Max entrenchment levels (possible change)

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The fortified lines that the countries built in WW2 are simulated via entrenchments. Maybe we should increase the entrenchment level by 1 for some terrain types? Now it seems only one attack upon a entrenched unit in clear terrain will remove all entrenchments. I’ve always felt that the gap between entrenchment levels for cities and capitals and other terrain types were too high. You lose all entrenchment levels by moving and when you only get one entrenchment level in clear then you not very well protected even if you’ve been in this dug in position for many months. So I definitely feel that increasing the entrenchment levels could make it easier to hold a line if you decide to be on the defense. I looked at maps for e. g. the collapse of Germany and I saw lots of defensive positions on the map. These defensive lines weren’t strong enough to be fortresses, but definitely stronger than having just one entrenchment level (removed by just one airstrike). With entrenchment level 2 in clear terrain it means you need 2 airstrikes to remove the entrenchments or attack with higher casualties.

These are the current entrenchment levels:
Capital: 8
City: 5
Fortress: 4
Mountain: 3
Rough, Forest, Deserthills, mine: 2
Clear, Desert, Dune, oilfield: 1
Swamp: 0

Maybe we can change the max entrenchment levels to the following:
Capital: 8
City, Fortress: 5
Mountain: 4
Rough, Forest, Deserthills, mine: 3
Clear, Desert, oilfield: 2
Swamp, Dune: 1

This means that attacking capitals and cities aren’t more difficult than before, but all other terrains (except dune) have 1 higher max entrenchment level. It means it’s possible to dig in hoping to hold the line. It also means the attacker should spend some air bombardment to lower the entrenchment level.

The max entrenchment level of 1 in clear terrain meant it had virtually no defense. Now you must attack the unit twice to remove all the entrenchment levels. So airstrikes becomes more important to reduce land casualties.

It's possible to keep the fortress at 4 and mountain at 3.

Changing the max entrenchment level will alter game play quite a bit because it will be harder to break the enemy line without softening up the target hexes. But the changes mean that we encourage players to dig in if they don't think they can gain more ground. Players have commented that it's not possible to build forts in GS and maybe having higher entrenchment max level for ordinary terrain (not cities and capitals) is a way to make fortified lines.

What do you think? Should we try to make the changes and playtest a bit or should we skip the idea instead?

[trulster]

Interesting ideas and worth a playtest, especially as to how it affects the French campaign. Generally changes that benefit defence will be pro-Allied since the repercussions of a tougher France will affect the rest of the war. In late war the Allies will normally have enough air power that entrenchment is a managable problem.

[jjdenver]

I'd mainly worry about effect on Axis. My feeling is still that the game is slanted toward Axis. I've finished about 6 games now - from both sides - and Allies have won every game... so anything that hurts Axis I'm wary of.

[schwerpunkt]

Stauffenberg,
It all makes sense but as JJdever points out, it will affect the play balance early on for the axis as they will take heavier casualties given that they are mainly attacking. Not sure what the solution although perhaps lowering French and Russian Inf quality pre-42 might offset this? Just a thought.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I rarely have problems in the first year because I usually only attack hexes that are first bombarded by air units. So I don't expect big changes in Poland, the low countries and France. The biggest problem will be in Russia. It means that e. g. the Russians can dig in between Moscow and Leningrad and the front line will be harder to breach there. You need to focus upon airpower to make sure you soften up your targets enough before you attack. I usually attack like this so I won't receive much more casualties. But it means making unsupported attacks will be harder than before. So the front lines will stabilize more unless you use your air units very aggressively.

The biggest risk I see is that the Germans might be forced to build even more air units to have more units to soften up the hexes with and that will increase the oil consumption. The increased manpower loss will make them get lower quality units earlier. This can be offset by letting the Germans start with higher initial oil and manpower levels.

The benefit for the Axis will be when they switch from offensive to defensive. Then they can dig in better and force more losses upon the Russians (who often attack unsupported).

So I agree that we can't just make the changes and that's it. It can be TESTED in a beta tester group and then we can watch the differences between the original game and the changed game and then try to find some ways to counter the undesired changes. It means you will have to replay and rebalance GS again.

But having a chance for more entrenchment levels means that defensive players will perform better because they plan ahead by figuring out where to dig in and use reserve units to dig in behind the front line units so the front line units can retreat to safety. One of the few weaknesses I see with GS is that once you're on the defense you have no weapons in your hand to delay the full collapse of your line. Once you run from the front line you will be pursued and destroyed again. The entrenchment level 1 in clear terrain is so low so you can't expect to have much defense when the attackers attack. Having entrenchment level 2 means that the enemy must use 2 air units instead of just 1 to get rid of the entrenchment levels. They don't always have that possibility and you can have some benefit from digging in.

A compromise to the change could be to allow max entrenchment level 2 of for clear and desert terrain while the other terrain types remain as is. I don't understand why the entrenchments in clear terrain should be worse than in forest terrain. It's already harder to attack in forest terrain due to the attack and armor penalties.

[jjdenver]

I guess it's worth testing. But won't even planes take more damage bombing entrenched units? And cause less damage to them? And won't it take 2 plane hits to unentrench a unit entrenched to lvl 2 instead of just 1 plane hit?