Persistant Field Fortifications

[Philippe]

I'm sure that this will be addressed, but better to bring it up now than have to lobby for putting it in a patch.

Certain types of terrain, once positioned, should be able to be repositioned from scenario to scenario.

I doubt that it would be possible to make a new concrete bunker during the course of a campaign, so once those are postioned, they should be locked in place for the duration. And quite possible before the scenario begins.

While it should certainly be possible to spend a few hours digging a slit trench, once you dig it it should not move.

Imagine a ridge running east-west defended by slit trenches, mine fields, barbed wire, concrete pillboxes, bunkers, and foxholes. If the attack is expected from the south, some things are going to be on the forward slope, and some on the reverse slope.

If that ridge changes hands in the course of a scenario, the new owner should not be allowed to reposition fortification assets very much to defend his new position. His pillboxes and bunkers should be facing the wrong direction, the slit trenches will tend to be on the forward slope instead of the reverse slope, etc. With time he could string new wire, add a few extra minefields, and clear a few paths through the old ones.

But the fortification assets shouldn't be thrown into a pool for him to play around with.

Foxholes and craters should also be persistant, but that may be harder to program.

[Brent Pollock]

Hmmmm....tricky. Trenches can't be "moved", just filled in and fresh ones dug elsewhere. Pillboxes take one helluva lot of demolition. Bunkers might be something you could dismantle (wooden logs?) and reassemble elsewhere. Ditto wire and mines.

My vote would go to leaving the existing stuff in place (for simplicities sake, mainly) but giving the ability to construct new fortifications during the game, to represent what the troops can do when they are not engaged by the enemy.

[Dirtweasle]

Will be very interesting to see how field engineering is handled.

I think it would be something the way CMMC handled construction and demolition of field works. X platoons take T hours to build a Y trench(s), place an MG into a log bunker, etc.... likewise form demolition, mine placement and clearing... etc... etc...

[Philippe]

My nightmare scenario (that inspired this thread) is the thought that in a Kursk campaign the Germans might capture a lightly defended section of Russian defenses, and defend them against a Russian counterattack. And that their defenses would be facing the Russians for maximum effect.

I think the defender should have to set up all his field fortifications on the first turn of the campaign, and that they should be locked in place after that. Any changes from then on should require that a unit that is field engineering capable spend a certain amount of time after receiving an explicit order to add or remove some particular feature.

I have visions of unarmed local farm and factory workers digging anti-tank ditches to defend Stalingrad...

[Dirtweasle]

IIRC - the way it worked in the CMMC is trained engineers could do some things untrained conscripts could not and for other activiety the amount of training allowed faster build times.

Now the CMMC rules, with all due respect to the folks that worked hours and hours creating them, were problematic in a number of ways, but most of the engineering rules were good - or I thought so as a player.