Project Reality Forums

+1 for that one. But you need to make some more difference beetween them instead of just roof.


Edit: I somehow managed to do toublepost. Can moderators remove this message plz.

+1 for that. But you need to make some difference beetween them. Otherwise people would just always build the one whit roof.

I have one other idea, idk if its hardcoded but here it goes.
Currently we have two asset statuses; fully built and wreck. Maybe foxhole could have tree statuses instead.
First one would be wreck, second fully built and third would be foxhole whit roof. So you can either let the foxhole whitout roof, OR you can spend some extra time on it and construct roof.

Seems they do this IRL as well.

Wikipedia wrote:Modern militaries publish and distribute elaborate field manuals for the proper construction of DFPs in stages. Each stage develops the fighting position, gradually increasing its effectiveness, while always maintaining functionality. In this way a soldier can improve the position over time, while being able to stop at any time and use the position in a fight.

Tarranauha200 wrote:+1 for that. But you need to make some difference beetween them. Otherwise people would just always build the one whit roof.

One advantage of the open top foxholes would be it's easier to get into. You can jump into it from all sides. With a roof you would be forced to run around to the entrance, something I wouldn't want to do when taking fire.

Another advantage would be that open top foxholes are better suited for portable anti-aircraft usage.

Arcturus_Shielder wrote: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.

Well, the odds of getting a direct hit are pretty small. The odds of getting a nearby hit are MUCH greater... and the assets start to bleed. Now, don't you think that having to "keep shoveling those Foxholes" during a mortar strike would keep things balanced?

You get hit nearby, and you are basically immune if the asset didn't bleed. Now, got a shovel? Keep shovel'ing! Your virtual life depends on it!

badmojo420 wrote:One advantage of the open top foxholes would be it's easier to get into. You can jump into it from all sides. With a roof you would be forced to run around to the entrance, something I wouldn't want to do when taking fire.

Another advantage would be that open top foxholes are better suited for portable anti-aircraft usage.

"Easy" is not part of the military language when it come to protect you're self. You always fortify you're place, ALWAYS, even if we only stay for a week. In the end its you're life on the line. Cause f**k yeah, it sucks to dig in PR, ever think about how it will be to dig it for real ? PR Dev team try to make life being more important always, so thinking that way, then ill build up cover to not being kill 50 times and waste about 2 hour on the dam LHD2 waiting for a ride. I dont know if you see my point, its just that i see it more like : Ok, my first and mostly only mission is to survive, why would i build up a Foward Operating Base, covered by over exposed hole ? I mean, if i bring a TOW, a Stinger and 2 allsandbagged .50, with even some mortar firing postion, but only dig a simple hole as cover for my most precious thing : Boots on the ground, well i think i'm fighting with a foot in a bucket.

goguapsy wrote:

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

Enought to suggest a roof over it

goguapsy wrote:You get hit nearby, and you are basically immune if the asset didn't bleed. Now, got a shovel? Keep shovel'ing! Your virtual life depends on it!

...man, I'm sorry but there's no argument whatsoever that justifies something as silly as that, like mortars cease falling and everyone digs all happy and dandy during breaks while the enemy let them do it. I'm pretty sure you know how it easy for each asset to go down even when the mortar falls like 20 to 25 meters far. It completely destroys the purpose of building all those assets since it only takes one pair of eyes to report it. It's counter-logical to its function in-game.
If you build those assets, you're expecting contact. If the only contact you're going to have will come from the sky and clean everything so easily then there's no point to it. And yes, I could build a FOB somewhere safe but it still doesn't defeat the notion that if assets are there to be deployed...then they are to be used.

Foxhole geometry is fine as it is, considering engine limitations. (Rhino, true foxholes are not built above ground )

However, foxholes need to be mady way more resistant to explosives. In my opinion it would be best if they could only be destroyed by incendiary or commander.

I agree to just make foxholes immune to mortar rounds. Think about it. If your really unlucky and a mortar lands IN YOUR PIT, you and your friends would die...but your corpses would still be in a foxhole....

splatters wrote:Foxhole geometry is fine as it is, considering engine limitations. (Rhino, true foxholes are not built above ground )

DEVs can't alter the terrain in-game (only during map-making). Other words, over the ground foxholes is the only answer.

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:...man, I'm sorry but there's no argument whatsoever that justifies something as silly as that, like mortars cease falling and everyone digs all happy and dandy during breaks while the enemy let them do it. I'm pretty sure you know how it easy for each asset to go down even when the mortar falls like 20 to 25 meters far. It completely destroys the purpose of building all those assets since it only takes one pair of eyes to report it. It's counter-logical to its function in-game.
If you build those assets, you're expecting contact. If the only contact you're going to have will come from the sky and clean everything so easily then there's no point to it. And yes, I could build a FOB somewhere safe but it still doesn't defeat the notion that if assets are there to be deployed...then they are to be used.

