Forums

I noticed you can patrol and dig in at the same time. Is this correct from a real life point of view?

Hmm.. probably not. From a game play / play balance perspective, it promotes unrealistic "no brainer" decisions where you may as well dig in when you decide to patrol or vice versa.

Actually, I would think yes, unless you were sending most of your unit on patrol. I've been in companies that would send one squad per platoon on patrol while the rest dug in.

Given OJW's point (which is, in my experience, the norm rather than an exception), and given that currently in-game units can fire, or engineers blow AT ditches, and dig in concurrently, I'd say the answer is 'sure, why not?'

I didn't notice that the original question was addressed to 'real life point of view'. Yes, as OJW said, an infantry company can certainly fortify while conducting additional low intensity tasks. That said, I was looking at it purely from a game play perspective.

Digging in has been an 'either or' situation where a unit cannot dig in and choose to do another task unless it comes with a penalty (such as firing). This maintains a balance in game play so that the user has a clear incentive or a reason to choose not to dig in in certain cases. Since a fortifying unit is penalized with a reduced fire rating, my original observation is that if a unit is not further penalized (either an additional penalty to fire value to represent the further displacement of combat power, or a penalty to the probability a successful patrol), then it does not provide a realistic incentive to the user to make a conscious decision not to dig in while the user has a unit patrolling (or vice versa). If digging in and patrolling already carries a cumulative penalty with it (actually, I am not aware if it does or does not), then I would agree with the situation.

It is very realistic, and is part of the security maintained by a unit at all times, usually only about 1/2 to 1/3 of soldiers are digging in, everyone else is on security (static or patrol), conducting maintainance or rest.

What I find interesting is why most game setup I get form players, the patrol optional rule is not used. Is there a reason for this? I thought the optional partol rule was very realistic.

Zemke Wrote:What I find interesting is why most game setup I get form players, the patrol optional rule is not used. Is there a reason for this? I thought the optional partol rule was very realistic.

Are you thinking of a different optional rule? I am not aware of an optional patrol rule, at least I sure can't think of it and would swear that I began using it in the middle of games I was playing as soon as the patrol rule was added.

Rick

Patroling is a game featur - not an optional rule.

As for beng able to patrol AND do something else like dig in, this was never really discussed when it was implemented so I can't say it is a "design feature", but neiter is it a bug really.

Patroling was designed and tested a a way to counter patrisans in Minsk. But it appears to have an interesting effect in games without Partisans andtat is fine too. But if the abilty to Patrol AND do something else is a problem, AND it can be shown in a actual game file, then we can look at it again and see if some either\logic is required.

But for now it is an interesting discussion point - a place where a possible adjustment could be made if we had a proper case for it. We'll keep looking at the thread with an opened mind and see where the discussion leads us.

Glenn

Zemke Wrote:What I find interesting is why most game setup I get form players, the patrol optional rule is not used. Is there a reason for this? I thought the optional partol rule was very realistic.

I believe you're thinking of 'Recon Spotting'