Discussion thread for possible new bunker creation rule.

[Mr Grumpy]

Gents,
As Glenn has indicated that JT might consider a new feature in that bunkers could be constructed during a scenario and i thought i would paste players thoughts here to try to find a consensus of opinion? :chin:

I have always found it strange that bunkers can not be constructed in game. These are supposedly trenches with overhead cover (logs etc) if my memory serves me right. Considering many campaigns are 2+ weeks the time constraint goes out the window.

I would love to see a rule that said ONLY engineers can build bunkers with the usual caveats that once left empty they go to permanent vacated status etc.

This then makes it easier in some of the longer campaign games or larger maps to have your rear area engineers preparing the next 'solid' defensive line - think Moscow or Minsk etc

Obviously Pill boxes are out due to the fact that they are made out of scarce materials (reinforced concrete) but log bunkers etc should be able to be knocked up in a day or two by skilled engineers...

I was thinking of bunkers as a 'third step' beyond improved positions / trenches. To go from a trench to bunker would require a trench to be present PLUS an engineer unit. So no way they would appear in two hours :) Think of the engineers having the necessary heavy equipment to put in place overhead cover....

Foul - yes additional defensive positions when done right can really make a scenario. I am finding the scenario design tools are extremely flexible - just would like a few small tweaks :)
Strela

Well, I have said in the past that bunkers and BUNKERS should be possible with engineer units, just reference whatever reduced probability it takes for them to lay mines. Has anyone ever tried to lay mines? It takes forever, maybe a full day or more. So, if that same % was used for engineers to improve a TRENCH to a Bunker, and then again from a Bunker to a BUNKER, then there really wouldn't be many new bunkers on the map -- but at least it would be possible to create new ones by having engineers working overtime in quiet sectors. But "oh well". ;)

3.It was brought up in another thread the ability of some ENG to build bunkers.

While it is beyond what the originally designers wanted - there does seem to be enough support for this that we may have to give it some serious thought. I guess the concern is that players making Bunkers would be able to create strnger defnese lines in compaigns where that wasn't possible.

The allies might never brea out of Normandy with such rules for instance.

About the possibility for engineers to build bunkers... wouldn't it bee too unrealistic?
I mean, how much average time takes to build a bunker? You have to modify the terrain , gather the resources..etc so i say that if the engineers work really hard all day and night long... one week.. how many turns is a week in game terms? 100? are you going to have an unit there for such long time?
And what about the scale? if we assume that each hexagon is a square mile, then the amount of bunkers necessary to build to protect such area would be... quite big.

And that if there are not any setbacks during the construction...

Perhaps in MC would be more feasible because you know... construction techniques tend to advance and makes less time to build a bunker

[quote=Dog Soldier]
One would not want to have bunker creation be too easy. One complaint long ago was that HQs could create TRENCHES. As the number of HQs increased when regiment HQs were added, players found the defenders were able to build too many fortified lines. Thus HQ units lost the capacity to dig in.

One of the problems I can see is in Kursk where there are extensive lines of TRENCHES. A Russian player could then move all their engineer units regardless of organization to work on converting these at start TRENCHES into bunkers

I do not think once the battle began the Russians did any significant improvements to their already extensive defensive network. Does this mean the Russian command did not think it practical to try to continue creating static defenses once a sector of the front (Kursk bulge) was engaged in battle?

We will have to think about such unintended effects.
[quote=Glenn Saunders]
That is EXACTLY the danger that John and Sturm were trying o avoid with this idea. The game engine is designed around fluid battles and doesn't shine in stand up slug matches which is why there is no PzC Casino, PzC Metz, PzC the Gothic Line.
Glenn

Many of these suggestions (such as Bunker construction) could be optional rules thereby getting around the unintended consequences issue....

It also leaves all existing scenarios intact and moves the decision back into the hands of the players.

Ya - but there is a limit to the number of Optional Rules you you can have too - John uses Prime numbers for that and ....well it gets combersome and confusing fo new players when they wonder what rules they should use.

So I am not sure optional is the wayto go here - but I thought of it.

The creation of bunkers could maybe be limited by the type of engineer which is capable of doing so. We have bridging engineers at the moment who are the only type of engineers who can build bridges.

If a new engineering type were created, say for example heavy engineers, it would mean that existing scenarios would remain balanced as this engineering type would not be in any existing games. It would then be up to to scenario designers to add them and ensure the scenarios they create are balanced.

Personally I think that the only game that really needs the ability to create bunkers is the Stalingrad main campaign, so I am unsure that the addition of bunker creation would improve the game

Really - that isn't gong to happen. There won't be a third flag so if we do this it will be either ALL Engineers or Mine clearing Eng or Bridge Only Engs - but not a third type.

If it is ALL or Mine Engs, then Airborne Eng in Normandy and Sicly could make Bunkers and we know they didn't have the equipment. But those same Eng case clear rubble with teir bare hands - not something we wanted to do but we caved to pressure.

Making it Bridge Only Eng would reduce the number of Eng which could do his but I am not sure how cool an idea this would be or how much people would complain if it was only Bridge Engs.

And if anything is done we want to do it once only - not once and then fix what is done.

Glenn

Seems to be popular so I expect wecan look into this. I agree that it is not likely too hard to do, it is just beyond what the game designers(Tiller and Smith) wanted, likely because what it might to to the campaigns. That is defense lines didn't get built in say something like France 40 because ... well, you get the idea.

ANyway - I am sure we can look into this one further. And if allowed for all Engs, then it ould be allowed for even Airborne Engs too?

Anyway - Let me see what the boss says.

I think Glenn has a very good point, we must try to think of all the consequences of this change and with so many titles that will not be easy, i would like to add these additional points.....
1) I am against this being a optional rule, as Glenn says we have enough already.
2) Maybe we could build into the PDT a "bunker value" the same as we already have a Pontoon value, this would indicate the minimum amount of moves that must pass before a check starts to see if a TRENCH can become a bunker.
3) Limit bunker buliding to only a bunker (lowercase) and not allow a BUNKER to be built, this would go a small way to limiting the impact this change might have.

Maybe a way of limiting Airborne Eng's from constucting bunkers is to have a minimum size (in men) that a engineer units trying to construct a bunker has to be?

I don't have N44, can Airborne Eng's build bridges in that title? If not maybe we should restrict bunker construction the Bridge Eng's?