Login

russian armor

Rethinking Sandbags, Tank Traps and Barbed Wire

26 Jun 2019, 23:03 PM
#1
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

"A bag of sand's the best way to stop a bullet!"

Company of Heroes has always been a game that focuses on the more nuanced play and interactions between infantry squads fighting. Rather than being a game of sheer DPS and numbers, CoH has many mechanics that make it unique and interesting. Suppression, unit range and directional cover are the core of infantry combat in the game. Today, I'd like to talk about the importance of buildable cover and why I think all factions in CoH 2 and future CoH games should be able to construct the 3 basic types of entrenchments (sandbags, barbed wire and tank traps) with their core infantry units and engineer units and why I think it improves unit interactions and overall gameplay. I will also talk about what I think these three basic entrenchments should do and not do.

All core infantry should be able to build sandbags, all engineers should be able to build sandbags, barbed wire and tank traps. The first reason for this is just better immersion and realism. Digging in is the core principle of defending a position and is the fourth most important thing on a professional infantryman's list of things to do while establishing a position. In the world of CoH, it should actually be the first most important thing, because the first three don't apply to the game! SAFE-SOC is the acronym the US Marines use as a guide for setting up defensive positions starting with (S)Security, which is setting up lookouts, (A)Avenues of approach/Automatic weapons, which is where do you put the Squad Automatic Weapons (BARs or BRENs or LMG42s), and (F)Field of Fire, which is where are your limits of shooting for each man to prevent friendly fire. So going down the list you quickly realize that S, A and F don't work in CoH, but (E) for Entrenching does, making it our top priority in the game, so it is crazy that many basic infantry units cannot actually do this, while others can.

Now, let's talk about gameplay, because lots of you don't care about real tactics and just want to play the game and have fun. Sandbags laid by infantry allow you to spend time as a resource. Currently the best thing to do if you win a fight and the enemy retreats is usually to immediately push forward and try to take territory to gain points or space to fall back over. If you can build basic defenses like sandbags, you can instead choose to invest your time into building up your position so that you win the next battle in the same spot, and since heavy cover provides such a bonus to damage taken you can leave fewer units behind to defend an area that you have built up allowing you to send other units to other parts of the map. In this sense being able to build cover actually encourages the defender to do more maneuvering with their forces since they can stick one squad behind heavy cover anywhere they have time to build it allowing that lone squad to hold out against a superior force a little bit longer. It also encourages the attacking player to maneuver more because they cannot just count on brining a BAR or LMG blob forward to outshoot the enemy blob. Now players must invest in cover counters instead of just more and more LMG infantry. So while at first glance it might look like more sandbags equals more infantry with LMGs, I think that it will actually encourage more diverse builds to counter entrenched units.

But what should the three types of basic entrenchments do? They should manipulate the environment to either deny movement (tank traps and barbed wire), or provide protection (sandbags). Where CoH 2 currently gets this wrong is that some of them do both. Sandbags and barbed wire are just fine how they are, but tank traps should not provide heavy cover. Tank traps should stop the movement of all vehicular units, but still be passable by infantry, but the infantry passing through them shouldn't gain cover from it. Building tank traps should be a conscious decision to interfere with vehicular unit movement. Currently they are really only used to give cover on capture points by rear echelon squads and don't fit their intended role. Remove the heavy cover bonus from tank traps and they return to their intended role. Barbed wire is fine, it stops infantry but is crushable by vehicles. Perfect. Sandbags are also fine, they provide directional heavy cover that can be crushed, blown up, jumped over or simply flanked. Also perfect.

In closing the entrenching system in CoH needs an overhaul, but the good news is that it's an easy thing to do. Digging in is core to warfighting and it promotes better gameplay. Each type of entrenchment should only do one thing, not multiple things and every faction should be able to do it.

So give the grunts back their shovels and let's get digging men!
27 Jun 2019, 00:06 AM
#2
avatar of Sp33dSnake

Posts: 149

My main problem is it takes too long to lay sandbags/barbed wire/traps, unless I have two dedicated engineers to it, (which I don't).
27 Jun 2019, 01:35 AM
#3
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

Completely disagree about core infantry being able to build green cover. It devalues positioning and the importance of actual cover. It was okay when conscripts were the only ones to do it because they were poop, but volks and brits being able to always be in green cover is really cancerous.

Too late to change it now, but in CoH3 they need to avoid this.
27 Jun 2019, 05:21 AM
#4
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

I think it’d be good if mainline units could build yellow cover, and engineer units could build green cover. I agree with the tank traps - no cover thing
27 Jun 2019, 06:11 AM
#5
avatar of tightrope
Senior Caster Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2019, 01:35 AMTobis
Completely disagree about core infantry being able to build green cover. It devalues positioning and the importance of actual cover. It was okay when conscripts were the only ones to do it because they were poop, but volks and brits being able to always be in green cover is really cancerous.

