Trench Warfare?

[maxigenous]

Hi all,

I know this game is based on Wargame series and wargame series are modeling modern, dynamic warfare with fast units and a lot of movement.

In a game that is modeling AT guns, mg positions, flame throwers and etc.. Steel division seriously lacks trench warfare and digging ability. I mean WW2 infantry using only buildings and bushes for cover? Come on, this game needs trench warfare dynamics otherwise it really feels like a slowed down wargame with ww2 skins.

 

[Valdus]

Steel Division is focusing on meeting engagement battles where both sides are advancing on each other and make contact. Neither side has occupied the battlefield beforehand so there is no time to set up defensive fortifications.

I would like to see a game mode eventually where one side gets to set up a fortified defensive line and the other side attacks though.

 

[DuroSVK]

This game is about meeting engagements so units dont have time to prepare trenches or any other kind of fortification.
However, if we recieve any game mode where one side attacks and other defends, then we might get this feauture as well, I would personally love to see it.

I am pretty sure that in campaing we will have this.

 

[FatRefrigerator]

I would like to see a game mode eventually where one side gets to set up a fortified defensive line and the other side attacks though.

This could be a fun mode.

The attackers get the regular amount of points and can only deploy Phase A units, but Phase A only lasts about a minute or two and then it's Phase B which lasts the regular duration. The defenders get like 2x more starting points and can use units from phase AB and get to put down units anywhere on their side of the frontline, but can't move anything until they get the first enemy contact, and once the game starts they can't call in anything until Phase C.

Or something like that, I don't know particulars, but I think I'm on the right track.

 

[Mountsorrel]

Come on, this game needs trench warfare dynamics otherwise it really feels like a slowed down wargame with ww2 skins.

You have clearly never dug a trench. If you think it's slow now then this would only make it far worse for you.

 

[potski]

The hedgerows in Normandy - the Bocage - were almost like having trenches already set-up in thousands of places across the country. So no need to dig more. Plus the pinned down mechanic, where units can take less losses, can assume that infantrymen immediately get down into any ditches, shell holes etc

You don't have to have a meeting engagement of course, you can setup a defensive line, though you have to occupy it at the start of the game, and it needs to be very close to the centre of the map, or you lose too many points. It's certainly possible on some maps, and then allow your opponent to expend all of his effort in fruitless attacks before counter-attacking late in the game to secure victory.

BTW there is at least one bunker on the Omaha map which your men can occupy, and it's certainly possible for Eugen to stage at least one map in the campaign with a semi-fortified line or for modders to do it. Whether the AI would understand to occupy that particular position is another thing. Or Eugen would be interested in any very asymmetric maps, which force one side to be defender, the other attacker. Which is presumably why there appears to be no beach assault against the Atlantic Wall defenses. The Allies are already landed and are in the process of building up troops to breakout of the beachhead.

Still, in RD there were scenarios in the Busan Pocket campaign, where you did have to form a good defensive line and just hold on for dear life as you got assaulted by millions of North Koreans, or in the Hong Kong campaign facing the Chinese. I can foresee this in a UK scenario where light British forces face a German Panzer counter-attack at Pegasus Bridge. Not a fortified position, but defending from one side of the river/canal. And a German scenario where they have to defend Cherbourg/US scenario where they decide to assault it for the port facilities. On the WG and RD campaign maps, controlling a port allowed you to bring in more units from overseas. The SD campaign should allow the Allies this strategic option, where you can transport over the Channel some of Patton's Divisions quicker, if you have a port.

 

[Max_Damage]

I know this is epic necro.

But what if stationary for 4 minutes infantry got a huge defensive bonus? Similar or close to building cover bonus. Even in an open field. Could help inf survive the artillery.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

You can't even dig a slit trench in 4 minutes. Like not even barely.

 

[facmanpob]

You can't even dig a slit trench in 4 minutes. Like not even barely.

I think you mean a 'slit trench', but yeah, entrenchment is something I think SD can do without

 

[blastpop]

Infantry unless they will be on the move presently, will dig in, move rocks and small logs to improve their position. They will look for better cover and do as much as they can to improve their survivability. A unit static for 5 minutes will see elements already starting to dig in. This is from vets that served during WWII. Maybe that is in part why they survived the war by being careful.

 

[Sarin]

Units already take less damage when not attempting to move.

As someone that was in the infantry, we do not when stopped immediately start to construct forts.

Not once did I drag small logs around and dig in unless we were going to be there for a large amount of time (not the 40 minutes that the game represents)

As above, the game already makes units take far less damage and supression when stationary to model people taking cover.

