Matrix Games Forums

I'm not very enthusiastic about how trenches are depicted in the game. I also don't like that it's not possible to dig infantry in. Can we expect improvements in the near future?

Btw I love the game, so I mean well.

Those are more like foxholes and similar improvised individual protections and emplacements. It will probably be improved at some point, but it is not a high priority. As for digging in during battle, it is not planned, as digging a trench typically takes several hours.

Trenches yes, foxholes no, especially not when you're under fire. I don't agree about this not being a high priority.

nikolas93TS wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:23 pm Those are more like foxholes and similar improvised individual protections and emplacements. It will probably be improved at some point, but it is not a high priority. As for digging in during battle, it is not planned, as digging a trench typically takes several hours.

I also believe that trenches are necessary, as they are an indispensable defensive measure on the battlefield. Moreover, the addition of trenches can offer more possibilities for the development of World War II mods. Therefore, I sincerely hope that you will seriously consider putting the development of this feature on the agenda. Thank you!

Given the fluid character of the fighting in AB2 I think foxholes are even more important than trenches. A 'decent' foxhole can be dug on the spot in 15 or 20 minutes and is absolutely necessary to prevent infantry to be wiped out by an artillery barrage.

nikolas93TS wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2025 5:26 pm

Great source. Where is this from?

The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills FM 3-21-75.

Older FM-15, Soviet and Yugoslav manuals pretty much give similar figures.

Well, trenches should be improved with the way they look and I agree that it can't be dug during battle, since that would take too long. Foxholes on the other hand, can be made in a shallow form in 15-20 minutes. They don't have to be perfect or deep, but enough for a lying soldier to give at least some cover. I think they belong in every serious wargame.

nikolas93TS wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:16 am The Warrior Ethos and Soldier Combat Skills FM 3-21-75.

Older FM-15, Soviet and Yugoslav manuals pretty much give similar figures.

Thanks!

Could it be that this game merely simulates encounters and the defense and offense battles in a rush situation? I think that complete trenches and defense lines are important means of defense in both the Cold War and modern warfare. Therefore, I hope that this aspect can be simulated in the near future. thank you！

"Could it be that this game merely simulates encounters and the defense and offense battles in a rush situation?"

Mostly. But the mission generator also includes Several levels of Defend

1. Defend
2. Defend: Dug-in
3. Defend: Fortified
4. Defend: Dug-in+Fortified Defend: Dug-in+Fortified against a presumably Deliberate Attack

Surely, by definition, a "Defend: Dug-in+Fortified" means the defender has had some some time, possibly several days to employ combat engineers to prepare and fortify the defense against a Deliberate Attack, including mines, obstacles and wire! Concurrently, any competent combat engineers would surely also be digging trenches and the infantry would be using all available resources to reinforce and fortify any suitable structures. In this regard, since WW2, large reinforced concrete buildings have often been very quickly made almost impregnable with basic, hasty fortifications.

Given this, and acknowledging the manual references given above, the fact remains that within the terms of reference or limits of the game, there ought to be provision for trenches and also for fortification of RC structures,

mmacguinness wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:52 am "Could it be that this game merely simulates encounters and the defense and offense battles in a rush situation?"

Mostly. But the mission generator also includes Several levels of Defend

1. Defend
2. Defend: Dug-in
3. Defend: Fortified
4. Defend: Dug-in+Fortified
AB2 Mission Generator - Defend-Dig-in and Fortified.jpg
Defend: Dug-in+Fortified against a presumably Deliberate Attack

Surely, by definition, a "Defend: Dug-in+Fortified" means the defender has had some some time, possibly several days to employ combat engineers to prepare and fortify the defense against a Deliberate Attack, including mines, obstacles and wire! Concurrently, any competent combat engineers would surely also be digging trenches and the infantry would be using all available resources to reinforce and fortify any suitable structures. In this regard, since WW2, large reinforced concrete buildings have often been very quickly made almost impregnable with basic, hasty fortifications.

Given this, and acknowledging the manual references given above, the fact remains that within the terms of reference or limits of the game, there ought to be provision for trenches and also for fortification of RC structures,

True! I totally agree! Thank you!

The issue with trenches is not purely graphical but also involves the need for additional engine mechanics, such as trench clearing and their directional properties as structures. Pretty complex with the current code, although we made some progress with close combat system.

"the need for additional engine mechanics, such as trench clearing and their directional properties as structures. Pretty complex with the current code"

Maybe, maybe not. But you're the developer, so it's your call.

Design of models and simulations is very challenging. Some level of abstraction, simplification of reality, is always required. It cannot be avoided. But too many wargames fans have an obsession with perceived "realism" and detail. I think a result of this is that many wargame designers have too often ventured too far down the rabbit hole of "realism" and excessive detail rather than adopting a much simpler but reasonable abstraction that gives reasonable results. Point of Attack from HPS Sims is an example of a game that promised an unprecedented level of realism before its release in early 2003, but its very complex code was buggy and it was impossible to complete a game. It was most likely a total failure commercially, but they had a DoD contract for it as a training aid, so were able to continue developing it.

TacOps, to which I have referred before, included entrenchments. This screenshot shows how they are made available for Set up: MISSIONS:

US - Defend Objective A. Keep Objective A clear of enemy forces. There must be no enemy forces in Objective A at the end of 60 minutes. It does not matter if there is no US unit in Objective A at the end of 60 minutes.

OPFOR - Occupy Objective A. There must be at least one OPFOR unit in Objective A at the end of 60 minutes. It does not matter if a US unit is also in Objective A at the end of 60 minutes.


This screenshot shows my typical set up I always put an entrenchment with a scout team in the lower right corner of the set up area. This position gives a good view of the road from the top right and along the bottom edge.
They get excellent cover, can only be destroyed by direct fire from very close range, and good, but not invulnerable, protection for indirect fire. The entrenchments also appear to treated as camouflaged, unidentifiable as entrenchments until relatively close, unless the occupants open fire, so the scout can continue reporting, unobserved for a considerable time before being discovered.

Similarly, where the road goes through the forested areas in the centre, I place entrenchments on each side of the road on the West edge of the forest. Infantry in these positions ambush vehicles coming through while being supported by tanks and IFV's in the town and forests.

Order of Battle for this scenario: Bottom line: TacOps inculded a very simple abstraction that did a very good job of entrenchment 31 years ago.
It truly shows its age now, but it solved many of the things asked for by many in AB very simply. On the other hand, AB does many of the things TacOps players asked for.
The perfect game would take the best of TacOps and AB and merge them.

Note, though, that TacOps was designed primarily as a training aid for the USMC and Army, not as a commercial wargame and this undoubtedly ad a huge influence on its development:
TacOps credits:
Credits
Game Design, Development & Coding:
I. L. Holdridge, Major USMC (Retired).
U.S. Army Technical Assistance:
Colonel John Antal, Lt Colonel Scott Glascock, Major James Charlesworth, Major Andre Cota-Robles, Major Daniel Dwyer, Major Mark Holmes, Major Joseph McLamb, Major Michael Muller, Major Eric Wick, Captain James Henry, Mr Eric Andersen, Mr Jeff Perry and others.
Canadian Forces Technical Assistance:
Major James Furnivall, , Major Maurice Audet, Major D. Cote, Major D. Thompson, Major Rod MacKay, Major R.L. Kennedy, Major Francois Lafortune, and others – Canadian Forces

But wasn't tacops's unit representation on level higher than AB? At the platoon level, versus AB's squad/vehicle level? That makes the abstraction of terrain and fortifications a lot easier. Then throw 3D into it to add another whole level. Steel Beasts and Combat Mission are probably a better comparison with their 3D engines. Both of those have struggled mightily representing trenches and foxholes.

"But wasn't tacops's unit representation on level higher than AB?"

Short answer, no. Same level.

Long answer:
TacOps managed individual vehicles and 2 to 4 man fire-teams.
Units of the same type could be joined into larger sized units or split into smaller ones.

If you refer to the set up graphic in my comment, you will see no infantry units, only vehicles. The infantry is loaded in the IFVs. When unloaded they are 8 man squads and 2 man ATGW teams. The 8 man infantry squads can be Split into 2 4-man fireteams.

TacOps did not have Formation Movement. To simulate a tank platoon formation movement, join the individual tanks together, they become a single icon, and give them movement orders. The system tracked each vehicle, but formations, line, column, echelon, wedge, vee, were not modeled.
You could play Tacops with only single vehicles and fire teams, but movement to contact would take a huge amount of micromanagement giving orders to each unit. Simpler to Join them up to platoon size units.

During combat, I prefer to keep tanks in either 2-tank sections or 4-tank platoons. I see this as being comparable to Formation movement in AB.
Note that Formation Movement was one of the most requested features for TacOps.

thewood1 wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2025 11:32 pm But wasn't tacops's unit representation on level higher than AB? At the platoon level, versus AB's squad/vehicle level? That makes the abstraction of terrain and fortifications a lot easier. Then throw 3D into it to add another whole level. Steel Beasts and Combat Mission are probably a better comparison with their 3D engines. Both of those have struggled mightily representing trenches and foxholes.

exactly! now imagine an AI trying to handle all these nuances in real time. maybe that's why most games end up with a solution like "let's just assume there's a trench here" and move on

Perhaps the function 'dig in' or 'dig foxhole' can be added without any visible change. Just a color in the unit icon or something. And of course a better protection for the dugged in unit. I would be happy with that.