Yeah, the thought of being sucked out the exit hole that the depleted uranium just made isn't very appealing.
I don't think the Iraqi's quite knew what was coming though(GW1). Americans of course had a front row seat to the action, but the Iraqis probably had screams of terror at best over their radios.
Having heard some of the Iraqi stories from the war, they couldn't comprehend a collumn of tanks crossing a wide open desert to attack them, let alone in the middle of a sandstorm.
In GW2 whole brigades were surrendering at the mere sight of a recon humvee appearing in a storm, because they knew what was close behind that humvee.
Entrenching in clear terrain
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- bergsjaeger
- General
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Apr 22 2005
- Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA
- George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
Regarding the original question (entrenchment values in open terrain), we can take another look at this, but I think some of our basic assumptions work well.
First, we have different maximums based on the terrain type, and there are a dozen "major" types (from plains, farmland, rough, light forest, etc). Then there are also 'hilly' versions of many of these types.
Then there is also a factor based on what else is in the hex - obviously a city gives lots of entrenchment opportunities.
In an empty hex, you are also able to build fixed emplacements - since these only take a couple of weeks to construct, they simulate the type of 'fortifying positions' that can happen; emplacements not only provide a defensive bonus, but they also increase the entrechment maximum for the hex.
There are also differences in the way that soft and hard targets entrench, though offhand I don't remember the exact differences.
Yes, I understand that a unit can obtain some defensive benefits by digging-in in a very short timeframe, but as pointed out above these don't always make a good match against modern spotting techniques. As well, there are bonuses to a unit that isn't moving, these take into account some of those benefits of 'digging in' a bit.
-- George.
First, we have different maximums based on the terrain type, and there are a dozen "major" types (from plains, farmland, rough, light forest, etc). Then there are also 'hilly' versions of many of these types.
Then there is also a factor based on what else is in the hex - obviously a city gives lots of entrenchment opportunities.
In an empty hex, you are also able to build fixed emplacements - since these only take a couple of weeks to construct, they simulate the type of 'fortifying positions' that can happen; emplacements not only provide a defensive bonus, but they also increase the entrechment maximum for the hex.
There are also differences in the way that soft and hard targets entrench, though offhand I don't remember the exact differences.
Yes, I understand that a unit can obtain some defensive benefits by digging-in in a very short timeframe, but as pointed out above these don't always make a good match against modern spotting techniques. As well, there are bonuses to a unit that isn't moving, these take into account some of those benefits of 'digging in' a bit.
-- George.
-
- Corporal
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Nov 16 2005
- Location: Belgium
to be honest,
in modern day combat a non-moving unit is a sitting duck and will get killed;
a moving target is harder to hit, can easily change direction to get out of the fight if needed.
a dug-in target may have some added protection but it wont compete with being easier to hit; it is more important to avoid being hit then to have a little higher protection when being hit.
If those iraqi tanks you mentioned, instead of staying put in their position, rushed to face those incoming american tanks, they could have gotten into range to shoot at them
the effect of an ambush is a short-term effect, once the enemy knows youre there and spotted your fire they will send whatever they've got your way, even if you catch them off-balance, you wont have it the second time around, BUT this same effect in a city remains as in a city you can move around undetected and thus set up a new ambush a few 100meters away and start all over.
In cities, the protection mostly comes from the fact that weapon ranges do not count as much, you will rarely be in a position to use the full range of your weapon because of all intermittent obstacles, this means all those short-ranged weapons will be used VS you while in the open you dont have to care about them.
Also, all obstacles remove some of the effects of the explosions as they cant fully send their shrapnel all around, mud is just not as good as stone to stop shrapnel.
open ground gives good sighting range so its more difficult to stay undetected for long.
So for me, entrenchment level is good, just build emplacements if you need that extra bit of protection.
in modern day combat a non-moving unit is a sitting duck and will get killed;
a moving target is harder to hit, can easily change direction to get out of the fight if needed.
a dug-in target may have some added protection but it wont compete with being easier to hit; it is more important to avoid being hit then to have a little higher protection when being hit.
If those iraqi tanks you mentioned, instead of staying put in their position, rushed to face those incoming american tanks, they could have gotten into range to shoot at them
the effect of an ambush is a short-term effect, once the enemy knows youre there and spotted your fire they will send whatever they've got your way, even if you catch them off-balance, you wont have it the second time around, BUT this same effect in a city remains as in a city you can move around undetected and thus set up a new ambush a few 100meters away and start all over.
In cities, the protection mostly comes from the fact that weapon ranges do not count as much, you will rarely be in a position to use the full range of your weapon because of all intermittent obstacles, this means all those short-ranged weapons will be used VS you while in the open you dont have to care about them.
Also, all obstacles remove some of the effects of the explosions as they cant fully send their shrapnel all around, mud is just not as good as stone to stop shrapnel.
open ground gives good sighting range so its more difficult to stay undetected for long.
So for me, entrenchment level is good, just build emplacements if you need that extra bit of protection.
- Sebastiaan
- Colonel
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Aug 29 2005
- Location: the Netherlands
One thing I notised about hills/mountains is that any stealth unit, no mather how high stealth, population or the loyalty of the hex, is instantly detected once it crosses the hill/mountain. Although a unit crossing a hill can get siloeted against the blue sky, however most of the time, the units will be hidden from view, when they move through hilly tarrain. I therefore suggest to remove this stealth detecting feature of hills, allow stealyh unit to cross hills/mountains without becoming detected instantly
not going forward eqeals to going backward