Discussion thread for possible new bunker creation rule.

[Volcano Man]

Ok here is what is my opinion on the matter, since this issue has always been near and dear to me.

*Engineers with the "MINE" flag should be the only type that can build bunkers. These are the combat engineers, the ones that are usually concerned with all the combat related engineer tasks such as laying mines, clearing mines and obstacles, assaulting fortified positions, creation of fortified areas. While you could say that a support engineer / construction engineer units could also create a bunker, sure, but so too could a regular infantry battalion if need be. The real world US Army has a saying, "when you stop, constantly improve your position". With that in mind, an infantry battalion would construct the Maginot Line if it sat in the same spot long enough, it wouldn't simply just dig a trench and stop fortifying. But in gameplay terms, this does not work since it is an ability that must be restricted. The good "middle road" is to restrict it to combat engineers (MINE flag engineers).

The objective here should be: 1) the ability to create bunkers is restricted to a relatively small pool of units which 2) are not units that would normally be hanging around in the rear already (combat engineers are usually needed on the front lines, where as bridge units always hang out in the rear). Thus, to build a bunker, you would have to use one of those valuable combat engineer units, creating a dilemma for the user on whether to use them to do any of the other many tasks that they are able to do.

*The probability to build said bunker should be reduced if the MINE engineer unit is not a battalion sized unit (company, platoon etc). This reduction in probability should be the same as the bridge building probability reduction.

*Construction of "bunker" must occur before the construction of a "BUNKER" is possible. This would be the one case where an upgraded fortification does not immediately start out at its best (for example from IP to TRENCH, rather than from IP to Trench). If this is possible, the idea is that even if you could create several bunkers, they would be such that they wouldn't be of the greatest quality unless you continued to work on them (which would take more time).

*The probability of constructing a bunker from a TRENCH, or a BUNKER from a bunker, should be the same probability used to lay mines (which is very low).

--------------

So there is my thought on the matter. Thus, to create a good defensive position of bunkers, it would take a lot of time and effort to do, as well as the devotion of large sized, useful units that could otherwise be gainfully employed elsewhere. And to really turn an existing campaign into a fortified nightmare would be impossible, although it would at least allow the POSSIBILITY to create some fortified places.

Also, one thing we must remember: in all of these games the defender needs every advantage available to them. It has been proven time and time again that it is much harder to play as the defender than it is as the attacker. The attacker simply has to (generalized) mass in a given spot and execute the Mongolian Rush, where as the defender is always stretched thin, always getting channeled into pockets, and very seldom able to hold anything indefinitely, even at 1:1 odds. The reason for this is obvious (there are many) but the most crucial reason is because of the inability to do some things that defenders do: create bunkers, high density minefields, construct obstacles, dig anti-tank ditches, setup fields of fire that should be more effective than normal to represent well, many things that defenders do the in defense (pre plotting, TRPs, sector sketches, range estimations). I am not advocating that the engineers should be able to do all of these things in the game, but it sure would be nice if they could construct bunkers AND create minefields beyond 1x density. Of course if none of this were done then I wouldn't care, I still would play the game. ;)

If all the above is still not strict enough then a PDT flag "allow bunker creation" 1 (on) or 0 (off) would work so that the scenario designer can set if it should even be possible in the first place. That seems like the most logical "fail safe" route anyway, it always ensures that the older titles won't be altered in any way.

*edited to correct typos*