Too late to change it now, but in CoH3 they need to avoid this.


I agree I feel like sandbags on volks and tommies are a mistake.
27 Jun 2019, 10:18 AM
#6
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2019, 01:35 AMTobis
Completely disagree about core infantry being able to build green cover. It devalues positioning and the importance of actual cover. It was okay when conscripts were the only ones to do it because they were poop, but volks and brits being able to always be in green cover is really cancerous.

Too late to change it now, but in CoH3 they need to avoid this.


Is it?

I think this is a large part of why Section Spam and Volks Spam are so powerful: they can merrily build green cover on your cutoff. Imagine four Section Squads trying to cram around one abandoned truck.

Removing the Sandbags from Volks and Sections is easily within the capabilities of the mod tools. Removing Sandbags from Volks and Sections and adding them to every Engineer unit could well be an improvement to the game we have now. Given how strong cover building is, it might even diversify build orders a bit.
27 Jun 2019, 10:50 AM
#7
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Imo:
Sandbag on mainline infatry is bad and should be removed (unless they are weak). (I have pointed out that many year ago.)

If they are available to mainlines they should be very slow to built.

For tank traps as I have suggested several changes:
increase built time
reduce size so they can not easily be hit by ballistic weapon
chance cover to yellow
allow certain units to dismantle them
increase damage to them by specialized vehicles like avre, ST, Brumbar
27 Jun 2019, 13:07 PM
#8
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

It looks like I’m in the minority on this one, but I do think the core function of being able to trade time for better defensive positioning is a good thing in general.

To address those who say that putting sandbags on all core infantry would hurt the use of actual in game cover, I would say that that could just be addressed by adjusting build times and strength of build able cover.

A stone or brick wall can still be the best cover, but if none is available, you can still make you own.

Cover usage and cover manipulation is key to the infantry play, and I think buildable cover is a big part of that.

All of that being said, would any of the nay-sayers change their minds if I suggested that engineer units should all be able to build the three basic entrenchments?

And does anyone disagree with my assessment on why tank traps shouldn’t give cover?
27 Jun 2019, 14:40 PM
#9
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

I like your realistic approach to infantry warfare but sadly as you have guessed it, it's not for this forums' liking.

And in reality, it wouldn't make sense for infantrymen pull sandbags out of their pants and start stacking, most were equipped with only a shovel so digging a foxhole or shallow trench of some sort for a lightly dug in position would make more sense.

I had an idea of giving all infantry units the ability to "dig" foxholes which were going to be represented by explosion crater splats but my idea kinda fell through when I didn't really know how exactly to implement it sadly, or how it would work for a 5 or 6 man squad.

It would make sense and give infantry light cover at the very least tho.
27 Jun 2019, 14:53 PM
#10
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

I think it’d be good if mainline units could build yellow cover, and engineer units could build green cover. I agree with the tank traps - no cover thing


This sounds like a good idea actually. Even though I dont really care about the tank traps.
27 Jun 2019, 15:42 PM
#11
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

I like your realistic approach to infantry warfare but sadly as you have guessed it, it's not for this forums' liking.

And in reality, it wouldn't make sense for infantrymen pull sandbags out of their pants and start stacking, most were equipped with only a shovel so digging a foxhole or shallow trench of some sort for a lightly dug in position would make more sense.

I had an idea of giving all infantry units the ability to "dig" foxholes which were going to be represented by explosion crater splats but my idea kinda fell through when I didn't really know how exactly to implement it sadly, or how it would work for a 5 or 6 man squad.

It would make sense and give infantry light cover at the very least tho.


You’re right about pockets full of sandbags. Lol

But the limitations of the game and map environment make sandbags the next best thing.

I would never build a sandbag wall in real life. That’s just stupid. It’s a big obvious sign that says “hey, we are over here! Please shoot us when we poke our heads up!” But that being said, you can’t dig foxholes in the street and it’s much easier for you to have a game render a wall on top of flat ground instead of digging a hole. So sandbags are already a compromise in terms of realism.

Another but (I I do love a good but), if players thing sandbags on infantry is OP or unrealistic, then don’t let ANY infantry build ANY type of cover, but let every factions engineer units build all of it. Rear Echelon Troops, Combat Engineers, Pioneers, Sturm Pioneers, Royal Engineers and Assault Engineers should all be able to build sandbags, barbed wire and (no cover granting) tank traps. The specialized entrenchments like trenches, bunkers, fighting positions and conscript sandbag walls should still remain unique to each faction in their use, but also be locked to the engineer units, with the exception perhaps of conscript sandbag walls.
27 Jun 2019, 16:53 PM
#12
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

At a bare minimum it should be consistent. Conscripts can keep their unique Barricade structure, but if Volks and Sections can build bags, Grenadiers and Riflemen should be able to too.

