Historical trenches in strongpoints

[Battleshipfree99]

Playing around with Karbusel and Olkahovka and frustrated by the trenches.

Personally, they are not effective. Most the time they offer good observation out to 1km but poor LOF, with some even have close range blind spots for the attackers to exploit (mostly near the wire obstacles, which is 50~100m away from the trench line). Since PPsh is a wonder weapon with incredible suppressing effect in GT, one or two SMG gunners in the blind spot is enough to prevent the defenders from recovering their combat sustainability, and when it drops to 20%... doom, the defenders abandon their position with minimal casualties and retreat.

Similar for tank guns. The tanks know that there're bad guys in the trenches and fire continuously. Thanks to the incredible suppressing effect of direct firing guns, the defenders retreat with 0 casualty, yet lose half the platoon on their way into open field.

[Battleshipfree99]

I could sense that some trenches would really work well in reality, e.g., 100m behind reverse slope so that the attackers are exposed at extreme close range when they climb over the crest. Yet, the suppressing algorithm means anything flying overhead keeps "level of fire" at 100. So no recovery from combat sustainability and thus the squad retreat: abandon a fortified strongpoint and run into open field, which not only gets the squad killed but also helps draw more enemy fire and suppress all his comrades - now the whole platoon is retreating!

[Battleshipfree99]

To summarize, 2 points here:
1. Some blind spots close to the trench. Some trenches need a bit tweak to better fit in the terrain.
2. Suppression algorithm. Combat sustainability drops too quick, no cover bonus from trenches and fortifications, anything flying over head suppresses (seems that a 76 shell flying overhead has the same suppression effect of a near miss 76 shell).

To clarify the issue with the suppressing algorithm, here's a quick test:
Doing artillery preparation with offmap/onmap artillery. No direct hit, dugged trenches. See how long the men can hold their position.
2:30 4 ZIS-3 started firing on tanks. (2km away)
4:00 50mm mortar team routed.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2961502439
7:00 All 4 inf squads abandoned their trenches and routed.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2961502448

I'd be okay with infantry in the open can't withstand too much artillery fragments, but what about these men in cover? It's also fine for them to be suppressed by the steel rain, but why not hide in the trench that can at least protect them from fragments? It seems apparent that most the casualties are those routing in the open.


Inf squad in trench constantly suppressed by 76mm shells landing 350m away. I suppose 76mm HE shells can't produce any effective fragments to 350m. If there's no risk of injury, why suppressed by a firework cracking noise?
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2961515218


PS:
The retreating mechanism is effectively a death loop.
You retreat, you expose yourself, you are targeted by more guns, you are suppressed, you retreat. XD

[Hellian]

Yeah, this has always been the issue with combat sustainability. I've wanted to be able to reduce how fast units lose CS in general. For the trenches, it really seems like if infantry get to the point of retreating in a trench under fire, they should just stay in the trench and do that cower animation they have.

[Battleshipfree99]

Overhead suppression effect:
combat sustainability gradually drops as "level of fire" is always above 50, due to friendly mortar bombs flying overhead.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2936441474

A related issue is that offmap artillery has the shells spawned from high angle, thus no overhead suppression effect and only impact suppression.

Originally posted by Hellian:

Yeah, this has always been the issue with combat sustainability. I've wanted to be able to reduce how fast units lose CS in general. For the trenches, it really seems like if infantry get to the point of retreating in a trench under fire, they should just stay in the trench and do that cower animation they have.

Yep. If it's too much work to tweak the whole algorithm, maybe add some cover bonus to trenches and fortifications so that the men prefer to hide (unless risking encirclement).

[Bulletpoint]

I agree that the pre-placed trenches don't work well.

They are often simply too deep, so that troops will place themselves on the bottom and never be able to see and fire out of them. Solution: Make trenches less deep so that troops can have cover while crouching but LOF while standing.

Second issue is that vegetation around the trenches is not cleared, so tall grass, crops etc will obscure LOS. Solution: Go over the maps and remove any vegetation within X metres, unless the trenches are assumed to have been dug a long time ago so new plants have had time to grow.

