Fortifications and Digging in

[John_d]

I was thinking, if fortifications such as pillboxes and trenches are available, then there is the potential for abuse if they are to be placed in the setup period of the CMBB battle. I assume that in real life, you would place fortifications facing the way that you believe the enemy is most likely to approach from. Because these things take time to construct, you have to figure this out in advance. But if fortifications are to be handled in CMC like they were in CMBB, you will only have to place them when you actually come under attack- i.e. when you know where the attacker is approaching from and perhaps even roughly what troops he has. This is rather unrealistic. Also, there is also a potential for abuse from the other side. I assume that once fortifications are placed, they will be 'locked' as they are currently in CMBB operations. So what is to stop a player from sending a recon platoon into an area that he suspects will be fortified, thus fooling the other player into setting up his defences facing the wrong way and having them locked. Then the main force of course atacks from behind of from the side.

This kind of thging could be quite easily fixed one of two ways. Firstly, when digging in, ou specify whether to defend along a north/south axis or an east/west axis and this limits how you can rotate defences in the CMBB setup. Secondly, when you give the order to dig in, CMC automatically cuts to CMBB setup to force you to place your fortifications before making contact with the enemy.

Just a suggestion

[Sergei]

Originally posted by John_d:

Firstly, when digging in, ou specify whether to defend along a north/south axis or an east/west axis and this limits how you can rotate defences in the CMBB setup.

This one's not very realistic. What if it's a salient position? Or if it makes sense on that map to put a trench or a roadblock the other way?

The other I liked.

[John_d]

Good point Sergei

[Bruce70]

I don't think the construction of most fortifications is likely to happen within the timescale of a CMC campaign, but I could be wrong.

I think fortifications, or at least pillboxes (and possibly mines), should be placed by the campaign designer, not by the player.

Theres probably nothing wrong with the player placing trenches, barbed wire, daisy-chain mines and roadblocks on a per-battle basis.

[Tactical Wargamer]

I would think the # of engineers & Supply level one has within the hex would be a significant factor in determining defensive fortifications/mines...

[Ardem]

I think mines/roadblocks/trenches/wire and mines are all practical in the timescale, heavy stuff like pillboxes may only be a designer only implementaion.

[JasonC]

I allowed engineers to produce field fortification points at a rate of 1 CM point per man per 4 hour period. Log bunkers were allowed, paying the price difference between the bunker and an MG in fortification points. No concrete or gun bunkers.

Worked fine. More extensive fortifications existed in some of my campaigns at set up, but this gave players the realistic ability to prepare positions. In my Kursk campaign I also had a special mine laying engineer detachment that doubled the usual rate for mines only, if it had its trucks available.

Other infantry and gun style units that were stationary for 4 hours got foxholes, nothing further. Any location with foxholes or fortifications also got 1 TRP per FO assigned to it.

[Wol]

Seems no reason to suppose that within 24 hours given an adequate supply of defence stores that pits with overhead cover could not be constructed. Pre-fab pillboxes in steel or concrete can be quickly set up. I am not sure how this equates to the time periods of CMC though.