I'd personally favour removing bags from Sections and Volks, and adding them to Sturmpioneers, Rear Echelon Troops, Combat Engineers and Royal Engineers.
27 Jun 2019, 17:15 PM
#13
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2019, 16:53 PMLago
At a bare minimum it should be consistent. Conscripts can keep their unique Barricade structure, but if Volks and Sections can build bags, Grenadiers and Riflemen should be able to too.

I'd personally favour removing bags from Sections and Volks, and adding them to Sturmpioneers, Rear Echelon Troops, Combat Engineers and Royal Engineers.


I totally agree. Consistency is the most important part.

But the consistency should be twofold;

Consistency in that all basic unit types have the same core abilities. Sandbags or no sandbags on all core infantry for example. Either everyone should have it or no one should have it.

But also consistency from faction to faction. All five factions should have access, non doctrinally, to the ability to place sandbags, wire and tank traps on the same type of unit.

So what I’m hearing is that most players want to see sandbags, wire and tank traps normalized across all factions, but also want sandbags remover from all basic infantry.

So remove sandbags, trenches, bunkers and all other entrenchments from basic infantry across all factions and give sandbags, barbed wire and tank traps to all core engineer units.
27 Jun 2019, 17:54 PM
#14
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Trenches and bunkers can stay, they're buildings with costs.
27 Jun 2019, 18:04 PM
#15
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2019, 17:54 PMLago
Trenches and bunkers can stay, they're buildings with costs.


Good point, but I’m not sure if I fully agree.

All of them have a cost already, and that’s the time it takes to build them.

The time cost of building sandbags is why I think they can still work on all basic infantry. If too many sandbags get laid down by your infantry, then you’re wasting time putting them there. Conversely, if you’re complaining about having people digging in on your cutoff, then you’re the one who used your time poorly to let them have enough time to dig in in the first place.

But my main point is that time is a resource and if entrenching is too powerful on all infantry, then it can be adjusted by adjusting cost, or in this case time to build.
27 Jun 2019, 18:12 PM
#16
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2019, 17:54 PMLago
Trenches and bunkers can stay, they're buildings with costs.

?
trenches have no cost
27 Jun 2019, 18:40 PM
#17
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

Excuse the offtopic post but I just wanted to smuggle these in since trenches are being mentioned.





Both are brilliantly made by Widerstreit, first one he meant as a rework for normal trenches, second one you could make trench lines ala WW1 which we thought would be best used for the Eastern Front Armies since they had a fair amount of trenches there, especially around the Kurks area. They could double up as anti-tank ditches since they allow the movement of vehicles over them but slow them down significantly.

Also another note, these trenches provide the same Green cover as other objects but the trenches themselves provide a damage reduction debuff of sorts, I forgot what exactly he told me he put them, so think of it as Green cover on steroids where it's around 30 or so % better than regular Green cover.
27 Jun 2019, 19:46 PM
#18
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

If I was freestyling ideas for mainline infantry I'd propose a "dig in" ability where, with a build timer, mainlines can put themselves into yellow cover BUT it is at the cost of being stationary.

Basically a weaker version of hit the dirt where they just get an RA bonus that once you move is lost permanently until you "dig in" again.

This would also stop later infantry from using pre-built yellow cover.
27 Jun 2019, 19:47 PM
#19
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

Excuse the offtopic post but I just wanted to smuggle these in since trenches are being mentioned.





Both are brilliantly made by Widerstreit, first one he meant as a rework for normal trenches, second one you could make trench lines ala WW1 which we thought would be best used for the Eastern Front Armies since they had a fair amount of trenches there, especially around the Kurks area. They could double up as anti-tank ditches since they allow the movement of vehicles over them but slow them down significantly.

Also another note, these trenches provide the same Green cover as other objects but the trenches themselves provide a damage reduction debuff of sorts, I forgot what exactly he told me he put them, so think of it as Green cover on steroids where it's around 30 or so % better than regular Green cover.



Very cool, but it also highlights exactly why regular sandbags are the best way to implement buildable cover. Can’t dig a foxhole in a street, but you can stack sandbags there. Lol
27 Jun 2019, 19:51 PM
#20
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484



I agree I feel like sandbags on volks and tommies are a mistake.


Its definitely a mistake to give them to Tommy especially when they get extra rate of fire behind green cover.
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

925 users are online: 925 guests
0 post in the last 24h
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49432
Welcome our newest member, weekprophecy
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM