Project Reality Forums

I find the foxholes really nice, but they don't give protection from a lot of stuff. Light-AT claymores, hydras, HEAT, etc can easily take out a foxhole (making it collapse) . I find this annoying when bf2 statics give much better cover.

Would it be better if the foxholes was more solid?

Himalde wrote:I find the foxholes really nice, but they don't give protection from a lot of stuff. Light-AT claymores, hydras, HEAT, etc can easily take out a foxhole (making it collapse) . I find this annoying when bf2 statics give much better cover.

Would it be better if the foxholes was more solid?

They represent holes dug in ground, not actual sandbags.

Having stuff shot down at you from sky is, unfortunately, a realistic way to kill you.

Himalde wrote:I find the foxholes really nice, but they don't give protection from a lot of stuff. Light-AT claymores, hydras, HEAT, etc can easily take out a foxhole (making it collapse) . I find this annoying when bf2 statics give much better cover.

Would it be better if the foxholes was more solid?

Its true they don't give you cover from what you've listed, but more often than not you're being shot at by bullets or APC rounds and they give ample cover from them. I would honestly rather build a foxhole over any other firebase placement (bar TOW) as it can be used for a myriad of reasons including as a grenadier or HAT pit.

Himalde wrote:I find the foxholes really nice, but they don't give protection from a lot of stuff. Light-AT claymores, hydras, HEAT, etc can easily take out a foxhole (making it collapse) . I find this annoying when bf2 statics give much better cover.

Would it be better if the foxholes was more solid?

I believe the foxhole should be destroyed by direct attacks of the ones you describe, but I have noticed that even the splash damage of such weapons wipe them out quite easily..... which should be survivable in a foxhole.

So if it can be made more solid vs. splash, without compromising its destructibility from a direct hit, I'd agree with the idea.

ComradeHX wrote:They represent holes dug in ground, not actual sandbags.

Having stuff shot down at you from sky is, unfortunately, a realistic way to kill you.

A hole in the ground is going to be alot "stronger" thank sandbags, even a .50 cal will start to tear up sandbags, but it's very difficult to hit holes in the ground if you duck under them.

I reckon a foxhole should be a good defence from anything except a direct hit from the top, not a perfect defence, so you'll still get injured & maybe wounded if a tank fires a HEAT round at you but if there's 3 or 4 of you in the fox hole & it gets hit on the front, the guys ducking behind it should be hurt, the guys up & firing should be wounded. Simples Think it'll be easy to do that too, I remember once being ontop of a building when a JDAM went off nearby, I was crouched healing someone, & someone else was firing, I was hurt & the guy firing went flying backwards (looked epic). Believe it was Aimed who went flying, or could of been the guy I was healing lol xD

I reckon a foxhole should be a good defence from anything except a direct hit from the top...

I just love to clear out foxholes with granades - corpses flying out and back in. It's really easy to do if you can get close enough (10-20 m) to the foxhole.

I only build them if there is no bf static cover at all (desert, field, etc.)