Pochenko Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Last night when I was trying to clear out Crimea I realized that there's something wrong with the entrenchment level. I think it's OK when we are talking about entrenchment in open land but when we talk about it in fortress there's a mistake. For an example let's say I'm playing with the soviets and I have an army or corps in Sevastopol, the germans are attacking it but they grow weaker with every attack they make 'cause they got lower supply or something else... so I decide to kill them after 3 or 4 of their attacks, I make a counter-attack and of course thay are going to fall back to avoid anihilattion and there's when the problem comes up. Should I chase them down? or should I stay in the fortification? In real war I should kill them all but in the game it's a very dangerous action cause when you come back to a fortress your entrenchment is again at 0 (so if I don't kill them in a move I'm going to be in big trouble). It takes 8 turns to achieve maximum entrenchment Does it means they are building up the fortress? that's strange for me. The re-entrenchment value after an attack (1) it's OK because of the repairs and re-building of the defenses, but when you left them they shouldn't come down to 0 (your troops aren't going to destroy your own fortification rings). Another thing it's with forests their maximum entrenchment value should be greater the the open land ones (I think 3 should work well). Thanks you for reading it all and "Perdonenme" for my poor English.............. .................................................. GUNS N' ROSES RULES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 I think that you will still get a bonus from the fortress even if you are at 0 entrenchment. Forests have both good and bad sides to them in real life defence, but I think that a small bonus to infantry defending them would be more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Entrenchment and terrain bonus are independent. Each level of entrenchment improves the defences against everything by 1 point. The terrain bonus additionally improves the defence: e.g. fortress: vs soft attackers 2 bonus points vs tanks 4 points!! vs air also 4 points ... Therefore it is usually not useful to attack a fortress with tanks or airfleets... e.g. forest: one point bonus against everything All values for each terrain/unit are described in the tablets at the end of the manual. So if you move away, you only loose your entrenchment bonus when you come back and not the terrain bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapaho Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 the siegfried line isn't even represented - and it was very significant in prolonging the actual war. where are my engineers when i need them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pochenko Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 Thanks for the information about terrain bonus (it will be useful) but I still thinking there's a problem with entrenchment. To Slapaho: There are a lot of defenses that are not represented in the game (Brest-Livotsk, etc) and I think they should be. It would be great to have an fortification option (you should make fortifications using some MPP.) it would change the game a lot and I think it would be much exciting. ................................................. GUNS N' ROSES RULES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 I agree that it would add more options to the player if they controlled thier strategic Engineer unit(s). But if we did, then we would also have to remove all of the "automatic" engineer rebuilds that are being conducted for us. Hence, any MPP damage couldn't be repaired unless your Engineer unit was there. This would also be true for the damaged MPPs of conquered areas. To be clear about the unit(s) we are talking about, we are only talking about giving Germany say one (1), maybe two (2) Engineer units. US definately would have two (2) and Italy probably none. Everyone else (except the minors), would be limited to one (1). Give that Engineer unit the ability to build one (1) fortification level for every four (4) turns in a location (with a MPP cost as well), and that should cover it. Now the player would have to make a choice between repairing or rebuilding the infrastructure or building fortifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 We all know this scale doesn't support specialized units. But I have to agree with Shaka and Pochenko. Engineers would add playability and fortifications should have an intrinsic value of entrenchment for friendly occupying troops. Which brings me to another point. Why shouldn't units defending behind rivers be allowed the additional defensive bonus of at least some entrenchment? I'm suggesting that all nations should have an inclusive ability to repair infrastructure without the proximity of an engineer unit(can't the population contribute). But in addition to that, the unique engineering unit would be useful for certain tasks, ie. time expedience for entrenchment(level enhancement)and/or infrastructure repair, attack bonus, countering river bonus or entrenchments, etc. add yours here............