Please vote: Possible change to max entrenchment

[Peter Stauffenberg]

One thing we could do is to differentiate the max entrenchment level for cities dependent upon their production. It's maybe strange that a minor power capital like Oslo can have max entrenchment 8 while a big major power city like Stalingrad or Munich can have max 5. All cities have max entrenchment 5 and that means the cities without production have the same max entrenchment.

We could make a change according to this formula:
Max entrenchment = max production +3 (max production > 5 is treated as 5 so max entrenchment = 8 ).

This means capitals compared to big cities have only a slight advantage since they have a bigger impact on reducing the attacking strength. We could even use this rule for fortresses and maybe even capitals as well.

If we add it for fortresses it means large fortresses like Sevastopol and Leningrad will get max entrenchment higher than 4 (current max for fortresses). Small capitals will get a lower max entrenchment. It won't affect minor powers much because units there start with no entrenchment when the minor power is attacked.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Just a comment. Should this also apply to mines and oilfields. Now mines have max entrenchment = 2 and oilfields have max entrenchment = 1.

I guess oilfields and mines weren't located near big cities so the max entrenchment should be higher.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I noticed that we might be able to alter the max entrenchment without invalidating save games. I can fix it one place in hex.class.

[Cybvep]

Just a comment. Should this also apply to mines and oilfields. Now mines have max entrenchment = 2 and oilfields have max entrenchment = 1.

It shouldn't. What is the supposed thing that makes the oil fields more protective? It's absolutely incomparable with cities IMO.

2 entrenchment for mines is balanced enough. Let it stay that way.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Code changes made and I tested them. They work very well and will not invalidate save games. Only thing is that existing games with max entrenchment higher than the new max will remain at that value until the hex falls below due to combat or movement.

[Plaid]

As far as I get it, entrenchment levels indicate only number of attack, for which unit stay entrenched. They dont give better defence at level 8, that at level 1, for example.
So I think this levels are not really this important. If object can be attacked from 4+ sides it will very likely fall, no matter what entrenchment is.
So is it worthy to even bother to change it?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This is not entirely true. While a defending unit has an entrenchment level above 0 then the attacker suffers the following.

Attackfire will get terrainpenalty
Shockfire will also get terrainpenalty

In addition attacking armor units get
Attackfire armorpenalty
Shockfire armorpenalty

When the entrenchment is down to 0 you don't suffer those penalties. So if you have a city with entrenchment 5 it means it can have the attack penalty for 5 attacks before attacks will be normal. A city with entrenchment level 3 will only have 3 such attacks before attacks are normal.

This means that smaller cities will fall faster and larger cities slower. This is even more important for fortresses. Fortresses without production will have max entrenchment 3 so after 3 attacks you can attack the fortress without penalty. A fortress with max entrenchment 4 can absorb 4 attacks before attacks will be normal (this is as before). So the Maginot, Gustav and Siegfried lines will be slightly weaker while Leningrad and Sevastopol will be stronger. E. g. you can get Leningrad up to entrenchment level 8. That means 8 attacks at poor odds before you get normal odds.

If you surround a city you can get rid of all entrenchments in one turn, but then the city will be doomed anyway.

The point is that the entrenchment level will indicate for how long the capital, city or fortress can expect to give worse odds for the attacker.

So making this change will actually simulate the real battles better. Bigger cities held out longer than smaller cities and the cost to the attacker would be higher.

Stalingrad can now get max entrenchment 8 instead of 5 before. That means the attacker will need more attacks to capture Stalingrad than before. The same with cities like Munich, Prague etc.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I agree that this won't have a big impact since most cities will have a production of 0-2. We want cities without production to be slightly weaker and now they are. Cities with 1 production are a little bit weaker. With 2 the same as before. With 3 a little bit stronger. With 4 slightly stronger and so on.

Capitals will be slightly weaker for most minor power capitals, but the same as before to major powers (all have 5+ production).

For fortresses the Atlantic wall fortresses and east German fortress cities will be the same except Antwerp that will be a little bit stronger. The Siegfried line, Ostwall, Gustav Line and Maginot line (except Strasbourg) will be a little bit weaker. Sevastopol will be 2 stronger and Leningrad 4 stronger.

I think this is good because we really don't want to add a major change to the game so close to release.

One good thing about this change is that we have the SAME rule for all. City size depends the max entrenchment and not whether it's a capital, city or fortress. That's actually simpler to understand rather than having to remember 3 different rules.

So this rule change is a minor tweak, but it will make more sense than the old rule. Now city size matters a bit.

[Blathergut]

Simpler is better.

[Cybvep]

Simpler is better.

What's so complex about the new system exactly? The bigger the city (i.e. the higher the production gameplay-wise), the harder it is to capture. Sounds simple. Why defending Sofia should be easier than defending Stalingrad?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think Blathergut meant that it's simpler to make the change because we can have a common rule for capitals, cities and fortresses regarding max entrenchment. So he's actually supporting the change, not the original rule.

[Cybvep]

If that's the case, then I agree.

[Crazygunner1]

If added to fortress, won´t they be nearly imposible to take if a entrenched mech holds it?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

No, because you can always bombard the fortress with 2 air units and the fortress will regain 1 entrenchment per turn. So with some turns of bombardment you can get the entrenchment down to 1 and then use land attacks to finish off the unit. E. g. Leningrad is adjacent to 4 hexes so it can be taken down.

You just need to prepare better. Sevastopol can be attacked from 2 hexsides and with air units as well it means you can make 4 reduction to entrenchment in 1 turn. Max is 6 so you will in 2 turns get the entrenchments to 0. The turns you attack while the entrenchment is 1 or more will bleed the attacker, though.

[JimR]

I support the idea of a common rule for capitals, cities and fortresses, as suggested. (Or has this already been implemented in the latest RC update?)