I understand where you are coming from. But having immune foxholes is just too overpowered, you know? Just as if the foxholes were safe havens.

Mortars strikes are made to kill you. You might get lucky enough to go prone in your foxhole and keep shovel'ing, whilst praying against a direct hit, or a double hit nearby. What you are saying is: "Oh, it is raining explosive candy? No worries, just go to the foxholes, you'll be fine..."

goguapsy wrote:What you are saying is: "Oh, it is raining explosive candy? No worries, just go to the foxholes, you'll be fine..."

Thats pretty much how it works in real life...unless you get the direct hit. Then letters to family.

Operator009 wrote:Thats pretty much how it works in real life...unless you get the direct hit. Then letters to family.

I've never been mortared in real life (as a matter of fact, I'm not even in the Army yet).

I understand you have credibility on this. I rest my case. I just thought that, for gameplay balance, foxholes should be destroyable with 2 or 3 close-by hits.

Hotrod525 wrote:"Easy" is not part of the military language when it come to protect you're self.

Okay then, it's quicker. It takes time to run around to the entrance. It's quicker to jump over some sandbags and hit the dirt.

goguapsy wrote:having immune foxholes is just too overpowered

They would be the same power as 90% of the other static objects in PR. We have plenty of car wrecks and wheel barrels that stop tank rounds already. I don't think hiding in a hole would be overpowered.

Also, the jdam seems to kill me no matter what the cover, so it's not like the soldier inside would be totally immune, just the foxhole itself.

Thats because the Jdam has special properties that kills you outright regardless of cover within a certain radius.

goguapsy wrote:I've never been mortared in real life (as a matter of fact, I'm not even in the Army yet).

I understand you have credibility on this. I rest my case. I just thought that, for gameplay balance, foxholes should be destroyable with 2 or 3 close-by hits.

Looks that way in game since it's an above ground structure. but IRL a foxhole is a hole in the ground, few things short of a direct hit will destroy it, and even a direct mortar hit on one probably wont destroy it, it'll just kill everyone inside and collapse a portion of it. In which case it's protective capabilities does not change much if you get back into it again. a fox hole with collapsed sides is just a wider and shallower foxhole.

the thing about a hole in the ground is, no matter how much you destroy it, if you're not shooting down into it there will always be ground in front of it to stop your bullets. If conditions are right and you built it well, foxholes can and will last forever.

goguapsy wrote:I understand where you are coming from. But having immune foxholes is just too overpowered, you know? Just as if the foxholes were safe havens.

Mortars strikes are made to kill you. You might get lucky enough to go prone in your foxhole and keep shovel'ing, whilst praying against a direct hit, or a double hit nearby. What you are saying is: "Oh, it is raining explosive candy? No worries, just go to the foxholes, you'll be fine..."

Actually, foxholes bleeding is stupid, even more than any other assets since it's a hole - but my argument so far as been to apply that to ALL asssets unless in a direct hit.
You're not presenting a single reason to why it is not detrimental in-game. The way things are now, it's simply not worthy using any of the current assets due to mortars being overpowered, and if they are not through realistic parameters then make it unrealistic for gameplay sake.
You have played several times as a SL to my knowledge, how can you deny that assets have an incredible short lifespan since mortars were introduced? What use are of us putting down a TOW or a HMG if the contact we later face will take cover and report it to mortars?

Anyway, perhaps this is off-topic since the OP's suggestion is solely focused to foxholes but even then I suggest no bleeding system for those (even though it's just little) and I think they work fine as a mortar cover. The roof might be a good idea in urban areas but even then it only takes one enemy from the 4th floor in a building beside to throw an incendiary...

You're not presenting a single reason to why it is not detrimental in-game. The way things are now, it's simply not worthy using any of the current assets due to mortars being overpowered, and if they are not through realistic parameters then make it unrealistic for gameplay sake.

The foxhole is the way it is so that you have protection from mortars on maps where there is very little solid cover, those maps would suffer greatly if this wasn't the case.

the armed positions on teh other hand get blown up because using mortars on static positions to destroy powerful defensive assets is just good gameplay, its teamwork orientated and has its own problems in getting done.

However I could get on board with making mortars slightly less effective against fortified emplaced weapons like teh HMG so that the user has a chance to get off the weapon during a mortar attack to flee to a foxhole/other cover, I say this because if they die on the emplacement they cannot be revived. <- circumventing a engine issue.

afaik teh bleed is really there to make you build the emplacement to 100% before use.

