Discussion thread for possible new bunker creation rule.

[Volcano Man]

I just don't see why bunker building would be allowed in 1939-1945 (PzC), but not Modern War 1946+ (MC). It just doesn't make sense. If anything, bunker building would be easier in modern warfare. While it is certainly true that modern warfare is mobile and you generally wouldn't stick around very long in once place, that does not mean that a bunker would never be built, it just means that units would not generally be around in the same place long enough to do it in the time that it takes to do it (in the game), given how violent and mobile everything is.

In the time spent in the army I built many a bunker myself in the field, and that was from being in a line unit (not a combat engineer unit). Bunkers are very abundant in modern warfare and they actually are the holy grail of infantry positions. As I mentioned in the previous post, the MODERN US Army has a saying "when you stop, constantly improve your position". Does that mean that once you dig a fighting position, which eventually turns into something resembling a "TRENCH", you then stop fortifying? No, certainly not, you would continue to dig in until your position became like a Vietcong tunnel system with a network of bunkers all with overhead cover and interlocking fields of fire if had enough time to do so. FM 7-7 (which we can call the "Infantry Handbook" / "Infantry Bible") goes into detail on how to construct positions with overhead cover. I would post images here if didn't have so much to do on other things.

*edit*, actually this link might work:



...this is a typical "stage 4" infantry fortified position from the FM 7-8. Logs are used for overhead cover for protection against soft attacks (in our terms), stage 5 and beyond involve improving the position even more, putting more dirt and sandbags around it, camouflaging it better, and so on. Stage 1 is essentially a foxhole, stage 2-3 are what resembles a trench.

Needless to say, I would think that any rule on bunker building should be common across ALL series that use the common engine. Anyone remember the miles and miles of bunkers along the Iraq / Kuwait border in Desert Storm '91? I would argue that the ROK/US would build plenty of bunkers in the mountains of Korea '85 (in the east) as they fell back to defensive lines and settled in. Also the NKPA should be able to fortify their gains when they run out of steam, in preparation for the great allied counter offensive when the US units arrive. Anyone remember the Pusan Perimeter in 1950? There were plenty of bunkers constructed in that area, and the first Korean war does fall into Modern Campaigns time frame.

Also, in a discussion yesterday, I mentioned something that is probably worth mentioning here:

What we have to also remember is that the act of building a bunker/BUNKER is not all good. Consider that a bunker/BUNKER provides absolutely no protection to vehicles, so it means that you can't simply create a bunker and pile a bunch of units in a hex / objective and have it be impossible to eliminate. Vehicles would have to go to other hexes where there are no bunkers if they want protection (from IP / TRENCH counters), thus causing them to disperse. This is unlike TRENCH hexes which would be used most often in a case where you want to hold an objective and if anything, bunker/BUNKER hexes would actually be more vulnerable than they would be in PzC because MC series generally has vehicles and artillery that have much higher hard attack values which could devastate the occupants inside. This provides two reasons why a user would not want to build a bunker, but it should not be an ability that is totally denied if it is added to PzC.

My opinion and purpose of this post is that if it is something that is NOT desired in MC, then it should NOT be included in PzC either, because it makes no logical sense why a more modern game would not include the same basic ability, especially when it is more justified to put it in a modern game to begin with. That said, I just don't see why it could not be in both PzC and MC.

But all of this a good reason why it should be built around a PDT on/off 1-0 "switch" value, since it would be the best choice for implementation in both series to allow full control to the scenario designer to determine what he wants to happen, and how he wants the experience to "feel". The perfect example right here, maybe tazaaron doesn't want his campaign to have bunker building -- that is fine, others might want bunker building, some campaigns might be good with it and some not. A PDT on/off value would be a fail safe switch where it can never go wrong (turn it off if you don't want it, turn it on if you do).

Oh well, that is all I have to say... ;)