[archibaldthe1]

“level of fire” indicator is a big culprit in the lack of effectiveness of trenches as you guys already pointed out. I think the other two are: an ability to obtain a precise strike against trenches with means other than direct fire (the norms of how many shells are required to suppress a trench are pretty generous) and the flimsiness of trenches (they get filled with earth from the smallest shell impacts that aren’t even that close, or from shells with immediate fuses). The last piece is where deliberate vs hasty trenches can make a difference - premade ones may be made to withstand more damage (if we say they have some sort of wooden stakes reinforcement)
Oh, and of course the entire deal with trenches not protecting from a long-distance flat trajectory shots does not help.

From Red Army 1942 artillery regulations:

Use ricochet or (less preferred) delayed fuse
…
If airburst can be achieved, suppression of 10m-long trench needs 40x76mm, 25x122mm; with delayed action it needs 60x76mm, 40x122mm
…
To destroy a trench, 122mm and 152mm are recommended (same expenditure as for suppression)

And then regarding running out of the trench (British artillery research):

The following estimates the relative risks of becoming a casualty to ground-burst shells on ‘average’ ground: Standing: 1, Lying: ⅓, Firing from open fire trenches: 1/15 – 1/50, Crouching in open fire trenches: 1/25 – 1/100

So all else equal, leaving the trench increases your chances to be hit by at least 25x

[Bulletpoint]

Also regarding trenches:

I don't find there's any reason to use delayed fuzes ever. Because immediate fuze shells seem just as effective at clearing trenches as delayed ones.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Bulletpoint:

Also regarding trenches:

I don't find there's any reason to use delayed fuzes ever. Because immediate fuze shells seem just as effective at clearing trenches as delayed ones.

Yes, definitely in the game. In fact the delayed fuse is less effective against trenches (and on open ground, naturally). For the player there is no reason to use it.

[Bulletpoint]

Originally posted by Zephyr:

Originally posted by Bulletpoint:

Also regarding trenches:

I don't find there's any reason to use delayed fuzes ever. Because immediate fuze shells seem just as effective at clearing trenches as delayed ones.

Yes, definitely in the game. In fact the delayed fuse is less effective against trenches (and on open ground, naturally). For the player there is no reason to use it.

It would be nice if this were changed - or at the very least, that I wouldn't have to manually toggle on the immediate fuze option before every single fire mission so that they don't fire delayed shells.

I think trenches in general should provide better protection against HE - at least the small calibre stuff. Right now, German 75mm crushes anything, in trench or not.

That would make the bigger guns more useful and also give a role to the delayed impact fuze generally.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Bulletpoint:

Originally posted by Zephyr:

Yes, definitely in the game. In fact the delayed fuse is less effective against trenches (and on open ground, naturally). For the player there is no reason to use it.

It would be nice if this were changed - or at the very least, that I wouldn't have to manually toggle on the immediate fuze option before every single fire mission so that they don't fire delayed shells.

I think trenches in general should provide better protection against HE - at least the small calibre stuff. Right now, German 75mm crushes anything, in trench or not.

That would make the bigger guns more useful and also give a role to the delayed impact fuze generally.

Actually the AI has often problems with trenches when it uses off map artillery. Funnily enough, because it uses delayed fuse quite often :).

[Bulletpoint]

Originally posted by Zephyr:

Originally posted by Bulletpoint:

It would be nice if this were changed - or at the very least, that I wouldn't have to manually toggle on the immediate fuze option before every single fire mission so that they don't fire delayed shells.

I think trenches in general should provide better protection against HE - at least the small calibre stuff. Right now, German 75mm crushes anything, in trench or not.

That would make the bigger guns more useful and also give a role to the delayed impact fuze generally.

Actually the AI has often problems with trenches when it uses off map artillery. Funnily enough, because it uses delayed fuse quite often :).

It seems the game was originally meant to be designed so you should use delayed fuze against trenches, and quick fuzes against troops in the open. But someone forgot to actually make sure the game works like that.

[Battleshipfree99]

@Zephyr @Bulletpoint
Fuzes in game are properly simulated I think.
Delayed fuze ones leave craters and have a larger blast effect range (approx. 8~12m for 100mm shells).
Immediate fuze ones has a magnificent dust cloud, less blast effect range (approx. 6~10m for 100mm shells) and larger fragment effect range (which is mostly useless in GT because every pixel troop goes crawling when the artillery barrage falls).

(Blast effect not only heavily wounds men, but also heavily damages guns and mortars).

