Source
r/foxholegame•
Hroppa

How to Make Trenches Better

Suggestions

TL;DR Everyone knows new players love to make trenches, but don't know how to do so effectively, and that vets spend a lot of time telling them not to. To mitigate the problem, there should be ways to make trenches which don't cost upkeep.

Why are trenches bad? It's not that they're bad per se, it's that they're a double edged sword, and they cost your team resources. This makes them a bad defence:

  • Trenches provide cover for attackers, as much as they provide cover for defenders

  • Often attackers will get the 'first move', until defenders spawn in response, so in effect attackers often get to use 'defensive' trenches more than defenders!

  • Even worse, they cost your team resources (bunker supplies) in upkeep!

THE PROBLEM

The result is that vets end up shouting at noobs, or (an even worse result) destroying trenches noobs have spent a long time building. Tactically, of course, the vets are correct - trenches are bad defences, so the vets are justified in destroying the trenches. But this is undeniably a feel bad moment for noobs.

Trenches can be used offensively with more success, because you have the initiative, so there's less opportunity for the enemy to use your trenches as cover. You don't care about the upkeep because the trenches are temporary. This leads to the counterintuitive result that trenches are only viable when used aggressively. (This would be quite appropriate in an 18th century game, but not in a 20th century one.)

PROPOSED SOLUTION

Trenches should be upkeep-free when attached to (or in range of, to reduce spam?) a bunker base with a Small Garrison. This would mitigate the worst of the problem: vets could incorporate trenches into bunker bases, rather than just destroying them. This would also allow trenches to actually have a role on the defence - it might be worth having them to connect bunker bases. Currently, they're worse than neutral, they're a liability.

Posted Aug 17, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

2733
DrDestro229:Warden:•

Just add a fire step so you can only shoot one way out of a trench...is that so hard

18
TheAstronautPug[82DK-M] :Warden:•

Yes please. This’ll also allow you to step down to get a heal without risk of getting shot, and it’ll be much easier to maneuver through trenches because soldiers shooting and the soldiers/medics/engineers moving are seperated.

9
MrSierra125•

It would allow for you to crouch and be more accurate too. Although they should make it that you can switch the fire step side for the cost of some bmats.

2
TheAstronautPug[82DK-M] :Warden:•

I’d think that the fire step would raise you up so that your chest is exposed, and also the base depth would be deeper than it is currently so that you can stand down from the step and safely walk around, but not be able to shoot over the trench.

3
Age_Of_Enlightment:Warden:•

This is the only good idea I've heard so far

6
dronagan•

One of the things that sucks in this game is how unintuitive so many things are. A lot of new guys think they are doing good stuff for the team; when in reality they are harming the team due to trenches being so useful for attack and so useless on defense. I've killed hundreds of enemies from trenches they dug for themselves; i can jump in and just slaughter defenders.

The game needs to either encourage new guys to just build good defensive structures, or totally rework how the actual trench structure functions. Also trench connectors need the ability to have wire placed on them. Barbed wire for trenches is basically useless since you can't place it on the sides or on the connectors.

edit; and just for clarity the trench spam noob meme is not the fault of the new guys, but the fault of bad mechanics for the structure and overzealous digging. I believe a nominal bmat cost would actually be a good thing as it would discourage the random spam of the structures.

17
henrygi[edit]:Warden:•

I like trenches being free, requiring bmats for t1 trenches would be a huge pain

8
ODSTsquad10[edit]:Warden:•

Right now though the trenches are helping defenders hold. The idea that trenches aren't a valid defense just isn't true anymore. I would encourage you to visit lost just to see how 1) the colies have a trench network along with above ground defenses keeping the wardens from fully pushing across the river. 2) wardens have trenches and bunkers in an effort to thwart collie bombardments.

7
DuxDucis52•

Yea actually trenches are the best defense in the game if built intelligently. When they are just straight lines and lead directly to your spawn point they become grenade holes and lanes where enemy can challenge defenders and ai defences with less risk.

