Does dug-in infantry provide defense bonus to bomber attacks? Against other ground units, they do and does show at +20% after 10 days of being inmobile. But do not see any defensive bonus against bombers. It is up to +60% in Hoi2!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
just like in real life. I mean, what difference does it make if a squad is dug in when there's bombs being dropped into their foxholes? HOI 2 has lots of discrepancies like the travel time for aircraft for example.
It makes a huge difference casaulty wise. Go read up on statistics. Field fortifications and forts in general are FUBAR in HOI3. One can only wish that something is done in the next patch.
it makes the same difference as when somebody aimes with artillery at you. it might not help you if the bomb falls directly at your head but covered in a trench or a foxhole you have a change to survive when when a bomb explodes beside you.
Forts are a different thing. Compare this:
with this:
Digging in is important, but won't really protect you from bombing. (Forts, on the other hand, should protect against bombers. I don't remember if they do or not.)
Bombing runs with figheters, fighter bombers and close support aircraft include strafing runs so obviously trenches should give extra defense to infantry. As for strategic bombers dunno if trenches make a huge difference when 500 lb boms are falling, but I believe trenches give at least some protection.
That would mostly depend on terrain, which again, does not protect from aircraft. Which is kinda strange IMO...
@ Slan:
I totally agree on the definition of of fort vs dug-in from the photos you provide.
But are you seriously suggesting that digging in (even a small slit trench) won't lower the casaulty rate from fragmentation of near hits? Shrapnel can travel through the air for +100 meters. I'd sure rather be able to duck down below the surface to avoid this than be laying/sitting/standing in the clear when near hits from bombs and artillery shells start raining down. Of course slit trenches, trenches, field works etc wont do much good vs direct hits but these are in fact rather rare. Troops will always try to dig in as much as possible for a reason. Germans would counter attack Soviet advance formations within 24 hours or not at all since they then would have dug themselves in too much and thus cause too many casaulties.
Airplanes from WWII don't have the neccessary accuracy to hit an individual trench, especially TAC and STR.
Comsubpac has got it right.
And yes, bombing should be less efficient in rought terrain obviously.
I totally agree on the definition of of fort vs dug-in from the photos you provide.
But are you seriously suggesting that digging in (even a small slit trench) won't lower the casaulty rate from fragmentation of near hits? Shrapnel can travel through the air for +100 meters. I'd sure rather be able to duck down below the surface to avoid this than be laying/sitting/standing in the clear when near hits from bombs and artillery shells start raining down. Of course slit trenches, trenches, field works etc wont do much good vs direct hits but these are in fact rather rare. Troops will always try to dig in as much as possible for a reason. Germans would counter attack Soviet advance formations within 24 hours or not at all since they then would have dug themselves in too much and thus cause too many casaulties.
Airplanes from WWII don't have the neccessary accuracy to hit an individual trench, especially TAC and STR.
Comsubpac has got it right.
And yes, bombing should be less efficient in rought terrain obviously.
You are right about near hits. Still, the +50% you proposed as a max in the other thread is way too high. About half of what you get for land combat could be realistic.
This is a typical HOI3 flaws.
Off course it ,make a huge difference to be in trenches compared to be in the open terrain or even worse in woods. I don't know about your military experience but Paradox guys are seems to have none.
Grenade which where used during the ww2 was mostly grenades that explode when they hit the ground same with artillery and bombs. To be in a trench system was huge better than be on the open plain terrain and the splinters from the grenades never hit you so in practical they needed direct hit on the trenches and the areas and the shelter rooms where soldiers where in. So the result from this was of course it was tricky to knock out trench systems with bombs.
But this is only 1 big flaws in HOI3 there are ton's more. Just to mention another poor thing is the weather impact in battles, this have been more or less left out comply. This is very strange for me because HOI2 had this things implemented much better so it's sad when they walk several step backwoods.
Captain Jack
Off course it ,make a huge difference to be in trenches compared to be in the open terrain or even worse in woods. I don't know about your military experience but Paradox guys are seems to have none.
Grenade which where used during the ww2 was mostly grenades that explode when they hit the ground same with artillery and bombs. To be in a trench system was huge better than be on the open plain terrain and the splinters from the grenades never hit you so in practical they needed direct hit on the trenches and the areas and the shelter rooms where soldiers where in. So the result from this was of course it was tricky to knock out trench systems with bombs.
But this is only 1 big flaws in HOI3 there are ton's more. Just to mention another poor thing is the weather impact in battles, this have been more or less left out comply. This is very strange for me because HOI2 had this things implemented much better so it's sad when they walk several step backwoods.
Captain Jack
Personally I think +50% is quite low or at least alright when combat troops can have efficiencies around 50-200%. You have to consider that during WWI on the Western front and elsewhere fron lines sometimes moved measured in meters during years of fighting with huge casaulties due to the effect of... that's right *trenches* and fieldworks. This was sometime true during WWII as in areas where you did not have access to fancy toys like Stukas and Panzers. Infantry assaults with artillert support vs well prepared defensive positions could be as deadly during WWII as in WWI, yet HOI3 gives such field works a neglible effect when in reality they were probably the most important factor in many circumstances. Then why is +50% "too high"? +20% is ridicusouly low. I'd say that troops that are dug in for months should have a bonus that is higher than +50%.
As I understand it, it's not that simple. Much of the damage from any explosive attack, artillery, mortars, and bombing, is from shrapnel and flying debris, and being below the level of the ground provides tremendous protection. Nothing is going to protect you from a direct hit, of course, but direct hits caused a tiny % of the damage.
Looks like infantry in Hoi3 really have no dig-in bonus...... and also terrain bonuses against air attacks! It means housing my troops in an urban tile and plains has no difference against the Luftwaffe! Wow! I'll completely agree that's a flaw! Troops on open plains compare to those in rugged difference gotta make a difference! Impact should be different for moving targets, stationary target and dug-in targets.
There is "dug in" and then there is "dug in"
Even a cursory examination of entrenchment and fortification practices from WW1 through Vietnam would show that digging in does make a difference, especially when you consider what Fortifications are implied to be in game.
Digging-In = Requires no IC, semi-temporary not overly complex in depth or technical design
Fortification = Requires IC, fairly permenant and exponentially complex in depth and technical design
("Depth" refers to defensive depth and interlocking fire)
So by the game's own definition the trench and bunkers of WW1 which were "proof" against all bu direct hits by artillery (and by a similar, but lesser token depending on method used (i.e., TAC vs CAS) this applies to bombs and strafing)...these are no different than the similar arrangements arrived at by those who do not have air superiority from WW2 through Vietnam.
Of note would be the possibility that bigger bombs (i.e., "block buster" types carried by STRAT's) if used against entrenchments would be significantly more lethal than if dropped against concrete bunkers and whatnot of a "proper" fortress.
The combination of entrenchment *and* fortification would also be valid since that would be representative of what you see happening IRL at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, etc.
In essence level bombing TAC is not that different from Artillery in incidence of "direct hit"...MR would be higher than TAC, and CAS would have the most likely chance of "direct hit" incidence. Since the relationship here is in probability of delivering the most damage (i.e., "most direct hits") then TAC = full entrenchment penalty, STR = 3/4 entrenchment penalty, MR = 1/2 entrenchment penalty, CAS = 1/4 entrenchment penalty.
The TAC/MR/CAS are all delivering essentially the same ord but with varying degrees of accuracy based on platform and role. The STR delivers in the same manner as the TAC, but heavier ord.
Even a cursory examination of entrenchment and fortification practices from WW1 through Vietnam would show that digging in does make a difference, especially when you consider what Fortifications are implied to be in game.
Digging-In = Requires no IC, semi-temporary not overly complex in depth or technical design
Fortification = Requires IC, fairly permenant and exponentially complex in depth and technical design
("Depth" refers to defensive depth and interlocking fire)
So by the game's own definition the trench and bunkers of WW1 which were "proof" against all bu direct hits by artillery (and by a similar, but lesser token depending on method used (i.e., TAC vs CAS) this applies to bombs and strafing)...these are no different than the similar arrangements arrived at by those who do not have air superiority from WW2 through Vietnam.
Of note would be the possibility that bigger bombs (i.e., "block buster" types carried by STRAT's) if used against entrenchments would be significantly more lethal than if dropped against concrete bunkers and whatnot of a "proper" fortress.
The combination of entrenchment *and* fortification would also be valid since that would be representative of what you see happening IRL at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, etc.
In essence level bombing TAC is not that different from Artillery in incidence of "direct hit"...MR would be higher than TAC, and CAS would have the most likely chance of "direct hit" incidence. Since the relationship here is in probability of delivering the most damage (i.e., "most direct hits") then TAC = full entrenchment penalty, STR = 3/4 entrenchment penalty, MR = 1/2 entrenchment penalty, CAS = 1/4 entrenchment penalty.
The TAC/MR/CAS are all delivering essentially the same ord but with varying degrees of accuracy based on platform and role. The STR delivers in the same manner as the TAC, but heavier ord.
Last edited:
In real life, digging-in does protect against bombers without any doubt.
If HoI3 has not dug-in bonus against air attacks then it's not accurate. It was reflected in HoI2, dunno why it was banned from HoI3.
If HoI3 has not dug-in bonus against air attacks then it's not accurate. It was reflected in HoI2, dunno why it was banned from HoI3.
While we are at it. Couldn't the Strategic Bombing mission changed so that it damages forts? It would be nice to have some way of hurting those nasty bunkers!
I don't mean to detract from all the tangential real-life comparisons, but - yes, digging in makes a big difference in HOI3. It may not show in the combat modifiers, but if you look at the actual effects, units take a lot more damage if they are bombed when they are not dug in, or in ground combat.
A visual observation- I dispatched TAC to S. Ita to attack the UK forces invading Libya. When they attacked units that were on the move, the damage was noticeable and significant after a few days. However, when the units stopped moving, and dug in....the damage became negligable, even after a week of constant bombing. So I switched to logistical raids.