(Fragment may have a larger effective range but it only wounds men. I've seen the enemy retreat through my barrage with light wounds but none incapacitated. Some even survived a near miss hiding in terrain depressions. They would surely be heavily wounded if it was a delayed one.)

So in my opinion, delayed fuze is slightly more powerful than immediate fuze. Now I'm preferring delayed ones to cover a larger area and effectively incapacitate more enemy men and equipment.

PS:
If you notice the poor effectiveness of 81/82mm mortars, I reckon they would be much more effective if we can choose to use delayed fuze.

Anyway, you are right that by a concentrated barrage, immediate fuze shells can also flatten a trench in GT, which I'm also skeptical about. One extreme case in GT is that about 10 37/45mm HE shells are enough to flatten part of a trench. IIRC, trenches can't be flattened by tank rolling over back in GTOS and SABOW?

[Bulletpoint]

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

@Zephyr @Bulletpoint
Fuzes in game are properly simulated I think.
Delayed fuze ones leave craters and have a larger blast effect range (approx. 8~12m for 100mm shells).
Immediate fuze ones has a magnificent dust cloud, less blast effect range (approx. 6~10m for 100mm shells) and larger fragment effect range (which is mostly useless in GT because every pixel troop goes crawling when the artillery barrage falls).

(Blast effect not only heavily wounds men, but also heavily damages guns and mortars).

(Fragment may have a larger effective range but it only wounds men. I've seen the enemy retreat through my barrage with light wounds but none incapacitated. Some even survived a near miss hiding in terrain depressions. They would surely be heavily wounded if it was a delayed one.)

So in my opinion, delayed fuze is slightly more powerful than immediate fuze. Now I'm preferring delayed ones to cover a larger area and effectively incapacitate more enemy men and equipment.

PS:
If you notice the poor effectiveness of 81/82mm mortars, I reckon they would be much more effective if we can choose to use delayed fuze.

Anyway, you are right that by a concentrated barrage, immediate fuze shells can also flatten a trench in GT, which I'm also skeptical about. One extreme case in GT is that about 10 37/45mm HE shells are enough to flatten part of a trench. IIRC, trenches can't be flattened by tank rolling over back in GTOS and SABOW?

It's interesting that we seem to have so different impressions of the effectiveness of the different fuzes.

You're saying delayed fuzes give more blast effect - how would that be possible?

As far as I know, if a shell digs into the earth before exploding, a lot of the explosive force is absorbed by the soil and the force of the blast is directed upwards, making the blast wave much less powerful. And of course many of the shell fragments are also blocked by the soil.

[Battleshipfree99]

Originally posted by Bulletpoint:

As far as I know, if a shell digs into the earth before exploding, a lot of the explosive force is absorbed by the soil and the force of the blast is directed upwards, making the blast wave much less powerful. And of course many of the shell fragments are also blocked by the soil.

This's how blast effect works best: explode in a confined space, and the soil will transfer most of the blast energy into the target, instead of fading into the air like immediate action or airburst. You can find some basics on this topic in any of the artillery manuals.

[Toni]

Originally posted by Bulletpoint:

I think trenches in general should provide better protection against HE - at least the small calibre stuff. Right now, German 75mm crushes anything, in trench or not.
That would make the bigger guns more useful and also give a role to the delayed impact fuze generally.

Yes. One aspect:

"The destruction of the trench itself." I am not speaking about the personnel in there, but the "earth works".

The game seems to calculate the "flattening/destruction" of a trench depending on the penetration depth into the ground, like IRL a deeper penetration in general leads to more "earth transportation" so to speak.

This can be seen in-game: Mortar bombs do not penetrate deep. They do not destroy a trench in-game; 100 mortar bombs (8cm or 5cm) and the trench itself is ok.

https://youtu.be/B9lbGowho8I

Higher velocity shells, even with a quick fuze, penetrate deeper into the ground. But the problem seems to be: Even a 5cm (or just a 3.7cm) gun shell with immediate action fuze completely destroys trenches with just a few nearby hits in-game.

Please go to 00:40 and wait for the 3 hits:

https://youtu.be/1MpoXt8TEm4?t=43

So yes, I also think that decreasing the "terra morphing effect" of smaller caliber shells would be good. Only large caliber and especially with delayed fuze setting should do the "earth transportation/destruction".