3
ODSTsquad10[edit]:Warden:•

Thats a fair point, maybe the focus should be on helping new players understand what is a well designed trench network, and what is an attackers highway to the fob. Instead of just killing/yelling at new players

2
DuxDucis52•

It's similar to the sandbag argument, sand bags are really cheap and a great way to stop bullets and explosive damage. There are many many situations where in conjunction with nearby defenses that they are actually bad for the team because they block line of sight for ai and provide good pushing cover for the enemy. When I've taught randoms I just talk to them and explain how line of sight works and if there are spaces available show good placement and show that barbed wire is necessary. However sometimes a sandbag is so bad you need to run it over or else it will sabotage the front instantaneously. For sandbags I think they are great for new fobs within 5m with wire on the outside to protect new spawns, they are good fire walls for teams that have high explosive capability, they are good for flanks and keeping areas out of ai control covered, also great bullet shields for atty crews. When vets see sandbags they just instantly go for the truck because there are many incidents where sandbags are not helpful

2
HroppaOP•

Yes, agree, they either need to explain things better or make things more intuitive. My proposal is one way to make it more intuitive.

2
MrSierra125•

All that needs to change is to allow barbed wire to be added to connector trenches, to the butt end of trenches and maybe even to top of trench bunkers. Then they would work perfectly.

2
Bawstahn123•

"How to make trenches better"

Add fire-steps, like what "real" trenches had, to prevent the enemy from getting equal use out of them.

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/trench-firepower.jpg

Solves the problem almost-entirely.

6
LBU_Johnny_Utah:Colonial:•

Trenches are pointless by themselves.

Trenches with bunkers/garrisons on the ends facing the enemy is what you want. Enemy cant go inside your garrisons. And its hard for them to get into bunkers as well.

5
HroppaOP•

Agreed. But what happens when someone adds several extra trenches to your perfectly designed, small bunker?

By increasing the upkeep, they've (unknowingly) sabotaged it.

6
LBU_Johnny_Utah:Colonial:•

So its more of a gs/upkeep problem than trench problem.

This isnt really new. Before a while back I put up a 140m perimeter wall around a town with gunnests and AT outside it. Huge upkeep for GS. Well when I was sleeping someone came by and built a line of barbwire on the inside of the wall effectivley doubling my GS upkeep. Now it was easier to remove than other things but its just the problem with it being an mmo. Its not yours. But yes you built it and want to upkeep it to serve its purpose. Its just hard to implement something that cant be misused by a griefer.

6
HroppaOP•

Yes, it's a gs/upkeep problem.

If it was a case of stopping griefers, that would be one thing.

But this is a case where trenches have NO purpose defensively - there is no right way to use them! (Better just to have bunkers.) So it's not about stopping griefers, it's about removing a trap for well-meaning noobs.

3
pte_noob_BeZi :Colonial:•

#1 for removing problem of a well-meaning noobs trap is GOOD, UPDATED and stickied around various community platforms (like seriously you shouldn't have to look for it, it should be almost everywhere easily accessible) community driven guide (finally a chance for both factions to cooperate >:D).

2
arcorax•

I've seen trenches used effectivitly as a defensive tool. Sure, it requires someone to actually know how to build them to prevent attackers from being able to get in them and mow defenders down, but it can happen.

1
KaiserKoko•

please come up with a way of removing trench husks without so much hassle. its frustrating when someone builds a size 29 bunker right at the front and the husk is huge!

5
TheAstronautPug[82DK-M] :Warden:•

Allow trench husks to be filled in using a shovel, easy!

8
KaiserKoko•

if only that was possible we would have the mightiest of bunkers

3
Carefulrogue[PUG]•

Before anything else, I will assert trenches have been neglected in the meta building, due to dislike of them since introduction to before the present update went live. There does not appear to be a solid understanding of how to deploy them effectively in either capacity before this update.

Trenches provide cover for attackers, as much as they provide cover for defenders

Neutral structures be neutral. The same goes for sandbags, walls, landmines, and wire. What makes the difference is how they are setup.

Often attackers will get the 'first move', until defenders spawn in response, so in effect attackers often get to use 'defensive' trenches more than defenders!

  1. This is presuming it's an empty, or effectively abandoned zone lacking active defenses to cover the trench lines dug as part of a previous active defense, or in preparation for something to come. While they exist, I would expect to face a great deal of rifle garrisons in addition to foxholes and similar AI delaying weapons that require destruction to ensure the safety of a push (even inactive, rifle garrisons and foxholes are bad news when manned by a handful of defenders.)

A trenchline dug 1, without AI, 2, without present vigilant players, and 3, setup in such a way to facilitate easy infiltration SHOULD be destroyed with prejudice to avoid these very circumstances.

Even worse, they cost your team resources (bunker supplies) in upkeep!

Simple solution: don't connect them to a bunker. I can do the handshake and award ceremony tomorrow if that's alright.

Tactically, of course, the vets are correct - trenches are bad defences, so the vets are justified in destroying the trenches.

