(11-18-2020, 11:46 AM)HMCS Rosthern Wrote: Does it make sense to be able to dig into a flooded hex? If it were just a fox hole, it would just fill in with water. A soldier would have incentive to duck under the water when hot lead is flying around. I presume the rationale could be lots of items around that could be used to build protective barriers.
Anyway I'd be interested to hear from the designers on this subject.
Hi HMCS Rosthern,
You are correct that fox-holes and other defenses filling with water was a real problem during the Scheldt Campaign.
A few things to consider:
1. Just because a hex is represented as flooded, doesn't mean that every square foot of said hex was under water. Much of the flooded land would have been crisscrossed by dikes, some of which were substantially elevated over the surrounding terrain. Defenders and attackers both tended to cling to the side of dikes, and could have made some improvements or dug shallow fox holes and slit trenches. Also camouflage & concealment still would have been possible to an extent, which is a big part of what improved hexes represent.
2. There is a substantial defense penalty associated with with the flooded areas, so improvements and trenches in flooded hexes really don't offer much protection to the occupying unit, they just make the flood defense penalty less bad.
3. To my knowledge there is nothing in the parameter data file which would prevent a unit from digging into a specific terrain, so even we wanted to prohibit digging in in the flooded zones (which we don't) there is no way to do without a coding change.
-Mike P
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
