Proposed Fortifications in CMBB

[Danny Chung]

I don't think this subject has been raised before.

All the previous discussions on CMBB seemed to focus on new orders, artillery barrages, new tanks, etc.

I wouldn't mind knowing what kind of new items are included for fortifications. How about anti-tank ditches? The Russians dug an enormous number of those during the war.

How about anti tank traps made from stakes?

Can trenches be criss crossed to allow defenders to move from one firing position to another?

[WWB]

AT ditches can be done in the map editor. Just drop a tile and fill it with impassible terrain or drop enough to get a slope.

WWB

[Soddball]

One of the quotes in Beevor's "Stalingrad" was from a soldier at the siege who said "I never saw an anti-tank ditch which actually stopped a tank." Given the amount of forced labour, I'm surprised they weren't deep enough to stop tanks.

[Danny Chung]

While on the subject of anti tank ditches, I'm reminded of a story within the book "The Combat History of Sturmgeshutz Brigade 276" published by JJ Fedorowicz Publishing Inc.

In this story, a Stug III almost dropped into an anti-tank ditch which was sited on the crest of a small hill. The narrator of the story goes onto say that the ditch was guarded by a battalion of Russians behind the ditch. Fortunately for the Stug, the Russians did not have heavy anti-tank weapons and the Stug managed to get itself out of trouble.

I guess you have to recognise that obstacles like anti-tank ditches have limited value. Once spotted in good time, they would be avoided by subsequent waves of tanks.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Keef:

I guess you have to recognise that obstacles like anti-tank ditches have limited value. Once spotted in good time, they would be avoided by subsequent waves of tanks.

Which is why they were constructed: to restrict movement and channel it into kill zones. They're like minefields in that respect.

Michael

[GillFish]

Keef,

We played around with trenches during the So. Cal. Demo and IIRC, soldiers could not cross from one trench into another, even if the trench tiles where laid end to end. Seems like each trench is a distinct entity and you have to get out of one to get into the other. Did not see any criss-cross trenches.

As for anti-tank ditches, as stated in previous posts, this can be handled by the map editor.

[YankeeDog]

IIRC, somewhere around here there is a thread where BFC states that AT trenches, dragon's teeth, etc. are definitely NOT in CMBB.

As noted, their inclusion would be mostly cosmetic, as a tile of broken terrain or a steep slope is pretty much the tactical equivalent (doodads of AT obstacles sure would look nice, tho!!). The one issue I can see is the fact thatin CMBO you can't 'buy' tiles of broken terrain for QBs to use as AT obstacles the way you can buy other defensive fortifications like wire and mines.

It's been brought up before, but it would be cool if defenders could use points to buy 'terrain modifition rights', each purchase allowing them to cut down one tile of trees, or change one tile of open ground to broken, or whatever. For a well-prepared defense, this might be a nice addition. It's not especially high on my priority list, as minefields do the job quite nicely and have the added benefit of perhaps actually taking out an AFV or two. I suppose there is a difference, though - a tank can occasionally make it across a minefield with no damage if it's lucky, whereas an AT ditch means *no* vehicle transit across the area.

As a work-around for those who really feel the need, you could use the new feature that allows you to import a map into a QB to allow the defender to modify terrain - just generate the map, and allow the defender to edit the map to whatever extent agreed upon, and then use the map for the QB.

Or maybe BFC has more surprises in store for us. . .

Cheers,

YD

[TSword]

Just short of Prokhorovka parts of the 2ndSSPzCorps encountered a big AT-ditch which quite frustrated them, because it needed time to:

1. Either to circumvent

2. Or fill them up by use of Engineer-equipment

And brought them setbacks in their time-schedule.

So a tank ditch is designed to buy time not to hold up the enemy.

Greets

Daniel

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by GillFish:

We played around with trenches during the So. Cal. Demo and IIRC, soldiers could not cross from one trench into another, even if the trench tiles where laid end to end. Seems like each trench is a distinct entity and you have to get out of one to get into the other.

Bummer.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by TSword:

...a tank ditch is designed to buy time not to hold up the enemy.

But doesn't it buy time by holding up the enemy?

:confused:

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GillFish:

We played around with trenches during the So. Cal. Demo and IIRC, soldiers could not cross from one trench into another, even if the trench tiles where laid end to end. Seems like each trench is a distinct entity and you have to get out of one to get into the other.

Bummer.

Michael</font>

[MikeyD]

Anti-tank ditches would have made nifty doodads but wouldn't be very different tactically from the good-old CMBO anti-tank obstacle. Try stretching a line of those suckers across a scenario map. Stops the tanks but not the infantry, just like a ditch would. Admittedly, not quite the same 'eye-candy' appeal.

As to the limitied utility of ditches in general, remember we're usually only working in half-hour timeframes with the game and an unexpected ditch can mess up a timetable for considerably more than a half hour. That's why the Brits put so much time and effort into building tanks to drop fascines into the gaps

[Grey Hunter]

As to the limitied utility of ditches in general, remember we're usually only working in half-hour timeframes with the game and an unexpected ditch can mess up a timetable for considerably more than a half hour. That's why the Brits put so much time and effort into building tanks to drop fascines into the gaps

True.

and are you going to try and fill a big ditch when under fire without a tank? lot harder to do than on paper i'm guessing.

[GillFish]

Originally posted by Andreas:

... you are wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time! In this case, I'm glad to hear it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GillFish:

We played around with trenches during the So. Cal. Demo and IIRC, soldiers could not cross from one trench into another, even if the trench tiles where laid end to end. Seems like each trench is a distinct entity and you have to get out of one to get into the other.

Bummer.

Michael</font>