You are being all too assertive here that this is indeed the case, when it is not so simple. I would argue most vets with visceral dislike of trenches don't have a good idea why, only vague premonitions about what features make a bad trench line based on dozens of hours of combat in and out of trenches. This does not add up to a short 4 word assertion.

I have seen excellent lines, and ones so bad they are only fit for being latrines. I can recognize certain features that make one good or bad, but I cannot explain how to set one up that will definitively meet the the demands of combat.

This would be quite appropriate in an 18th century game, but not in a 20th century one.

This is false. That is a belief or understanding that makes sense only if you focus in on the detail that is focused on by, effectively all resources pertaining to the modern era's utilization of trenches, as "defensive." What a trench does is provide protection against fire. That feature is useful in both defense and offense. This feature of trenches is more akin to siege warfare and assorted tactics, a degree of separation that is far enough to make searches pertaining to the topic just painful enough that a fair number of folks won't investigate further.

Trenches should be upkeep-free when attached to ... a bunker base with a Small Garrison.

This is untenable and fixes nothing. The reason decay exists is due to the limitation of server resources. Eliminating it for a subclass of constructs would only result in the semi-permanent tie up of additional resources that need not be, without real thought being put into assessments of worth in conjunction with the cost of preventing entropy.

It also doesn't make dumb trenches any less dumb.

5
arcorax•

Decay could be implemented better though. There should be a hierarchy of decay where decay doesn't start effecting on class of structure until structure in a lower hierarchy are decayed away. For instance, trench husks should decay away before actual trenches along with empty boxes and sandbags. By implementing a decay system like this, decay could still effectively keep the game clean, whe leaving the most important structures around for a long time.

3
HroppaOP•

Simple solution: don't connect them to a bunker.

Maybe? I've heard mixed views on how bunker supplies work - half of the people I ask say it just acts like garrison supplies, supplying all bunkers in range, even if disconnected. Haven't been able to test comprehensively.

most vets with visceral dislike of trenches don't have a good idea why

So if vets don't understand trenches, this doesn't bode well for noobs! As far as I can tell, we agree that trenches only make sense defensively when they support a bunker line... but even then they're far less important than the bunker itself (which is typically providing the AI).

2
Carefulrogue[PUG]•

To my knowledge there are no concrete principles defined anywhere, outside of the too vague to be useful "ensure trenches help allies over the enemy."

Trenches are interesting because the core element of their design is that they create terrain in a way other structures in the past have not. Sure, you can shelter behind sandbags, but you can't dig sandbags towards the enemy at zero cost. This fact has some rather serious implications that haven't been tackled yet. How trenches now interact with existing terrain and map features become important, and how to maximize them more so.

I have considered only some of these details lightly. I do not have the free time to figure out and debate each rule of trench design in grand detail.

3
aegis2293•

Trenches are fine, they just need to be horizontal, with AI defense and garrison support. Building one long straight trench straight at the enemy is what annoys me. It doesn't work, it's never worked, and people keep doing it.

2
MrSierra125•

It does work some times. When you deliberately build a trench knowing you have oversight of it and when you know the enemies will pack into it with w false sense of security. Only to be shot and Naded by defenders on a higher position.

Also when you point them at the enemy and have a rifle garrison or even a bunker with firing ports facing the kill zone.

Another way to ensure it doesn’t get used against you is to add ramps facing your sides territory as that is a gaping target for grenades for the defenders and an awkward firing position for the attackers.

Yes they have flaws but those flaws can be exploited by a wise trench boi with his trusty spade.

2
And_Being•

How about we require a bunker to be dug and make the trenches extensions much like how the doors work? That way you dont have trenches on their own?

2
MrSierra125•

Also adding doors that can be barred and only opened from the inside would be good.

Or the ability to add barbed wire over bunkers.

2
Gigi666667•

Trenches gameplay makes no sense, like a lot of things in this game :D It's well done technically, it looks pretty, but it's absurd :D

I think, for fix that, make them cost Bmat and have them shoot automatically like foxholes, but I wouldn't know how to do that visually. Basically, making them work like other def buildings, with advantages and disadvantages compared to a foxhole ( many players can use it for protection, but they are not completely safe in it. )

Anyway, developers don't care about gameplay, they just like to add cool looking things and complete technical challenges :D

-3
MrSierra125•

That would overpower them and they would be spammed on offensives. As it is now with rifle garrisons it works well as you have to build a sizeable base and use the AI defensively.

1