 

[blastpop]

My dad was in World War 2. They dug in constantly. I've spoke to other veterans who said the same thing. It was "automatic"... How long were you in the firing line? Months at a time like my dad?

 

[local-festival]

Trenches in CoH were the dumbest things ever.

 

[blastpop]

There are two schools here. Realism or a game. I would like both as they are not mutually exclusive. I'm not talking trenches so much as foxholes and improved positions.

 

[local-festival]

As mentioned above infantry does get a defense bonus when not on the move. It has been reasoned as not moving infantry will try to get the best cover available, even in the open field. That's your foxholes, improved positions, piled out stones and whatever else you wish to attribute to this bonus. Right now infantry engaged on the move results in rapid mowing of the unit in a matter of seconds. So that's why when engaged by a MG fire player always has to press "E" in order to halt advance. It looks a bit arcadish because you can't order your troops to retreat right away and they're stuck in the middle of the field under fire until they get pinned down and only then you can issue retreat order so unit will start to fall back rather quickly and with a very large defense bonus.
I find myself abusing this mechanics quite often, for instance if I got fired upon on the move, I stop infantry, and then micro them by GO STOP GO STOP. Even slight initiation of move under fire is enough to get a considerable morale loss, but since you stop them very promptly they don't receive a lot of damage. Thus you can basically make your squad pinned down without suffering much casualties and then safely order fallback.

 

[blastpop]

The improved defense for being static could be rationalized as guys going prone or hiding behind pre-existing cover. I appreciate the response, Local. Still as time goes on units should see a gradual improvement of there fire defense. Might be interesting to see the impact on game play. Players whose units achieved improved positions might be reluctant to move them out. The downside it could lead to more micro of the units not in such positions... as they won't want to commit improved defense to moving and giving up the defenses unless they really need to.

 

[local-festival]

Well, I'm not trying to question your veteran dad's experience, but I'd rather agree with the idea is that digging trenches is quite labourous process. My father has served in Afghanistan and he still has his standard issued folding shovel. It's a fine piece of equipment, razor sharp, handy and soldiers are supposed to dig out foxholes with them and I dug some myself as a teenager, but it is surely not a matter of minutes. It can't happen automatically in a current concept of the game, an idle detachment is expected to receive a command to move out any second, there's a battle going on, enemy is right here you can't afford to put aside your weapon and start fortifying your position that you are expected to abandon any minute, quite possibly you would be require to fall back, leaving your evem small fortifications for enemy to take.

 

[Sarin]

My dad was in World War 2. They dug in constantly. I've spoke to other veterans who said the same thing. It was "automatic"... How long were you in the firing line? Months at a time like my dad?

Well that says it right there, the game isn't months at a time. It is minutes, of an ongoing fight, where both sides are trying to push forward.

They likely dug in a lot, especially when stopping for a few days, or even the night. Or when holding a position for a while.

I highly doubt they pushed forward to a hedgerow, then immediately the second they stopped ran around grabbing branches and hauling rocks to make a fort, then 120 seconds later pushed to the next hedgerow. Where they built another fort. Then a minute later moved 20 meters to the right closer to the edge of the bushes, and built another fort. Then moved to the next hedgerow and built yet another fort. All during an engagement with fighting around them.

Generally when you are in a firefight and attacking the enemy, you don't want to run around dragging tree stumps and boulders. You just take what cover is available.

There is a big difference between being in a war and holding territory over days, weeks or month. And 40 minutes of a meeting engagement between two forces.
As I said, less damage while not moving to simulate people taking cover is already modelled ingame.

 

[frout]

The battle of Bir Hakeim (1942) opposing about 3700 Free French to Rommel's 37 000 axis troops is a good example of a WW2 battle involving trenches.

Thanks to trenches and mines fields in the middle of the desert, the French succeeded in stopping Rommel's advance during 15 days (that was considered as an Allied strategic victory). It was a siege, mainly arty/AT vs arty/tanks : Rommel first unsuccessfully tried to break into French positions with an Italian tank division, then extensively used Fighter-bombers and arty to weaken the French position. Axis infantry and tanks tried incursions. RAF fighters stepped in.

What was at stake for Rommel was to win as soon as possible and for the French to resist as long as possible.

Time was the key.

SD Normandy has been designed for mobile warfare, not static warfare. I don't know if it could be successfully implemented.

 

[blastpop]

The funny thing, most of the Normandy Campaign was static- yard by yard slog with the exception of Cobra. It was a slow bloody mess. Makes me wonder they chose Normandy for a mobile battle, when mostly it was anything but. Alt history I guess.