Shouldn't barbwire cost 5,6 ,or 7 and not 10?

[TeAcH]

I mean minfields cost ten and I would say they took much more material and expertise to setup.

When playing a quickbattle on defense, seems like the defender should be given these at a better rate.

Dunno. Just seems a little to high, but what do I know.

TeAcH

[KiwiJoe]

Yes... i think more like 3 points. You really need a decent amout of it to be useful.

[MadmaN]

yeah they should be about 5. but then if someone had 100 pts left, he could fill the entire width of the map with barb wire. i guess they're high to keep that from happening.

[TeAcH]

I see the point but I am still of the opinion that they are too high.

I mean, Let me spend 100 on 20 barbed wire if I want too. Perhaps there is a good reason why they are the same price as minefields. Dunno.

TeAcH

[Gunny Bunny]

It is hard to justify 10 points for barbwire when all means is a slow down or avoidance of that area.

I would rather take the landmines at least I may KIA something, rather than just slow them down.

Cheaper barbwire would be good to funnel troops into a certain point where you have your land mines.

Thx

GB

[PeterNZer]

Yeah, i am inclined to agree

And besides, who doesn't like building complex defensive networks?

PeterNZ

------------------

"What do I care, I got laid last week" - Chupacabra

"Bjorn again are really quite good!" - Germanboy

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem and Croda -

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

Originally posted by Gunny Bunny:

It is hard to justify 10 points for barbwire when all means is a slow down or avoidance of that area.

Are you slow? You just justified the 10 points.

------------------

shadow@jagdtiger.de

Canada For CM

I AM CANADIAN!

Eh?

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

Double post

[This message has been edited by Shadow 1st Hussars (edited 03-04-2001).]

[BlackVoid]

At 10pts they are not worth it. In more than 70 QBs, I have seen barbed wire only once.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

They should probably be 5-8. I already pretend that is the cost when balancing scenarios. At the present 10 point cost, I buy AP mines instead, in my own point-limited battles.

And yes, that means if someone gives up one platoon from his defense, he can take wire obstacles that will cover much of his front. It was often done.

In fact, improved defenses often had wire along their length, plus added belts of it around key defensive positions, sometimes almost 360 around them with one narrow exit.

It does not cost much, and was measured in tons or miles rather than feet. The main work was laying it out (double aprons) or unrolling it (concertina), and staking it in. But a battalion or company of engineers could lay a lot of wire, faster than they could plant minefields certainly.

[Guest wwb_99]

Barbed wire is great against those gamey SMG rusher types. Just lay it out 75m in front of the objective. . .

WWB

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

At 10pts they are not worth it. In more than 70 QBs, I have seen barbed wire only once.

I'd buy a hell of a lot more of them, no matter what the cost, if I could see the map BEFORE purchasing.

But they are a good value IMO. The presence of any defensive works makes the opponent think "mines", and slows him down.

------------------

Out of commission, become a pillbox.

Out of ammo, become a bunker.

Out of time -- become heroes...

[Tiger]

10 points is about right for what it does. Typically if you set up a few strands of barbed wire and add some minefields and properly sighted heavy mgs, you've got one hell of a defensive strongpoint.

When I decide to use fortifications, even without seeing the map beforehand, I don't buy just a few. Typically I buy 10-15 anti-personnel minefields and 10-15 barbed wire, a few mg pillboxes, 1-2 AT minefields.

Then I purchase the infantry and support weapons to add to the mix. Tanks usually come last for me when I do this type of game.

Anyways, seeing what barbed wire used in conjunction with other fortifications and infantry support, I think 10 points is a good cost. You just can't expect to buy what you normally buy and then get a butt-load of barbed wire for nothing.

And seeing the map beforehand to let you now whether or not to use fortifications has no more justification than why you can not see the map for other units. You use what you have regardless, with all units in the game.

JMTCW,

-Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 03-04-2001).]

[TeAcH]

Thanks All. So Tiger, thanks for the comments but are you saying that you think barbed wire should cost the same as an AP or AT minefield?

If so, just curious, but how do you justify that? Enlighten me (not intending to be sarcastic here just curious).

Thanks,

TeAcH

[Degrees of Frost]

Originally posted by TeAcH:

Thanks All. So Tiger, thanks for the comments but are you saying that you think barbed wire should cost the same as an AP or AT minefield?

If so, just curious, but how do you justify that? Enlighten me (not intending to be sarcastic here just curious).

Well barbed wire can INDIRECTLY cause more casualties than AP mines.

Once a squad has committed itself to crossing barbed wire its %age exposure goes up enormously. In my experience exposure of a squad moving into AP minefield goes down as the infantry hit the dirt.

If you get your guys to open up on an opponents squad while it crossing wire you can cause many more casualties than a AP minefield could inflict. You can make an approach one that will require heavy commitment by your opponent - those scouting half squads may get tangled up crossing the wire and then be shot down in very short order.

