhole is placed onboard when the enemy gains LOS to it......this discourages me from placing hip units in them when otherwise allowed to.

 

[Bob Miller]

I like where this "heads down" train of thought is heading. Perhaps call it "Full Cover" like the old AH Tobruck game. I would think that infantry in ANY type of cover (even Open Ground) could choose a Full Cover option. This increases the effectiveness of any terrain they are in by +1. The unit would be considered Pinned and only eligible to fire at ADJACENT units for the remainder of that Player turn. This Full Cover status needs to be claimed at the beginning of Rally Phase like Wall Advantage status, attacking phase side first. Unlike Wall Advantage, it cannot be dropped at any point unless the unit is broken, then they lose the benefit (+1 to terrain status) Of course this rule completely changes the game of ASL.

The other point was to allow Infantry to gain concealment in the foxhole. That is allowed by infantry if behind Bocage so this idea isn't totally new but I got to think about this one for a bit.

Last point. In this quarter's Military History Quarterly there is an article on the Winter War 39-40. There is a picture (on page 63 if anybody has the magazine) of a Finnish soldier in a Trench that needs to stand on a special platform to see and fire out. Otherwise the top of the trench is over his head. In ASL terms HOW THE HECK is this +2 Trench TEM only equal to the TEM (+2) as a prep fire dug foxhole??? Hate to say it but any GorGor fix or equivalent house rule used by ASLers is just a flimsy bag placed over the head of one UGLY set of fortification rules.

 

[B.Lizt]

Hi
Been absent for a while.

I see this thread evolved a little and then died.
I still like Steve's SSR the best. It is simplest, and changes the least, while turning Foxholes into something that might actually be used in a historical fasion.

So, after 500+ posts we have come this far.
But this discussion will soon be forgotten - or at best - referred to as "one of the foxhole issues, back when..."

I think Steve's SSR is good. It deserves to see some use.
I also like his alternative OBA chit draw rule (used it in a game this weekend).
And there are other good SSRs that deserves to see more use. Using G.2 for foxholes in concealment terrain sees some use, and I like that.
Many more to be added.

I propose a SSR CENTRAL - a place to compile good SSRs that designers could use
(or players could use as house rules, if they like).

You could also use such a sentral to expand on possible problems with common SSRs - like the HIP tank hindrance issue discussed recently.

Any thoughts?


Olav

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

...Any thoughts?


Olav

...that this thread should not have been exhumed?

 

[Steven Pleva]

Here's the SSR that I will use at ASLOK for the Gor-Gor Heretical Mini:

"Foxholes & Crest –The 1 MF for exiting a Foxhole (or Crest as per B20.93) is considered spent in the next Location entered for DFF if the unit is Assault Moving. However, concealment is lost as per the existing rules. Note that exiting Trenches is unaffected. (Example: a concealed squad in a Foxhole in OG Assault Moves to an adjacent Woods hex. The squad can only be fired upon in the Woods hex, but it is considered to expend 3 MF there. Also, the squad would lose concealment if the enemy has a unit with LOS to the Foxhole hex.)"

 

[Bret Hildebran]

Here's the SSR that I will use at ASLOK for the Gor-Gor Heretical Mini:

"Foxholes & Crest –The 1 MF for exiting a Foxhole (or Crest as per B20.93) is considered spent in the next Location entered for DFF if the unit is Assault Moving. However, concealment is lost as per the existing rules. Note that exiting Trenches is unaffected. (Example: a concealed squad in a Foxhole in OG Assault Moves to an adjacent Woods hex. The squad can only be fired upon in the Woods hex, but it is considered to expend 3 MF there. Also, the squad would lose concealment if the enemy has a unit with LOS to the Foxhole hex.)"

Is it worth adding "unhindered" to the example in "...has a unit with an unhindered LOS to the OG Foxhole hex.)"? Guess I added an "OG" in there too. Given all the differing definitions of Open Ground, it may make it slightly more crystal clear, although I think a reasonable player should be able to grasp the intent w/o the extra verbiage. It's those unreasonable players that you have to watch out for...

 

[Steven Pleva]

Is it worth adding "unhindered" to the example in "...has a unit with an unhindered LOS to the OG Foxhole hex.)"? Guess I added an "OG" in there too. Given all the differing definitions of Open Ground, it may make it slightly more crystal clear, although I think a reasonable player should be able to grasp the intent w/o the extra verbiage. It's those unreasonable players that you have to watch out for...

Good idea. Here's the new wording:

"Foxholes & Crest –The 1 MF for exiting a Foxhole (or Crest as per B20.93) is considered spent in the next Location entered for DFF if the unit is Assault Moving. However, concealment is lost as per the existing rules. Note that exiting Trenches is unaffected. (Example: a concealed squad in a Foxhole in OG Assault Moves to an adjacent Woods hex. The squad can only be fired upon in the Woods hex, but it is considered to expend 3 MF there. Also, the squad would lose concealment if a GO enemy unit has a clear LOS (as per A10.531) to the Foxhole hex.)"

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

Good idea. Here's the new wording:

"Foxholes & Crest –The 1 MF for exiting a Foxhole (or Crest as per B20.93) is considered spent in the next Location entered for DFF if the unit is Assault Moving. However, concealment is lost as per the existing rules. Note that exiting Trenches is unaffected. (Example: a concealed squad in a Foxhole in OG Assault Moves to an adjacent Woods hex. The squad can only be fired upon in the Woods hex, but it is considered to expend 3 MF there. Also, the squad would lose concealment if a GO enemy unit has a clear LOS (as per A10.531) to the Foxhole hex.)"

Or

Foxholes & Crest –The 1 MF for exiting a Foxhole (or Crest as per B20.93) is considered spent in the next Location entered for DFF if the unit is Assault Moving. However, concealment is lost as per the existing rules. Note that exiting Trenches is unaffected. (Example: a concealed squad in a Foxhole in OG (Concealment LOS Detirmined as per A10.531) Assault Moves to an adjacent Woods hex. The squad can only be fired upon in the Woods hex, but it is considered to expend 3 MF there.


Moving the OG detirmination condition into the body of the example with less wordage.