Project Reality Forums

Untrue. For every other deployable very true, but not the foxhole.

If you think about it, the foxhole is nothing more than a bunch of sandbags. It be weird if it could withstand AT and tank rounds.

You guys DO realize that foxholes provide cover from mortars right? In the event of a mortar attack sure the razorwire, HMGs etc. will probably get blown but the foxholes stay perfectly fine...albeit possibly with a shovel or two to make it full health again... But I'd also agree with Callous's post a little bit back that the old Bunker FOB could be useful as another type of foxhole, like you'd right click on the foxhole tab for it but maybe only make it so theres 2-4 of em'

[R-DEV]AfterDune wrote:If you think about it, the foxhole is nothing more than a bunch of sandbags. It be weird if it could withstand AT and tank rounds.

They would also be underground making AT and Tank rounds hard to be effective.

gazzthompson wrote:They would also be underground making AT and Tank rounds hard to be effective.

Yeah that's what I thought the intent was because we can't 'burrow' into the terrain in the BF2 engine?

I think the foxhole is ok as it is but an additional bunker (not too big) would be interesting. Something like this maybe, nice and small:


Link to image above..

In my opinion it should take about the same time to build as the FOB it's self, as it would be a lot of work getting that bunker up.

I allready started a threat about this some time ago as in alternative foxholes IIRC. Because closed top "foxholes" were modelled lightyears ago...

The square bunker that everyone is talking about- wasn't that the defensive fob in older versions of pr? Like if you built a fob on a flag it would be that, but anywhere else it would be the way the current fob is?

DenvH wrote:I think the foxhole is ok as it is but an additional bunker (not too big) would be interesting. Something like this maybe, nice and small:


Link to image above..

In my opinion it should take about the same time to build as the FOB it's self, as it would be a lot of work getting that bunker up.

Now I know where ARMA 2 got its designs!

This is a good foxhole idea.

Not too shabby...

Yeah, but the idea of a fox hole is to be a hole in the ground, with sandbags cover, if you dig all that, put the sandbags and all the thing, IRL, you will put a roof on it, its just commun sens. This is why i suggest it, may be a "roofed and unroofed" foxhole will do it best. Cause for now, foxhole is only a place where you're getting killed by anything. I dont wanna argue, but just think on how it would be if you where doing it youself in real conflict situation. And also, have to consider modeling time/all the thing it need to be added in game. Yeah we can start showing off picture of awesome pit or hesco bastion pit and everything. But in the end, it'll be alot quicker to just add a 2 option selection ( like kit left & right ) one with a roof, the other whitout... There is something to do with that hole. Cause it dosent make sense to me, to build up a freaking awesome cover for the .50, and just a normal hole for other riflemen. Adding a camo it over it and BANG! *imagine the current one, with a top and a camnet stretched at 8 point on the ground over it*

Here, honestly, who never just take cover in the .50 pit, without manning the gun, just cause it was all sandbaged ?

Hotrod525 wrote:Yeah, but the idea of a fox hole is to be a hole in the ground, with sandbags cover, if you dig all that, put the sandbags and all the thing, IRL, you will put a roof on it, its just commun sens.

An mortar-resisting roof on something you built in a few short moments?

goguapsy wrote:An mortar-resisting roof on something you built in a few short moments?

Yeah, using a trench cover basch. You open it, put over the hole, put earth on it or even simpler a plywood with as much sandbag as you wish, talam, you' can have a 2 foot thick roof.

I dont ask it to be "invincible", but just to make it realy something safe. It will still be destroy by direct mortar hit, but atleast AIRBURST shrapnel wont kill you. It will give you a chance to fight back without being expose to all kind of nasty stuff. If there is a roof, it make it realy more harder to hit the inside with guns, LATs, Grenades, etc... Those one depicted in PR are meant to defend you're FOB, not just a "improvise cover".

^Nice. I agree.

How often do you get hit by arburst in a foxhole, out of curiosity, anyway?

Sounds like an acceptable idea. However, the bleeding system has to stop to all assets, which imo, is the main issue to many players atm.

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:Sounds like an acceptable idea. However, the bleeding system has to stop to all assets, which imo, is the main issue to many players atm.

As in the assets "bleeding" if they are not fully built?

I don't see the problem with it.

goguapsy wrote:As in the assets "bleeding" if they are not fully built?

I don't see the problem with it.

Nah, I mean mortars blowing up close to assets and they starting to bleed. After a minute or so you mysteriously see every asset falling down like a house of cards...

Thats the same thing, you need to start digging them again after they are damaged.

Psyrus wrote:That does raise the point of HAT sitting inside and firing out, but I suppose coaxial/.50cal would suffice as the tank prepares it's second round for the foxhole.

Or you can just fire HEAT round in.

'= wrote:H[=Rissien;1611333']Thats the same thing, you need to start digging them again after they are damaged.

Sorry? How is that the same thing when compared to a direct hit?

If there's one round, one round, between a few assets they will bleed out slowly and painfully. It's a system that does not reward the construction of such and not even looks very realistic at that.

Left click foxhole, right click a foxhole with a celling over the head ie a bunker type thing

My thought on this