artillery vs foxholes
- Thread starter non com
- Start date
Graywinter
Mongoose
And if they aren't like emplacements - how do they work? I mean, if they just provide medium cover, why would anyone bother shooting at them and/or why would anyone bother getting in them as woods are also medium cover and cannot be blown up.
And while we're talking about emplacements - I see the 'max size' score - is that the largest diagonal size in inches the emplacement can be? A foxhole is deep, not really tall... and that seems odd if you have bunkers from different manufacturers that are made of sandbags but are too tall to qualify as small bunkers, even though they will only hold 3-4 guys.
Sorry they are dark, but my camera isn't the best, and this cave of a hobby room I have isn't really suited for photography.
And while we're talking about emplacements - I see the 'max size' score - is that the largest diagonal size in inches the emplacement can be? A foxhole is deep, not really tall... and that seems odd if you have bunkers from different manufacturers that are made of sandbags but are too tall to qualify as small bunkers, even though they will only hold 3-4 guys.
Sorry they are dark, but my camera isn't the best, and this cave of a hobby room I have isn't really suited for photography.
well woods don't provide cover from artillery being in a foxhole would so it looks like it would provide a save under medium cover but rounds could land smack in the middle of the foxhole ie in band of brothers muck and pincala didn't get much cover from the round that struck their foxhole,as I remember the line was there was nothing left to bury. I would think that foxholes should provide medium cover if the round dosen't center the foxhole but if one lands square it should be like dropping a round behind a wall KABOOM! :wink:
Graywinter
Mongoose
That's all well and good, but requires us to make special rules for foxholes ... and then we will have to make special rules for every type of emplacement.
I'm not opposed to it, but do emplacements work like buildings? I mean if I have a concrete bunker, can you pick off the guys who choose to shoot from the firing points? With foxholes, if the soldiers inside do not fire out, are they considered to be taking cover and, like models inside a building, cannot have a line of sight drawn to them?
I'm not opposed to it, but do emplacements work like buildings? I mean if I have a concrete bunker, can you pick off the guys who choose to shoot from the firing points? With foxholes, if the soldiers inside do not fire out, are they considered to be taking cover and, like models inside a building, cannot have a line of sight drawn to them?
I would say emplacements work the same as buildings and so troops inside can only be fired upon if they shoot out of it. Foxholes are a bit of an annomily as they are nor really buildings and I would probably do the same as already suggested; if the impact is inside the foxhole or trench then no cover, otherwise count as heavy cover.
I don't know if this is right or not but would artillery always have to strike the building and not occupants?
I don't know if this is right or not but would artillery always have to strike the building and not occupants?
Graywinter
Mongoose
That's how we have played it... but mortars cannot destroy a foxhole (The target number is 8+)
I think that you can always say that a foxhole from the emplacements list is a prepared position, not just a hole in the ground.
It has sandbags, and maybe even a heavy cover of tree trunks, or metal plate scavenged from a wreck. Maybe it's got a farmhouse door (that actually happened, you know - troops would liberate every barn door they could find) and use them to cover their foxholes - then line bricks and stones or whatever else they could.. sandbags, dirt.. anything to provide a hard top.
I think that you can always say that a foxhole from the emplacements list is a prepared position, not just a hole in the ground.
It has sandbags, and maybe even a heavy cover of tree trunks, or metal plate scavenged from a wreck. Maybe it's got a farmhouse door (that actually happened, you know - troops would liberate every barn door they could find) and use them to cover their foxholes - then line bricks and stones or whatever else they could.. sandbags, dirt.. anything to provide a hard top.
I'd say they are emplacements that offer Heavy Cover but are immune to artillery unless the center of the fire zone lands in the hole. The downside to them over a bunker is the exposure to damage from above.
As for destroyability, you could theoretically turn it into a crater (hence the need for an 8+). It probably should be higher, but it's also a game mechanic to make it less viable than a bunker and can also reflect the ability to pour enough fire on it to make it an ineffective defensive position. Besides, 95% of the time you won't waste the time targetting the foxhole, but rather the units in the foxhole as they are squishier.
As for destroyability, you could theoretically turn it into a crater (hence the need for an 8+). It probably should be higher, but it's also a game mechanic to make it less viable than a bunker and can also reflect the ability to pour enough fire on it to make it an ineffective defensive position. Besides, 95% of the time you won't waste the time targetting the foxhole, but rather the units in the foxhole as they are squishier.