The problem comes when you try to site your barbed wire in such a way that your opponent has to cross it to get to an objective.

Here's where I agree with Forever Babra - it would be much more valuable if you had a look at the map before picking your forces. Sometimes it very difficult to site barbed wire in positions where it may have any real impact on the course of the game.

Tiger, I would argue that most anything else is a bit more flexible than a couple of (5 or so) strings of barbed wire.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

At 10pts they are not worth it. In more than 70 QBs, I have seen barbed wire only once.

From those 70 Quick Battles were 69 of them Meeting Engagements?

Regards

Jim R.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The problem with the idea Tiger states of buying 300-500 points of field fortifications, is that it ignores the impact this has on the size of the defending force and the ratio of defenders to attackers.

I agree that field fortifications have to be bought in some numbers to have any effect. But the defensive plan Tiger outlined, is simply completely impractical on a defender's point budget. I will buy 1-3 AT mines and 8-10 AP mines, plus 1-3 TRPs, when using an infantry and gun defense, as the Germans. But that only costs 100-175 points, or 1/3rd the program he postulated. That is a difference of 1-2 defending infantry platoons, plus 3-4 light guns and/or an additional artillery module in support. And on the "business end", as far as I am concerned, I am getting most of the same fortification benefits he does.

We both have enough AT mines for one narrow roadblock, nothing more. We both have enough mines to create a shielded main blocking position. The difference is that he has wire and MG bunkers for the flanks - or alternative, spaced out wire and mines across the front instead of in one "block" ahead of the main infantry position. Several more light guns, platoons for those flanks, and artillery to break up concentrations on them, works much better in my experience, than some thinly covered strands of wire.

And the bunkers are useless. Half again the cost of HMG 42 teams, more easily spotted, and easily knocked out by any sort of direct HE fire. There is always some, in a fight with a defender's budget this big.

Another way to look at this, is the effect on the odds match up. Fortification costs are deducted from the defenders "100%", while the attacker has "150%". If a defender spends 25% of his points on fortifications, he faces odds in combat units of 2:1 instead of 3:2. If he tries to spend 1/3 or 1/2 on them, the odds ratio rises to 5:2 or 3:1.

When making such comparisons, count the weapon component of a bunker at the cost of the weapon in the bunker, and the bunker cost as the difference. (E.g. wooden bunker with MG - 45 points, about the same as an HMG - 28 points - bunker itself - ~17 points). I count TRPs as part of the cost spent on artillery support rather than as a "fortification".

I do not think defenders can afford to face odds in fielded units of greater than 2:1. Yes, avoiding expensive AFVs helps, buying infantry or cheap guns instead. But if the attacker spends heavily on infantry and artillery, this will not come close to making up for 1/3 spent on fortifications. And it won't make up for 1/2 spent on fortifications even if the attacker buys a lot of armor, because the attacker has 3:1 odds in fielded forces to "play with", in that case.

Because of this, the defender's budget for fortifications is pretty tightly limited. Spending more than 25% on that area, is not going to work. To reach the upper limits of Tiger's program within that kind of a constraint, however, the battle size would have to be 2000 points, 3000 points of attackers. The lower limits of the program he outlined, mean a 1200 point battle size, and 1800 points of attackers. That means several infantry companies with tanks, engineers, and artillery support. I don't think 2-3 MG bunkers and 200-300 yards of wire are going to do too much to stop them.

I think wooden bunkers with MGs should cost only 30 points. The choice of a covered arc and inability to move and higher visibility, for overhead cover, seems to me at best an even trade. At the present much higher price for the bunker, I will take an HMG every time. I also, incidentally, think bunkers should be no easier to spot than guns, not as easy to spot as vehicles.

If you look at the realistic defender's constraints above, I think it becomes pretty clear that the fortification budget is going to be limited. The fear of acres of layered wire if the price is too low, is misplaced. For defenders to sacrifice more than 1-2 platoons worth of defenders, they need to get defensive assets that truly deny ground, and sizeable areas of it. And few will pick wire over mines, when both cannot be had in ~200-300 yard quantities.

If wire cost ~5-7 points, what you'd see more of is defenses covered by 100-200 yard long belts of wire, with 40-100 yard gaps between them. Some of these gaps would be mined, and some would be open as exit routes. The local odds against the defenders in troops, would be around 2:1 instead of 3:2, when such obstacle belts were present. If bunker prices were lowered to 3/4 to 2/3 the current prices, and made harder to spot, they would also be commonly encountered in such defenses.

If someone thinks this is too hard for "attack" settings, then I suggest making wire cost 5 and bunkers 2/3rds to 3/4th the present prices, in assaults, at least. There is no doubt such fortified lines existed and were fought over - indeed, they were not particularly uncommon in the less mobile periods of the war (fall 44 e.g.).

[TeAcH]

Can't say that I disagree with all of that.

TeAcH