Entrenchement when DoW on Countries.

[Blashy]

Would it not make sense for countries to have full entrench on their cities when DoW.

It is not as if the countries were totally unprepared, what they had in military was at the ready, Europe was at war and when you see countries close to you being taken over, you take what you have and go on high alert for defenses.

Simply making Capitals fully entrench is only fair.

Take Poland, they had defenses in Warsaw, they were just outgunned in manpower and technology, big time.

[Edwin P.]

Not if it is a surprise attack. That in my opinion is the key.

If Germany attacks Spain then the Corps in Portugal should start entrenched if Portugal is subseqently attacked;however, if Germany attacks Portugal first then the Portugese corps should not start entrenched as they would not be expecting an attack by Germany.

[Night]

The turn you do the DoW there should be little or no entrenching, but the next turn the cities, esp. the capital should be made full entrench, this way we can simulate surprise attacks AND preperation.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Entrenchment should be related to the readiness percentage of that nation. As the readiness percentage increases past certain breakpoints, the units would increase thier entrench value.

[Raven25]

Entrenchements after WWI were not used nearly as much. Mainly because the former lines of trenches that had protected countries were proven ineffective (France still had some faith in the trenches in WWII, but the trenches were no help to them). The modern style of warfare was subterfuge and gorilla warfare for the defenders, and rooting elimination for the attacker. Numbers were more important in WWII, as oppose to the former importance of territory in WWI. While some cities and towns were garrisoned, they weren't heavily entrenched.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Raven25

You are mixing up fortifications with entrenchments. Every WWII unit when it wasn't moving entrenched.

[Panzeh]

Kursk and many other battles proved entrenchment and fortification still had a place on the battlefield.

When panzers charged the Maginot line they were butchered by its guns.

[Raven25]

No, I'm not. Fortification is fortifying certain territories with troops or defensive structures. Entrenchement is having troops dig in, wherever, to hold a line. Most WWII units may have setup a defensive perimeter if not moving, but they wouldn't dig a huge network of trenches for defense to the last man. As if they were going to lose, they'd retreat. Perhaps you thought I meant the Maginot line when I said that the French still had faith in entrenchements. I did not refer to the maginot line. France still tried to dig trenches for defense in WWII but they didn't help at all.

Fortification is what I said was part of the preferred style of warfare. Garrisonning cities and fortifying them.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Ok, then I will restate my opinion.

The method of entrenchment SC uses (which we assume will be the same in SC2) perfectly represents what static troops would do in WWII.

The Engineer unit of SC2 will provide us with what was missing in SC... the ability to create permanenent fortifications.

The only thing missing, is what Blashy pointed out, his only fault being he didn't consider surprise, which Edwin P did.

So instead of having a neutral nation once its DoW'd on start off at full entrenchment, tie it to the level of readiness (which represents mobilization in some ways). Easy, simple and realistic.

[Raven25]

Or have adjacent nations entrench immediately if a dow was declared on a nation. (Like if Romania was attacked, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria would entrench).