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:Actually, foxholes bleeding is stupid, even more than any other assets since it's a hole - but my argument so far as been to apply that to ALL asssets unless in a direct hit.
You're not presenting a single reason to why it is not detrimental in-game. The way things are now, it's simply not worthy using any of the current assets due to mortars being overpowered, and if they are not through realistic parameters then make it unrealistic for gameplay sake.
You have played several times as a SL to my knowledge, how can you deny that assets have an incredible short lifespan since mortars were introduced? What use are of us putting down a TOW or a HMG if the contact we later face will take cover and report it to mortars?

Again, I understand where you are coming from.

BUT, say you are getting pounded by mortars. You are supposed to be scared; you are supposed to be in some kind of danger.

Are you suggesting mortars should do what, if all you gotta do is just go prone in a foxhole? Everyone would be fine, and ready with that HAT as soon as the mortar strike is done to take out that APC?

I am suggesting that you should keep shoveling the foxhole so you are not insta-combat-ready as soon as the rain stops. And if you decide to take your chances and keep your weapon up instead of shoveling, well, it's a 50/50 chance, no? If you get hit nearby, you'll lose your cover. If you don't, you are ready to fend off any fast-approaching enemies.

As I pointed out in my last post, the foxhole is a good cover against mortars and I never indicated otherwise but mere fact that it bleeds is stupid by itself. It's not shoveling the little bit that bleeds - when compared to other assets - that annoys me though, but rather the armed emplacements that Rudd is talking about. They blow up easily and I could even affirm that there's a degree of realism in that but it's completely detrimental in-game.
When I asked you goguapsy to present a reason to why it is ok in keeping the current system, I'm mainly referring those armed emplacements. And I might be a stubborn arrogant and too intense for nothing idiot, but someone has yet to explain how it is good to deploy HMGs and a TOW only for a pair of eyes from very far to take them down. That's all it takes and it's so ridiculous that in many, many cases it's simply not worth the effort. I'm pretty sure DEVs would like us to use those assets whether for immersion, their intended purpose and indeed bring to fruition the time they wasted in modelling, etc.

Foxholes are connected somehow since if you're going to place a few of those around, you might as well place HMGs and the like. The reason to this is simple, by building foxholes you gain attention of your enemies of a close constructed FOB. You place those armed emplacements to provide a better defense...but if it's so obsolete to the point you don't even fire one round to see everything destroyed around you so easily, then I don't see what is the point of it. Or why would I waste my and squad members time when I could just build a FOB in a hidden place and hope the enemy won't find it.

Now, obviously it is realistic for me to get hurt when in a foxhole and a mortar round falls nearby. It has happened and I think that's ok. But not for one round to fall 30 m far and instantly destroy a HMG. Or farther than that and instantly we will have to inspect which of the several assets need shoveling again making us lose our defensive positions. This has happened multiple times to the point they spend more time shoveling one asset and then inspect if the other is ok, etc, than actually defending.

My suggestion continues to be that assets should only go down through a direct hit (armor/mortar/hat) or incendiary nades - which disproves the HAT in foxhole bs, when the very least a APC/Tank can take it down easily. If a mortar round falls close to any of these, the operator will get wounded or even die so I don't see the problem.

It's about rewarding those that take the effort to build these things. It's about reducing the insane amount of variables that make these assets as fragile as thin paper. It's about even to give a purpose to a HMG, AA or a TOW than a few mins of life and a "what's the point?".

Also my last word on this since I'm not too sure if I'm diverting this thread. I said everything I wanted.

goguapsy wrote: Lay down on mortar strikes and while reloading.

Again, foxholes are fine how they are - it's how YOU use it.

Haha.. fail.. as if that is gonna save you from a direct mortar hit..

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:My suggestion continues to be that assets should only go down through a direct hit (armor/mortar/hat) or incendiary nades - which disproves the HAT in foxhole bs, when the very least a APC/Tank can take it down easily. If a mortar round falls close to any of these, the operator will get wounded or even die so I don't see the problem.

AH! The person DOES get wounded inside a foxhole, then?

Then yes I agree with you - makes much more sense if the asset only goes down with a direct hit.

I didn't know you get wounded if a mortar hit close-by. I was supposing the asset bleed would help balance things out!

Thanks for the info man!


(BTW what I meant with the HAT in the Foxhole - or even the TOW, for that matter - is that an APC/Tank would NOT be able to engage the FOB unless SOMETHING happened... such as a mortar strike or whatnot.)

samthegreat4 wrote:Haha.. fail.. as if that is gonna save you from a direct mortar hit..

Hmm? Nothing is gonna save you from a direct hit.