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 SeaMonkey Units behind rivers do get a defensive bonus... the attacker only being able to attack at half values. It is a true point, that the civilian population does have some ability to repair infrastructure. But I don't believe it would be at the level that would reflect the MPP increase we see. Lets not forget, that the Corps and Armies units already have organic combat engineer units, so the type of engineer unit we are discussing, is really better described as a Construction Engineer unit. Few nations have those, mainly because of the expense of the specialized equipment and the specialized manpower. No nation, lightly uses those assets for combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 I won't argue Shaka, faced with reality, your right. From a game perspective,....well let's skew reality for the sake of playabilty for I believe that contributes to the game's longevity. I will disagree about the contribution of the population. A properly organized, competent group of people could inspire an infrastructure improvement(to the level in SC), even in the face of strategic assault. I'll sight history(WW2) for my example(Germany's 1944 war production). If incorporated, there would have to be a high price(MPP) for the purchase and maintaining of the "Engineer" unit. As far as the halfing of attacking values, I was aware, but rationalized , that being for the funneling effect of the attacking forces. Why could not the defending forces also improve positions on their side of the river/coast as well as take advantage of the terrain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 RE: Engineer Unit Another Option is is allow a player to disband a corps in a hex to build a fortification or increase the maximum entrenchment value of that hex. This represents a commitment of materials to the fortification project and restricts it to a reasonable number of hexes by ensuring that each fortified hex costs about 125MMP (or less with the proper tech) to build. [ February 28, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Ahhh Yes, Edwin! Thanks for bringing up that lost, very relevant thought from way back. The expedience of your post makes this discussion largely immaterial, back to lurk mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 SeaMonkey, it will be interesting to see how SC2 handles this issue. Any comments HC? PS: Another option from that long ago post was to disband a corps in a city kex to create a supply depot - ie any unit defending in that hex receives a +XX% readiness bonus until the city is taken by an enemy unit. Disband Corps Options 1. MPPs 2. Build Fortification in Hex 3. Increase Maximum Entrenchment Level of City or Fortification Hex by 2 (max level is 8) 4. Create Supply Depot in City Hex [ February 28, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 What about the Coastal Fortifications<the Atlantic Wall had a heck of lot of concrete and Guns in it, probably a crapload more than Gibraltar-Maginot-Malta-Sevastopol combined>, I know that's going a bit detailed but even a Historical Option to erect Atlantic Wall for a certian MPP cost would rock. That way you could post your Corps and other Units off the Coast and not stress to death about Air/Naval bombardment Combo utterly Destroying them. I would take a lot more thought to do an invasion like D-Day or Sea Lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Engineers would add playability and fortifications should have an intrinsic value of entrenchment for friendly occupying troops. ... But if we did, then we would also have to remove all of the "automatic" engineer rebuilds that are being conducted for us. There's a problem with having only a limited number of engineer units able to build fortifications on one hand and then requiring engineers to perform all of the automatic rebuilds on the other hand, yes? Germans would need engineer units all over to rebuild Russian cities after scorched earth and partisan "attacks," and to rebuild other resources after strategic bombings and naval bombardments. That's not right; civilan engineers should be able to automatically rebuild the resource infrastructure. Specific military engineer units limited to building fortifications and perhaps with some soft attack advantage for assaulting fortifications should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 I think that fortresses like Brest Litovsk are too small to play a role in this game. The Atlantic Wall could play a role, but it's drawback is that it only helps defend the coast. Once the allies have landed any troops in the Atlantic Wall who are attacked from inland shouldn't benefit from it. I don't want engineer units having to go around repairing everything, but they could be used to build fortifications. Rather than disbanding a corps, I think that an engineer unit should cost about the same as an army, though with a combat value roughly equivalent to a corps. The engineer unit would have to move into the hex where it wanted to construct the fortification, and it could then build the fort at a rate of 1 strength point per turn, to a maximum of 5. This construction should also cost MPPs, say 25 per strength point. That way, the West Wall would cost 250 for an engineer unit, plus 125 MPPs per complete fort per hex. This is just an idea, perhaps someone who knows how much it really cost to build fortifications could amend the prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts