Trenches and Foxholes

[junk2drive]

In PC trenches and foxholes are map items. They are placed on the map in the map making stage. They are visible to both sides at all times.
In my viewpoint, if buildings and trees and other objects are visible to you, trenches and foxholes would be too.
In another game, they are purchase items, placed in setup, and not visible until detected.

What do you think?

[NefariousKoel]

I'd rather not have them spotted until within spotting range. That's the only big hangup I'd have.

[Mad Russian]

That's part of the terrain model that is to be looked at/updated for PC4.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Ron]

So what's the question?

In that 'other' game, it is only trenches that are purchaseable and visible. Foxholes are allowed for the defender and follow the normal spotting rules. Ideally trenches and foxholes should follow the regular spotting rules - it is supposedly one of the features of the upcoming Normandy game.

[Erik Rutins]

Actually, foxholes in Panzer Command should be invisible until spotted, that's been the case since PCK. Trenches are always visible.

[Mobius]

Wouldn’t there be some kind of reconnaissance or scouting done beforehand? Do troops just walk into an ambush in every mission? Things like trenches and emplacement can be hidden by camouflage but some can be recognized from the air.

[jamespcrowley]

Air recon, even assuming that it had taken place, would only identify the existence of defence works and trench lines in broad brush strokes. It would not identify every foxhole and, even if it did, this would not pass all the way down the line to company commanders. At PCOs level, especially on the eastern front, having such detailed information would be highly unlikely. In most PCO situations the best that could be expected, IMO, would be a 'expect dug in defences' but the troops would have to find them themselves. Even in normandy, with total allied superority, having detailed info on trenches and foxholes was not possible.

[Mobius]

You can't target troops unless you spot them. To fire at trenches and foxholes before you spot troops in them you would have to use area fire. That isn't very effective against troops in heavy cover. And since you can’t see the troops you don’t know the results or if the entrenchments are even occupied. So the best you could do is tailor your attack based on the locations of entrenchment's. That harkens back to scouting and recon. Are the troops ordered to blindly attack enemy occupied territory?

While trying to make something more realistic if you ignore reconnaissance and scouting you are making the other half of the situation unrealistic.

[RocketMan]

What I would like is for the initial view of the map to represent what information a commander could be reasonably be expected to have of the area. In some cases this would be full information, like when a defender is in an area they have occupied for some time. In other cases this would be a poorly drawn sketch of the area based on scouting reports and/or old maps. The actual map would be revealed as troops moved forward and actually brought the terrain under observation, similar to how RTS games work, where the map is black initially (although in this case it would be the sketch or some other partial or inaccurate view of the area), is revealed when a unit can see the area and then goes to gray when the area is no longer under direct observation.

Of course this would represent a major coding effort and I realize it is not practical to implement something like this at this time. However, it would be a nice goal to have something like this in future games of this type.

In the interim, I vote to have fixed defenses hidden until spotted.

[Mobius]

In the game Civilization 3D your guy explores a 3D world where the terrain that you haven't discovered doesn't show. Your men wouldn’t know where the map ended or where woods, hills and streams were until they could 'discover' them. The flaw in that is that a large area in Russia changed hands more than once. So most of it was mapped out for the second or third go at an objective.

[Stridor]

Erik is right,

Foxholes are invisible until spotted. Once spotted they remain spotted.

S.

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

In the game Civilization 3D your guy explores a 3D world where the terrain that you haven't discovered doesn't show. Your men wouldn’t know where the map ended or where woods, hills and streams were until they could 'discover' them. The flaw in that is that a large area in Russia changed hands more than once. So most of it was mapped out for the second or third go at an objective.

Not a flaw at all. If the area was well known by both sides, then the map would initially show a lot of detail for both sides. The initial map view would be situational and specified by the scenario designer. Sometimes the map would have all or almost all relevant information, sometimes very little. Sometimes buildings would be shown on the map, but as they came into view they could be rubble. Some vegetation could have been burnt to the ground, leaving nothing but stumps or open ground.

Again, I know this would be a lot of coding work, but it would be a nice feature for this type of game in my opinion. Is it worth the work it would require to implement it? I don't really know as I haven't programmed anything outside of Fortran in a long time.

[RockinHarry]

Foxholes and trenches s/b items to be spotted by the enemy under appropiate conditions (like visibility, range, terrain AND also experience of the digging units. Less experience = less or not so good camo ).

When it comes to reccon, there´s a great feature in the HPS Tigers on the Prowl/Panthers in the Shadows game series, which offers limited intel on enemy dug in positions, obstacles ect. on a semi random base prior to battle start. Wonder any such system has never been used in any other game so far.

FHs & Entr. shouldn´t be just limited to a defending side. Many times an attacker starts from dug in or entrenched positions, particularly at the eastern front.

An extra enhanced class of FHs & Entr. should be introduced, which gives protection vs. tree bursts and light mortar fire ect. I do not dare to ask for dug outs or basements, although things like that can be abstracted, without need to have it visually represented in 3D.

[wodin]

PC4 sounds like the ultimate game from the snip bits I'm getting from this forum....when will it be released? J/K;)

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: wodin

PC4 sounds like the ultimate game from the snip bits I'm getting from this forum....when will it be released? J/K;)

We don't start working on PC4 until we get the update done. All you are ready on this forum is about an update for PC:K. Which was PC2. The update is such a change that Matrix has combined the first two games of the series into one package. Making it cheaper to get the series. That will be put out as a stand alone game called Panzer Command: Ostfront, which is PC3. PCO for short.

PC4 will be a Western Front game that will have improvements of it's own.

PCO is set to be available for purchase in 4Q this year.

Good Hunting.

MR

[gijas17]

Well, since waiting for the original patch for PCK I can wait a bit longer for this. PCO looks to complete the series at least adding in all the features that I was hoping for like the Map Maker, time rules and weather... falling snow does something to me in the form of immersion.