Honestly I don't understand people's hate of trenches. Build them if you are attacking a fortified area or defending in general. They give great cover and if you build them right grenades and artillery become pretty avoidable. Really it's just down to if your building a trench build it right. Don't make a straight line, ____|---|____, is the correct way. That way grenades can be avoided and if it's attacked you can't spray down the corridor. Next is to build a fall back line. If you are weak enough to lose a trench then make darn sure they can't mow you down on the flat behind it. Build a connecting fallback trench a little farther back so that way you have defense in depth and a way to hold/push the one you lost. However there is one very acceptable time to not build a trench and that is when one is on the low ground.
You gotta make sure the trench can't be used by the enemy.
If you have a trench infront of your AI defenses enemies can jump in and attack the AI without it firing back.. I think this is why people get in trouble building trenches most of the time.
I disagree completely. First, there are no defensive and offensive trenches. Trenches have no faction. It depends who is in them. Lot of times there's base a and base b and piece of land between them where soldiers run to reach the other base or a frontline. Whatever haphazard trenches are there will be used by both sides. This happens all the time. Also trench near your base especially if not covered by ai is a big no no. Again, enemy will get into in probably at night and harras your soldiers trying to get to the front, effectively potentialy creating a new frontline right at your base. Trenches around roads will be used by anti tank infantry bcs tank battles happen on roads mostly. Tanking at night around trenches is a nightmare.
You are also presuming that if one side digs a trench the trench will be occupied by friendlies. Thats not what happens most of the time. The front will move and the trench becomes no mans land, ready to be occupied by enemy. If you are defending a base with ai with good coverage over the trenches, then maybe. As an extenstion of the base. Otherwise, just err on side of caution and dont dig trenches on the front.
First, I dont assume it will be held by friendlies, hence why I said the fallback trench that's connected so if the first is overtaken you can still hold the enemy back. Second, there is an offensive and defensive trench and both have their purpose and have been used extensively in modern war and quite well by people in foxhole if you use them as I said. Third, I never said build them by your base unless you actively defending it and then it should be a defense in depth with multiple rows of trenches.
If a front moves then yes you can destroy the trench or you can do the simple thing and actually use them when you get pushed back. If the enemy takes it then you should have already been defending it unless the enemy magically wraps around you without being spotted. Trenches should absolutely be used on the front because if you get pushed back a trench is the best defense. A good trench makes grenades and artys impact much less dangerous and as you put it, does its job by making it dangerous for enemy tanks (Allied tanks should have the advantage).
To put it simply, trenches are the best defense if you actually build then right. They can give you a great forward operating position so troops can join the front and don't have to worry about arty while also allowing a solid line that is easy to defend. And since everyone is sooo afraid of enemy's in your trench there is a thing called a fallback. This way its connected and you can still hold the enemy, and have a way to retake it that's much easier than running across the top.
Thats so many "if" and "should" I got lost in them. The problem with your theories is that in practice it usually doesnt work out that way. Seems to me like lot of theorycrafting. The reality doesnt follow rulebooks sometimes. The potential benefits overweigh potential dangers imhho.
You say "if you build them correctly". Ppl usually dont know how to do that. So in general they shouldnt.
All of the comments against trenches are ifs though. Even a crappy trench is still a great tool of defence. There is no good reason to not use a trench. It also does work in practice as I've seen it all the time
As close as you can get them to enemy structures while providing sufficient cover from AI and close enough that your team can use explosive from the trench on the enemy structures. As soon as the targeted structure is dealt with the trench should be removed immediately.
What you have to understand is that trenches are neutral. Usually, haphazardly placed trenches on the battlefield will lead to unnecessary chokepoints where infantry will get stuck and try to shoot each other or gass each other out etc. This stops one side from fast offensive movements and flank attacks, bcs it severly restricts armor movement. Not bcs they wouldnt be able to cross, but bcs every trench is a potential enemy with an at weapon.
