Trenches

Trenches (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Salonen -> Trenches (11/20/2001 9:28:00 PM)
I have faced a problem. I am doing a pre-WW2 campaign which happens in 1930-1931 and that's why I use a lot of trenches in those scenarios. There is only one problem with trenches. They have altitude of -1 meter. That appears even if they are digged to the hills. I don't know any 31 meter deep trench. And when I place soldier and MGs there, they don't see anything. I know that the idea of trench is to be a good cover, but still. The enemy can approach without a fear of incoming fire. Anyone has an idea how to solve this problem?

panda124c -> (11/20/2001 10:01:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Commander Saloway: I have faced a problem. I am doing a pre-WW2 campaign which happens in 1930-1931 and that's why I use a lot of trenches in those scenarios. There is only one problem with trenches. They have altitude of -1 meter. That appears even if they are digged to the hills. I don't know any 31 meter deep trench. And when I place soldier and MGs there, they don't see anything. I know that the idea of trench is to be a good cover, but still. The enemy can approach without a fear of incoming fire. Anyone has an idea how to solve this problem? Trenches are not really trenches in SPWaW. The hexes represent 50 yard/meters in this space it is impossible to represent trenches properly. A trench consist of several parts, one is the walkway which keeps the troops from being seen or seeing out, second is the parpart (sorry about the spelling) where the troops stand to fire at the enemy and to look out, another part is the bunkers. This is all done in much less than 50 yard/meters. The only way I can think of to make trenches like you want is to use the trench terrain and link together bunkers, rifle pits, and MG nest, so that the bunkers are in the hex in front of the trench. The problem with this is that the regular troops (one in the trenches) can not enter a bunker. But if you consider that the troops manning the bunkers/trenches would usually stay in the trenches and the assualt troops would be brought up to charge out of the trenches it should work. This is probibly the biggest reason that SPWaW would not make a good WWI game, the lack of a proper trench terrain. Good Luck.

Larry Holt -> (11/20/2001 10:30:00 PM)
I do not know of a work around for your trench problem but I would like to expand upon Pbear's reply about bunkers. When I design a defensive scenario, I realize that some of the troops in a unit will be in bunkers and some outside in prepared defensive positions. I buy a unit (say a platoon) and in the editor, remove some of its subunits (in this case a squad or two) then buy a bunker/log rifle pit/etc. and assign it to the main unit to replace the missing subunit. I then place entrenchments for the remaining squads to be their prepared defensive position. While entrenchments are not exactly trenches, they seem to work the same way that trenches would in real life. As Pbear mentioned, WWI "trenches" really were defensive groupings of living bunkers, fighting bunkers and actual trenches. One thing to consider is that a unit would have prepared defensive positions for its primary defensive location but also in alternate and contingency locations. The difference is that alternate positons allow a unit to defend the same objective from different locations while contigency positions are used if a unit has to defend elsewhere. That is alternate positions might be slightly rearward or to the side but still allow firing on the same zone as the primary ones. Contigency postions might be to a side and facing to a flank in case the enemy comes from a different direction. [ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: Larry Holt ]

RockinHarry -> (11/21/2001 3:12:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Commander Saloway: I have faced a problem. I am doing a pre-WW2 campaign which happens in 1930-1931 and that's why I use a lot of trenches in those scenarios. There is only one problem with trenches. They have altitude of -1 meter. That appears even if they are digged to the hills. I don't know any 31 meter deep trench. And when I place soldier and MGs there, they don't see anything. I know that the idea of trench is to be a good cover, but still. The enemy can approach without a fear of incoming fire. Anyone has an idea how to solve this problem? Hi Commander Saloway you might want to check my "Freds MapEdit" Document to be found below in my signature. There I explain some custom techniques to build trenchlines in SPWAW. ___________ Harry

Warrior -> (11/21/2001 4:53:00 AM)
I used extensive trench lines in my scenario "On The Road To Athens," and the Greeks had no problem seeing and shooting hell out of the Germans. If you want to try it, drop me an email.

Khan7 -> (11/21/2001 12:22:00 PM)
Hmmm... well, it looks like alot of you out there know a great deal about WW1, and listening to you has made me come to one conclusion: screw "trench" terrain. All of the little things you're talking about, all of the details and variations-- are all simulated to the best ability with just standard "entrenchments", SP3-style. "Entrenchments" are a broad and all-encompassing terrain feature which IMO is the only way to satisfactorily simulate the situations you guys are talking about. If I were you all I would look into those, as if you run around tyring to micro-simulate the intricacies of WW1 entrencment techniques you'll just by definition screw it up anyway, and work a lot more in the process. IMO you should go big picture. It would be like me complaining that that there is no foxhole terrain in SPWAW. We need foxhole terrain, and a special unit attribute that indicates how good they are at digging foxholes! And OoB extensions to simulate the different foxhole digging and arrangement techniques of the various nationalities and different time periods! In fact, this calls for a new game feature! Units that actually alter the terrain when they dig in! An excellent idea, it could be handled with the current capacity of HE rounds to make shell holes! Or how about a third preparedness state? We all know about "in cover" and "entrenched", but actually I think "in cover" should come quicker and just be like "prepared", and then a bit later you should get a state that equates to "foxholed". Yeah! Why not do that? Or, in actuality I would just say "in cover works for me. Why mess with it?". I would also say that in actuality "trenches" or "trench-equivalent defensive structures" were just as important in WW2 as WW1, though not as dominant or prominent. So frankly I don't see the two eras as having fundamentally different requirements. Anyway, sorry, I don't pretend to be a real expert, and perhaps I have just rambled on uselessly because there is some crucial point I have no clue about, but that is my 2 cents anyway. Matt

Salonen -> (11/21/2001 5:03:00 PM)
Thanks guys for your replies... I agree that trenches are very complicated systems and hard to simulate in SP:WaW. If you use entrenchments, they ain't "one big and united line" but they are all separated. That's why I don't use 'em in some situations. entrenchments are made by single squad or platoon but trenches are solid defense lines. Like the Finnish "Mannerheim line" or French Maginot line. Of course I use bunkers and log rifle pits as a part of trenches but still. It ain't the same. What it comes to Khan7's "foxhole" -thing, I really liked it. A good feature...

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625