[Inquiry & Debate] Foxhole Experimentation + Other Alternatives

[Arc_Shielder]

Still a stubborn mind about mortars and how I consider them to be a gameplay killer regarding the construction of FOBs, but I'll adress them later on.

Actually I will make a serie of questions, alot of them, that will server the purpose to attest a few possibilities and to inquiry your thoughts about this.

But first...

I remembered this morning about a few months ago witnessing this SL that deployed a HMG inside a Foxhole. I think it was in Tactical Gamer but I'm not too sure. But anyway, wondered if it was possible to fit and use the Foxhole as a protection layer for all deployable assets.

So I decided to conduct a few tests to see what would come out of it...


1ST SESSION OF TESTS


FO & MORTARS


It's not hard to explain why. The body of both are too large to make a Foxhole to spawn - wouldn't work even if it did. I tried several times nevertheless, but it was pointless.


HMG



I didn't get it to work like I witnessed in TG. The HMG was perfectly placed in the center of the foxhole while this one is exposing its front. All my other attempts lead me to this, so I'm obviously doing something wrong.



My assumption is that it can still bleed as usual - mortars - since the front is too exposed. Nevertheless, it's a nice variation of the usual since the foxhole allows space for 2 members on the rear.


TOW





Same thing, the front is too exposed.



And yes, it's stupid to even think that this could work but I had to try it anyway. I tried firing mid-level like the screenie shows, but even through the gaps it destroyed the foxhole - curiously with no harm.
Pretty useless unless you fire it from the front.


AA





Looks good, right? Well if you're wondering who's that guy without a tag...well, it's me. The dead me. Apparently I can't leave the AA due to lack of room inside the Foxhole. Unless, of course, this was just situational and someone else has proved the opposite.

I only conducted tests once for each asset.


2ND SESSION OF TESTS


HMG/AA + Foxhole Placement



Gave it another go at the AA and again I have to confirm that the chances of randomly merging with the Foxhole are greater than the HMG.

But...





...I can't still leave the AA. That empty shell is me again. The gun works fine and I can rotate anywhere I want, but regardless of the direction, I can't leave no matter what.
So it's useless. At this point I decided put all my efforts on the HMG.

And speaking of which, it totally paid off. Here's an exact copy of what I witnessed that time in TG.





See? A perfect fit.



The sexy rear.



HMG to the extreme right.



HMG to the extreme left.

So no visibility is cut and the operator is protected from the sides. With the Foxhole wrapping perfectly then it should be enough to withstand the mortars, right?

Well, I decided to test it.


Mortar Endurance Testing

1st Try

Well, I wasn't able to take the screeenshot of the first one but it didn't work out alright. The round hit just to right side of the Foxhole and the HMG broke into pieces. So I shoveled it back up and surprisingly...it only took one shovel for the Foxhole.

2nd Try



I took this one a bit late but you can see the smoke at left side of the screen where the mortar fell. The deployable asset to the left is the AA and the one to the right is the HMG.
And yes, you can't see the AA because it blew up instantly...the Foxhole however, didn't even bleed.

From then on I neglected the AA and focused my attention on the HMG.

3rd Try



This time the mortar round hit just in front of the HMG. The rubble was expected so I went to shovel it back up again - Foxhole, only 1 shovel needed - and returned to the Mortars for one final try.

4th Try



Ridiculous.
By the yellow debris you can noticed that the HMG AGAIN blew up. This time however made really no sense since the mortar round hit 15/20 meters away.
This proved that the Foxhole merging does not work. The inner asset bleeds like it would currently despite being wrapped up by the most resilient asset of the game. And speaking of the latter, AGAIN, it only needed 1 shovel to get it back to normal.

It's ridiculous.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I guess only the HMG works well with the Foxhole and I haven't found any consistent pattern in its making. Not being solid against the mortars is primarily the reason why I finish these tests right here. Unless you want to show off to your squad members or think it can be highly protective against small arms, do it. Otherwise it's good for nothing.


--------------------------------------------------------//-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INQUIRY


a) question removed. answered through testing.

b) question removed. answered through testing.

c) question removed. answered through testing.

d) Leaving aside the Foxhole fusion experimentation, would you agree on having deployable asset as a protection layer in the interface for all/some assets?

e) If yes, a generalist cover? Customized for each?
Insert personal description if needed.


--------------------------------------------------------//-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm making all these anti-mortar extra protection questions due to the fact that I can't still comprehend the argumentation of some. So I decided to take this thread and test several possibilities, debate about the feasibility of some and whether or not is worth it.

[rant]

My thoughts about this are pretty simple.
I don't care what name you give. Seriously, the technical terms that people try to find to wtv the fuck a group of assets like these are irrelevant. Even more when try to associate the realism of such in-game and that's what pisses me off a bit.

This is a game. And now let me underline and bold it for being Cpt. Obvious.

This is a game.

