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?

[Glenn Saunders]

Just to be clear - I haven't spoke to John on this point yet but I feel the code is do-able as long as I can convince him that we have a consensus and and interesting in doing it. So I am hopeful at least.

[SuperIke]

Although I understand the rationale of saying that bunkers could be created by engineers over the course of campaign scenarios, I have some reservations. The battles covered by the PzC series are rarely static, which means that the side being punched through rarely had the luxury of devoting engineering units to leisurely constructing bunkers while all hell was breaking loose nearby. They were used for most pressing needs such as defending against attacks, plugging gaps or holding supply lines...Historically speaking, bunker construction was done during quiet times at the front and rarely during and/or near a pitched battle.

So I believe this should not be activated in all scenarios or campaign scenarios for that matter. It should be allowed only in those campaigns where we know it did historically happen on a scale that warrants it. Handling it through the PDT would probably be best so that setting a ZERO value would make sure it would not happen in a scenario.

[Glenn Saunders]

The problem with making this something that is enabled with a PDT Value is it means programming to be done that does nothing.

Understand we often do this sort of thing wen we're producing a new game where we need a new feature for this new battle being pproduced - then we invent a new PDT. But not this time. I have no historical precedence on the game I am working on now, or the one I expect we'll produce next. So this idea has to fly with existing games and not by enabling it in a PDT Value I figure.

So I think whatever we do has to work off the existing Digging Value.

And you are correct - if we enable things it will come into effect in all scns and all campiagns. It will have the effect of allowing the Russians to begin converting Trenches to Bunkers in Kursk and for the Germans to create strong defense lines in Normandy.

Now in Normandy maybe this wouldn't be a bad thing ... hell maybe it would work well = more historically. But what about Kursk? Or Minsk? Or Alamein?? Is this really valid???

Is this all Eng we are talking about here?
Is it only Bridge Eng or only Mine Eng?
Or is this only Eng with A, B or C Quality? Or only Bridge Eng? That would put a limit on the number of units which would actually build Bunkers?

We have to be very careful here guys - because we won't get a change if we ask for something that makes building Bunkers too common and too easy, because John will be able to see right away that the effect is not want we want in Kursk, in France 40 ect.

A Bunker here or there, created during the game is one thing - but a line of Hard forts built where none could be built before in previous games is not something that will get approval.

Glenn

[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*

[Aaron]

When we talk about bunkers here im assuming its a hole with overhead cover and this usually gets done with the resources within the area, trees etc... now Glenn mentioned Alamein which is for the most part desert with no resources so should you even be able to build a bunker in desert hexes??? In order to build one in the desert you would be getting into supply of the materials from an outside location. I actually witness a building of a so called bunker hill with interlinked trench systems and the Engineers assigned to it used resources from within the area and heavy equipment but we wont mention where because this was completely illegal and we had to bury all the evidence after the battle where i must add i was a defender and my whole company got killed but the Bn attacking took 90% casualties. While i like the whole bunker idea i think just making it possible to build them without all the other things that go with it you might as well forget it and stick with what you got. Everything works the way you want it to right now and you know adding a way to create bunkers is going to not work out somewhere along the line and someone will complain. Sounds like to much work for little or no reward.

Aaron

[Volcano Man]

True, but many a bunker has been built in the desert with use of other items to substitute for wood (Torbuk and Bardia are great examples).

[Xaver]

And why dont use concrete bunkers and "soft" bunkers??? soft bunkers dont need HA to be attacked only HE but more HE because they have better weapon pits.

And i say add a limit of bunkers for the scen, another option is improve close combat in urban/bunker/trench terrain with an infiltration rule but i see that change engine isnt an option.

[Mike Bowen]

Not sure if this would work but could you make the number of bunkers you create finite like with Artillery mines in MC? That would stop the possibility of unbalancing older games.

I agree Mine engineers only perhaps bridge engineers can have a bonus for clearing rubble and you need more allied bridges in Normandy you can ruin the allied players day and the game by blowing bridges[/align]

[cavalry corps]

Hi ALL-

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

Generally in PZC the game favour the attacker , this rule would help calm that a bit. Bunkers should be able to be constructed in game terms it has been implied that are better entrenchments not concrete constructions. Bunkers are actually not all they are trumpt up to be anyway unless they have and extended line.

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.

cav

Cav