Also, trenches in no man's land are empty as a default, giving both sides the opportunity to flank behind enemy line and distrupt their advance. If you are attacking and gaining ground, what is the point of doing that? You are just giving the other side an option to counter you.
Trenches are also perfect for pve action against even the toughest concrete bunker defences. You need just few guys with an mg to suppress and few guys with cutlers etc. A perfect way to do that is to hide in a trench.
Other thing, even if there is the barbed wire addition, anyone can remove that with just few bmats. So again, abandoned trench is enemy trench.
Also ppl spend time digging trenches that could be better spent supporting armor against at infantry for example. Instead, some Cpl. will be digging a trench that will have enemy soldier in it with a Bane in 5 minutes. It's just not worth the effort and risks to build trenches on the battlefield.
Unless you are sure you won't get run out of them somehow. Which is rare in my opinion. If you have that overwhelming power while attacking a base, rarely I've seen ppl digging trenches.
Eh I only like trenches if sufficiently defended by AI. Typically this means if the trench is hugging the BB’s defences. Mousetrap had a good trench placement, hugging the defences with tona of barbed wire. Otherwise not worth it. Foxholes though ARE worth it if you’re doing a push. Defensive foxholes are never worth it.
But in practice the enemy will kill you after you dig them and occupy them and you will have to root them out of there. And that's the problem. Is that worth the hassle?
As siege lines to get infantry into hammering range of bunkers. Away from your actual bunker, between the enemy bunkers, to bog down infantry so that they don’t do anything meaningful and just spend hours playing trenchhole.
Bruh the game is called entrenched, if you are not digging you should go play something else tbh. (Also i would like to put explosives on trenches as a insurance in case the enemy takes it Devs please).
Its the name of the recent update, wtf r u talking about. There were trenches long b4 the update. The Entrenched Warfare or whatever is just the update that upgraded trenches and their use
Everywhere, as much as possible.
Ppl will take you seriously...
Honestly I don't understand people's hate of trenches. Build them if you are attacking a fortified area or defending in general. They give great cover and if you build them right grenades and artillery become pretty avoidable. Really it's just down to if your building a trench build it right. Don't make a straight line, ____|---|____, is the correct way. That way grenades can be avoided and if it's attacked you can't spray down the corridor. Next is to build a fall back line. If you are weak enough to lose a trench then make darn sure they can't mow you down on the flat behind it. Build a connecting fallback trench a little farther back so that way you have defense in depth and a way to hold/push the one you lost. However there is one very acceptable time to not build a trench and that is when one is on the low ground.
You gotta make sure the trench can't be used by the enemy. If you have a trench infront of your AI defenses enemies can jump in and attack the AI without it firing back.. I think this is why people get in trouble building trenches most of the time.
I disagree completely. First, there are no defensive and offensive trenches. Trenches have no faction. It depends who is in them. Lot of times there's base a and base b and piece of land between them where soldiers run to reach the other base or a frontline. Whatever haphazard trenches are there will be used by both sides. This happens all the time. Also trench near your base especially if not covered by ai is a big no no. Again, enemy will get into in probably at night and harras your soldiers trying to get to the front, effectively potentialy creating a new frontline right at your base. Trenches around roads will be used by anti tank infantry bcs tank battles happen on roads mostly. Tanking at night around trenches is a nightmare. You are also presuming that if one side digs a trench the trench will be occupied by friendlies. Thats not what happens most of the time. The front will move and the trench becomes no mans land, ready to be occupied by enemy. If you are defending a base with ai with good coverage over the trenches, then maybe. As an extenstion of the base. Otherwise, just err on side of caution and dont dig trenches on the front.
The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make a friend.