And matter of the fact is you spend alot of time shoveling several assets knowing perfectly well they're thin as paper because it only takes one pair of eyes from hundred of meters away to report to the enemy team.
Face it and stop with the technical bs. These assets were made to sustain ground and to repel the enemy and they're completely failing its purpose since the mortars completely overpower them. There are no "stealthy" ways - as some stupidly suggested it - to implement such a defensive outpost, because again, it's counterproductive to its purpose.

I am aware players are used to it so I'm not going to take it to the extreme of saying that SLs now only build FOBs in hidden places and move on with their lifes - even though many do complain. But it still doesn't retract the very short lifespan when compared to the effort it takes to bring them up. They are available and they are to be used.

Everytime this discussion is up, someone brings up needless technicalities and "who cares? build a FOB somewhere and move on, those things are not that good anyway" are neither constructive or smart.

Because at the end, for some of you who are so concerned about realism, is it that unthinkable to deploy a few more sandbags around certain assets for better cover?

Extra sandbags around people. Sandbags. For an in-game finality.

[/rant]

Now my idea to improve this would be to have an extra-deployable asset usable for a couple or triple of assets. Not FOs since they represent a path of reinforcements. But that extra-cover alone, bleeding first than HMGs or AAs would certainly contribute to a much lesser frustration and higher resilience.

[rushn]

umm cool

looks liek it would work for AA nicely if it could work

[Poi_Medic]

Didnt even know you can do that with the foxholes....

[AtlantisThief]

I have tried this set up with different asset combinations now for nearly an hour but can't figure it out how you done it.

[Arc_Shielder]

I have tried this set up with different asset combinations now for nearly an hour but can't figure it out how you done it.

Well, not sure if this is the right procedure for whoever started this combination, but I tested it out first by deploying the inner asset and only then the Foxhole.

First deploy a HMG. Then go to the opposite direction (facing the front of the HMG) and deploy a Foxhole. If you look at every pic, the Foxhole's entrance is located at the front of the inner asset. You just have to complement. Don't ask me about where to aim the Foxhole (when deploying), because I usually just did it at the middle of the HMG or a little at the rear. It was kind of random.
Oh, both assets (HMG + Foxhole) must yet to be shoveled for this to work. Sometimes the HMG will be buried by the Foxhole but that seldom happens. Once you shovel, it will automatically build the Foxhole and only then at some point the HMG. It's weird, but that's how it goes with me.

Ofc when I say HMG, it is valid for other assets such as the TOW or AA.

[Rudd]

the TOW version would look really great if it was a militia AT gun

[AtlantisThief]

Oh maybe i should have tried this order, i tested foxhole first then asset in.

[SGT.MARCO]

Steps for making an HMG bunker

1. deploy a HMG on location you want, must be flat.
2. do not build the HMG
3. face the front of HMG and give urself 2 metre from the bunker and deploy a foxhole
4. make sure you can see part of the sandbag so you will know it can be built
5. build up both
6. tada!!

[Arc_Shielder]

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rudd;1603367']the TOW version would look really great if it was a militia AT gun[/quote]

Funny you say that, my thoughts exactly when I built the TOW version.

[quote="SGT.MARCO""]Steps for making an HMG bunker

1. deploy a HMG on location you want, must be flat.
2. do not build the HMG
3. face the front of HMG and give urself 2 metre from the bunker and deploy a foxhole
4. make sure you can see part of the sandbag so you will know it can be built
5. build up both
6. tada!!

[/quote]

Yeah, I got to that conclusion already.

But do your attempts end up like my HMG version? Or more located to the center of the Foxhole - filling it? If yes to the latter, can you please explain where to aim exactly when I'm about to deploy the Foxhole?
And finally have you ever tried it out in-game and mortared? If yes, what happens exactly?

An answer to these would be nice, please.

[Sidewinder Zulu]

Wow, nice tests.
Too bad most of those didn't work; they look excellent.

What I have seen which works is just building foxholes scattered in front of the HMG or TOWor whatever; they can be used as shields from long range fire, but there's still gaps which expose the operator of the weapon.

If there was a way to make foxholes of different sizes, such that they could accomodate weapon systems....well, that would be awesome.

[Sinbe]

Does this help at all against the mortars? I've had mortars destroy the foxholes too every time the fob's been hit with mortars. Few shots near the fob will in my experience destroy the actual fob, all the crates, all the barbed wire, all the fox holes and hmgs and tow and AA. It's even more ridiculous when the fob is placed inside a building and all the assets start magically disappearing while the infantry standing next to them suffer no damage at all...

For me those things not only destroy the gameplay, but get feet off the front line and rarely kill any infantry on the ground. They should either be implemented differently (they need to have an SL call it in with a radio and not on the chat with a grid) or removed completely to make defending fobs on <4km maps at all possible. IMO a firebase shouldn't be just a hidden spawn.

The only thing making most rounds bearable is the fact that firing mortars is so boring most of us aren't willing to do it for two hours every map. One of the reasons it's so boring is that you can't see for yourself if you're doing any damage, because the kill count will usually stay near zero.

They need to go.

[Tartantyco]

Or, instead of removing the mortars you could just increase the survivability of the emplacements...

