Entrenchment

[Toad]

While playing the Attack/Defend scenario outlined in the standard rule book, my opponent (Defender) chose to set the objective chip in a cluster of 'town' hexes. He proceded to surround the objective with a solid defense of soldiers and commanders. It looked like it was going to be a tough nut to crack. However, when we played the scenario, it was quite easy to park a couple of my machine gunners in cover at distance and rely on my opponent making a few failed cover rolls to shred his defense.

The next time we played the scenario we instituted an 'entrenchment' feature, where soldier units defending a hex that they originally started in (and were never moved during the scenario) were considered 'entrenched'. If the hex was terrain that normally provided cover, then that unit had automatic cover (a Red Devil captain on the attacking side would break cover if the defender rolled a 1). If the hex was terrain that did not normally provide cover, then that unit would lose cover on a cover roll of 1 (a Red Devil captain on the attacking side would break cover if the defender rolled a 1 or 2).

We found that this made the scenario much more fun. We also felt that it was a better representation of a defender that has had time to set up his defensive position and dig in.

[Comassion]

But if you don't have a Red Devil, then the units you're attacking never fail their cover rolls and just plain don't die until you close assault them, and even then only die on a roll of 1. That just seems far too difficult for normal infantry to root out.

[Toad]

Yep. It made for a heck of a lot more trouble (and in my opinion a lot more fun). I basically had to work to keep one side of the city disrupted for two turns until I could get across the open field and close with some close assualt teams. It was a bloody assualt. As it should be.

I'm saying it worked for us and we had fun doing it. Try it.

Couple of things to add:
1. Once a unit moved it lost entrenchment for the game.
2. The close assualt units that ignore cover also ignore entrenchement.

[TrimChris]

This cries for the use of different dice. A unit always makes cover on a 4 & up, and then use a d8 or d10 as you deem appropraiate so that the odds of a successel cover roll can increase.

[BogenBlitz]

I like it, and we have discussed something similar in our group, but we were not quite as generous to the "entrenched" unit. We felt that we could create the desired effect for entrenched units on a roll of 3-6. So, on average, that would make an entrenched unit covered 2/3 of the time. Even entrenched units should have a chance at taking some heat. All in all, it's just a matter of personal preference. We typically aim for tiny tweaks to the rules, and then adjust in baby steps to find just the right comfort zone.

[Fluffy]

Inmortal units? no please, if you want something special give them +1 to defence, it will be more than enough.

Everytime I played attack/defencec at the proposed 120/80 points the attacker overuled in less than 4 turns. We have switched to 120/100

[BogenBlitz]

Inmortal units? no please, if you want something special give them +1 to defence, it will be more than enough.

Everytime I played attack/defencec at the proposed 120/80 points the attacker overuled in less than 4 turns. We have switched to 120/100

That's an idea, but I would worry that +1 defense would make units like the SS Panzergrenadier immortal with a 6 defense. Since entrenchment is really just better cover and not really a measure of unit toughness, I prefer the adjustment to the cover roll. But to each his own! Your idea works, too.

[Brenyx]

I know ..I like to design card for fun
I like the idea of trench in the game and i came up with that idea
I also like the idea of a + to the cover roll for this one.
What do you think, good or not?

[RaidingParty]

I agree with a cover roll. A unit pinned by covering fire in a trench tends to be less effective in fighting back.

For the card, Brenyx, +2 cover is unbelieveable power. If they're deployed in hills, you're changing a 50% to 17% chance of really hurting soldiers. That means you'll be killing soldiers about 1 in every 6 killing shots, vs 1 in 2. Now imagine a machinegun with that power.

Also, limit its power to soldiers. And, maybe prohibit AT guns and the like from using them.

These would look great as a terrain tile!

[Brenyx]

I just want to keep the card at its simplest
maybe just a +1 to cover roll would be fair?

[RaidingParty]

I suggest making decent cover for soldiers only, but only deploying on clear, non-road terrain. Maybe a 4+ or 3+ for cover.

[Waffen-SS(leader)]

make it +1 cover roll for 2 points it is expensive for +2! :) Nice Job though! :)

Eric