First, I dont assume it will be held by friendlies, hence why I said the fallback trench that's connected so if the first is overtaken you can still hold the enemy back. Second, there is an offensive and defensive trench and both have their purpose and have been used extensively in modern war and quite well by people in foxhole if you use them as I said. Third, I never said build them by your base unless you actively defending it and then it should be a defense in depth with multiple rows of trenches. If a front moves then yes you can destroy the trench or you can do the simple thing and actually use them when you get pushed back. If the enemy takes it then you should have already been defending it unless the enemy magically wraps around you without being spotted. Trenches should absolutely be used on the front because if you get pushed back a trench is the best defense. A good trench makes grenades and artys impact much less dangerous and as you put it, does its job by making it dangerous for enemy tanks (Allied tanks should have the advantage). To put it simply, trenches are the best defense if you actually build then right. They can give you a great forward operating position so troops can join the front and don't have to worry about arty while also allowing a solid line that is easy to defend. And since everyone is sooo afraid of enemy's in your trench there is a thing called a fallback. This way its connected and you can still hold the enemy, and have a way to retake it that's much easier than running across the top.
Thats so many "if" and "should" I got lost in them. The problem with your theories is that in practice it usually doesnt work out that way. Seems to me like lot of theorycrafting. The reality doesnt follow rulebooks sometimes. The potential benefits overweigh potential dangers imhho. You say "if you build them correctly". Ppl usually dont know how to do that. So in general they shouldnt.
All of the comments against trenches are ifs though. Even a crappy trench is still a great tool of defence. There is no good reason to not use a trench. It also does work in practice as I've seen it all the time
As close as you can get them to enemy structures while providing sufficient cover from AI and close enough that your team can use explosive from the trench on the enemy structures. As soon as the targeted structure is dealt with the trench should be removed immediately.
Expanding on that, you should never upgrade trenches to T2 because you can’t fill in or easily destroy T2 trenches
What you have to understand is that trenches are neutral. Usually, haphazardly placed trenches on the battlefield will lead to unnecessary chokepoints where infantry will get stuck and try to shoot each other or gass each other out etc. This stops one side from fast offensive movements and flank attacks, bcs it severly restricts armor movement. Not bcs they wouldnt be able to cross, but bcs every trench is a potential enemy with an at weapon. Also, trenches in no man's land are empty as a default, giving both sides the opportunity to flank behind enemy line and distrupt their advance. If you are attacking and gaining ground, what is the point of doing that? You are just giving the other side an option to counter you. Trenches are also perfect for pve action against even the toughest concrete bunker defences. You need just few guys with an mg to suppress and few guys with cutlers etc. A perfect way to do that is to hide in a trench. Other thing, even if there is the barbed wire addition, anyone can remove that with just few bmats. So again, abandoned trench is enemy trench. Also ppl spend time digging trenches that could be better spent supporting armor against at infantry for example. Instead, some Cpl. will be digging a trench that will have enemy soldier in it with a Bane in 5 minutes. It's just not worth the effort and risks to build trenches on the battlefield. Unless you are sure you won't get run out of them somehow. Which is rare in my opinion. If you have that overwhelming power while attacking a base, rarely I've seen ppl digging trenches.
Eh I only like trenches if sufficiently defended by AI. Typically this means if the trench is hugging the BB’s defences. Mousetrap had a good trench placement, hugging the defences with tona of barbed wire. Otherwise not worth it. Foxholes though ARE worth it if you’re doing a push. Defensive foxholes are never worth it.
Best use of them I see is offensively to creep towards enemy static defenses for infantry to be able to damage them from a safe defensible position.
But in practice the enemy will kill you after you dig them and occupy them and you will have to root them out of there. And that's the problem. Is that worth the hassle?
Then enemy will gain a few meters of ground. But if you take it back, you will gain all the ground between that trenchline and your base
As siege lines to get infantry into hammering range of bunkers. Away from your actual bunker, between the enemy bunkers, to bog down infantry so that they don’t do anything meaningful and just spend hours playing trenchhole.
Bruh the game is called entrenched, if you are not digging you should go play something else tbh. (Also i would like to put explosives on trenches as a insurance in case the enemy takes it Devs please).
Its the name of the recent update, wtf r u talking about. There were trenches long b4 the update. The Entrenched Warfare or whatever is just the update that upgraded trenches and their use