Trenches and foxhole in the game

[woos1981]

Hello Dev team, is it possible to make trenches and foxhole in the game? Thank you

[mmacguinness]

They are there already.
If you set up a defensive scenario, you have the options, Dug-in, Fortified and Dug-in + Fortified.

Designers may have a different concept, but I se these as:

"Dispersal Times

6. It takes 1 hour for a unit to deploy for defence or go under cover (e.g. into harbour area) – a unit passing through cover (on road or cross-country) may “halt under cover” with no time delay.
7. It takes 5 hours for an Inf unit to deploy and dig-in for defence.   A unit can take over a “dug-in position” from a friendly unit or re-occupy in 1 hour, or an enemy position in 3 hours.
8. The 5 hours of digging by a unit gives it slit trenches with thermal screens[6].   If a unit remains in defence for 24 hours it is assumed that it has improved its defences to include 18” overhead cover, some mines and some wire for local protection.   This improved defence gives it increased probability of success when attacked, (see Appx. “A”).   A unit taking over a 24 hour position from a friendly unit occupies it in 1 hour but from an opposing unit will still require 24 hours to claim full protection."

Curry, John. BAOR Operational Wargaming 1950-1960 : The British Army Tactical Wargame (1956) (p. 1). The History of Wargaming Project. Kindle Edition.

i.e. Dug-in represents 5 hours of digging-in, and Dug-in + Fortified represents 24 hours.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a more comprehensive, in depth prepared defense, that is not mobile warfare and AB is a game simulating mobile warfare.

[nikolas93TS]

Indeed, dug-in represent improvised fortifications like slit trenches, fox holes etc. even if graphical image might be a bit misleading due to grouped infantry.

There was this long-lingering idea of having more permanent fortifications, which engine would need to treat as buildings of sort, but currently we have some other things to solve first before giving it another thought.

[woos1981]

I seriously created a defensive mission in the game. As you mentioned, there will be some suggested fortifications like sandbags and shallow pits around the infantry. However, at present, this is not as good as the real trench either in shape or function, so I suggest that more perfect fortifications can be developed in the near future to enrich the gameplay.Thank you very much!

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

Indeed, dug-in represent improvised fortifications like slit trenches, fox holes etc. even if graphical image might be a bit misleading due to grouped infantry.

There was this long-lingering idea of having more permanent fortifications, which engine would need to treat as buildings of sort, but currently we have some other things to solve first before giving it another thought.

Wouldn't permanent fortifications be a sort of a low-hanging fruit, though?

[nikolas93TS]

Suprisingly, but not. They require special rules (for example moving just in certain directions etc.) and AI would need to be adjusted accordingly, albeit that is now less of a problem with additional scenario features and AI locking.

[RockinHarry]

The "hedgehog" type defense works ok for me generally. ATM mainly playing AB43 mod, so more distinct types would surely be desireable. But what is the logic for not allowing a unit once it leaves the foxholes to enter back at later time? (after retreat and recovering i.e) [&:]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

Suprisingly, but not. They require special rules (for example moving just in certain directions etc.) and AI would need to be adjusted accordingly, albeit that is now less of a problem with additional scenario features and AI locking.

Oh, didn't notice the "perfect" part.

I mean at most basic level. Like buildings currently are, for example. Back in the old version I used to use rubble terrain as trench lines and AI in defense would always deploy into them.