Discussion thread for possible new bunker creation rule.

[Mr Grumpy]

Good ideas guys, keep them coming.......:bow:

[James Ward]

Assuming bunkers are not an upgrade of a trench then building them in the front line would be impractical as you wouldn't be able to build a bunker on top of a trench. You would tend to build them behind the lines. If the number of bunker building engineers was limited you'd need to choose your spots carefully, like the way you build bridges.

[cavalry corps]

Assuming bunkers are not an upgrade of a trench then building them in the front line would be impractical as you wouldn't be able to build a bunker on top of a trench. You would tend to build them behind the lines. If the number of bunker building engineers was limited you'd need to choose your spots carefully, like the way you build bridges.

I would say a bunker is an upgrade of a trench , deeper covered over / enhanced with whatever loacl materials were at hand , Timber especially.

Like the bunkers in the film Cross of Iron - thats what I feel they were like

Cav

[cavalry corps]

I still feel my idea of a delay in the pdf is a good idea:)

say 15 turns on average? Most pontoons are 10

Cav

[Glenn Saunders]

And why dont use concrete bunkers and "soft" bunkers???

We have Soft Bunkers - they are called TRENCHES

[Glenn Saunders]

It could also be an optional rule and make Engineer units below 100 men with a reduced chance.

You could also add a delay in the pdf like pontoon bridges

No bunkers contructed in storms please

All good points worth considering

Bunkers are actually not all they are trumpt up to be anyway unless they have and extended line.

Their strength is dependent upon PDT values - and the original PDT values were so friggen high I found them impossoble to break - so I've been dialing back their added SP and % of reduced fire.

Again I would say thet the popularity of PZC has been in the longer scn and i do not think JT had that in mind and rightly so when the games first came out.

Perhaps - I am really not sure. But I've made an effort to ensure that if there is a BUNKER in a Hex in the startng CG, then that same hex keeps a Bunker in later Scn. That is, if they can't be removed then they are there or they aren't.

Glenn

[Glenn Saunders]

Assuming bunkers are not an upgrade of a trench then building them in the front line would be impractical as you wouldn't be able to build a bunker on top of a trench. You would tend to build them behind the lines. If the number of bunker building engineers was limited you'd need to choose your spots carefully, like the way you build bridges.

I think the popular IDEA is they would be Built as a "Bunker" in a TRENCH hex and the BUnker can be upgraded to "BUNKER".

FWIW, so far at least Pillboxes and PILLBOXES have not been part of the discussion and I figured that point should be mentioned for all interested parties

Glenn

[alaric99x]

A pillbox would be a fortification constructed with poured, steel reinforced, concrete, something outside of the timeframe of scenarios or even campaign games.

From what they taught me in the Army, a bunker could be simply a trench with overhead cover. For example, a trench with a row of logs across the top covered by sandbags or dirt and with green vegetation on top of that, replaced whenever the vegatation starts to turn brown. Other elaborations would include grenade sumps in which to (hopefully) kick grenades that some enemy had thrown into the bunker and parapets for crew served weapons.

Bunkers could also be the poured concrete type, not quite as elaborate as pillboxes.

I think a lot depends on what we should actually understand a bunker to be. If it's just overhead cover, and other improvements, then that could be easily done by engineers, or anybody else, in the field. If a bunker is meant to be an excavated and poured concrete fortification, not quite as strong as a pillbox, then it would require more time than most scenarios and campaigns have available.

[James Ward]

Assuming bunkers are not an upgrade of a trench then building them in the front line would be impractical as you wouldn't be able to build a bunker on top of a trench. You would tend to build them behind the lines. If the number of bunker building engineers was limited you'd need to choose your spots carefully, like the way you build bridges.

I would say a bunker is an upgrade of a trench , deeper covered over / enhanced with whatever loacl materials were at hand , Timber especially.

Like the bunkers in the film Cross of Iron - thats what I feel they were like

Cav

I was thinking the trench marker would act as a limiter on where you could build bunkers. That way you wouldn't be fortifying the front lines with them. Of course if it required a special engineer unit you might not want to put them in the front line so maybe that's not a big problem.

[Mr Grumpy]

Assuming bunkers are not an upgrade of a trench then building them in the front line would be impractical as you wouldn't be able to build a bunker on top of a trench. You would tend to build them behind the lines. If the number of bunker building engineers was limited you'd need to choose your spots carefully, like the way you build bridges.

I would say a bunker is an upgrade of a trench , deeper covered over / enhanced with whatever loacl materials were at hand , Timber especially.

Like the bunkers in the film Cross of Iron - thats what I feel they were like

Cav

From the rules manual "What Bunkers offer over Trenches is generally timber protection from Direct Fire and overhead protection from Indirect or Artillery Fire" .