Right now all emplacements are easily destroyed by tanks, APCs, mortars, etc. That negates their use, frequently making them useless.

[Arc_Shielder]

Does this help at all against the mortars?

I don't know, I managed to "push" the HMG a little more to the inside of the Foxhole but it's not there yet. Perhaps it's the best I can do though.

My next phase of the test includes firing a few mortar rounds and observe what starts to bleed first and if the inner asset will do too - my guess is yes, but let's see.

I'm just trying to improvise a way to make the assets a little more valuable in open ground than what we have now. I doubt this will work but it doesn't hurt trying.
Of course it would help to know the exact pattern to make the HMG Bunker - as someone called it - consistently right. Atm it only seems to be happening randomly - the final touch, Foxhole deployment - which is a killer. After all, none of my efforts can be implemented as a SL guide if I spend long minutes just trying to make one of these things.

[Stealthgato]

I'm in favour of removing mortars, had too many situations where FOBs were placed defending flags and epic firefights would ensue but instead mortars came, destroyed everything and nobody had any fun. Pure gameplay killers.

[Arc_Shielder]

I'm in favour of removing mortars, had too many situations where FOBs were placed defending flags and epic firefights would ensue but instead mortars came, destroyed everything and nobody had any fun. Pure gameplay killers.

I wouldn't go that far. I think the bleeding system for assets should no longer exist. A direct HAT/Armor/Mortar round and incendiary nades should be the exception. That would be the best solution, but I'm ok if the DEVs could the very least make them more resilient and provide an extra cover like what I'm trying to do with the Foxholes.

[Mikemonster]

I wouldn't go that far. I think the bleeding system for assets should no longer exist. A direct HAT/Armor/Mortar round and incendiary nades should be the exception. That would be the best solution, but I'm ok if the DEVs could the very least make them more resilient and provide an extra cover like what I'm trying to do with the Foxholes.

This, why would mortars destroy sandbag emplacements that are designed to defeat them?

[Redamare]

visibility issues would need to be adressed . . a larger protection circle may be nice but could be hazardous and harder to place oh platforms of land that is needed.

[Anderson29]

@mikemonster, not direct hits though.....u have to have a certain about of thinkness to the overhead cover to withstand a direct impact. i cant remember but i think it was somewhere around 2 feet.....been a while since i have gone over o.p. and defensive emplacements.

[Stoickk]

Eighteen inches of overhead cover was the requirement for a two man fighting position when I went through Basic way back when. If I remember correctly, this was to withstand a direct mortar impact.

Personally, I would be in favor of assets having more of a "hit point" type of system like vehicles. Remove the bleed and reduce splash damage of high explosive ammunition versus them, but allow for direct hits to still cause large amounts of damage. No, that direct hit might not hurt the sandbags much, but it will wreak havoc on the TOW/AA launcher sitting inside them.

[Arc_Shielder]

2ND SESSION OF TESTS


HMG/AA + Foxhole Placement



Gave it another go at the AA and again I have to confirm that the chances of randomly merging with the Foxhole are greater than the HMG.

But...





...I can't still leave the AA. That empty shell is me again. The gun works fine and I can rotate anywhere I want, but regardless of the direction, I can't leave no matter what.
So it's useless. At this point I decided put all my efforts on the HMG.

And speaking of which, it totally paid off. Here's an exact copy of what I witnessed that time in TG.





See? A perfect fit.



The sexy rear.



HMG to the extreme right.



HMG to the extreme left.

So no visibility is cut and the operator is protected from the sides. With the Foxhole wrapping perfectly then it should be enough to withstand the mortars, right?

Well, I decided to test it.


Mortar Endurance Testing

1st Try

Well, I wasn't able to take the screeenshot of the first one but it didn't work out alright. The round hit just to right side of the Foxhole and the HMG broke into pieces. So I shoveled it back up and surprisingly...it only took one shovel for the Foxhole.

2nd Try



I took this one a bit late but you can see the smoke at left side of the screen where the mortar fell. The deployable asset to the left is the AA and the one to the right is the HMG.
And yes, you can't see the AA because it blew up instantly...the Foxhole however, didn't even bleed.

From then on I neglected the AA and focused my attention on the HMG.

3rd Try



This time the mortar round hit just in front of the HMG. The rubble was expected so I went to shovel it back up again - Foxhole, only 1 shovel needed - and returned to the Mortars for one final try.

4th Try



Ridiculous.
By the yellow debris you can noticed that the HMG AGAIN blew up. This time however made really no sense since the mortar round hit 15/20 meters away.
This proved that the Foxhole merging does not work. The inner asset bleeds like it would currently despite being wrapped up by the most resilient asset of the game. And speaking of the latter, AGAIN, it only needed 1 shovel to get it back to normal.

It's ridiculous.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I guess only the HMG works well with the Foxhole and I haven't found any consistent pattern in its making. Not being solid against the mortars is primarily the reason why I finish these tests right here. Unless you want to show off to your squad members or think it can be highly protective against small arms, do it. Otherwise it's good for nothing.


*updated in the OP