Slitherine

Fortifications and minefields are an essential part of warfare. I could not find these features.

Fortifications take the form of underlying terrain (which cannot be changed or destroyed) AND immobile fortifications units (which can attack and be destroyed). Any unit can place itself in an unoccupied fortification terrain hex, though infantry benefit most. Fortification units are not necessarily found in fortification terrain hexes, though they may be. These hexes and units are found in many scenarios from the vanilla game onward. Some units (most notably pioniere and paratroops) have a "fortkiller" trait that makes them especially useful against fortification units.

Minefields appear for the first time in Afrika Korps. They are a great addition to the game. They do not appear in the early or Eastern front DLCs as these came out before Afrika Korps. A pioniere unit can clear a minefield hex in a single turn. Other units cannot.

Thanks. Which fortification units do you refer to and where do I find them? Scenario independent possibility to change the underlying terrain like demolishing a bridge would add realism.

Stechkin wrote:Thanks. Which fortification units do you refer to and where do I find them? Scenario independent possibility to change the underlying terrain like demolishing a bridge would add realism.

Forts are pretty common, if you start playing any campaign you will come across one soon. Sometimes they appear "on your side" as auxiliary units, but much more often they are on the enemy's side. They vary greatly in defensive and offensive strength, from wimpy observation posts to colossal monsters (see Maginot Line and Sevastopol). You can't purchase forts for your own use, at least not without modding the game.

The ability to blow bridges is definitely on many players' "wish list" here at the forum. I wouldn't be surprised if it were to appear in a future iteration of the series.

I've been advocating an expanded role for the Bridge Engineer for a long time now. First, I would just call the unit "Combat Engineer." Second, the Combat Engineer would have the ability not only to bridge rivers, but actually BUILD a bridge that remains after the unit leaves the space. It would also have the ability to BLOW UP bridges--and also railroad lines--sort of a "scorched earth" function). Others can determine how many terms the combat engineer would need to complete this task. Third, the Combat Engineer would be able to clear minefields, and lay minefields. Right now, the pionere unit is the best minesweeper unit, which to me is a bit of stretch. Fourth, the combat engineer could build fortifications (dig trenches, lay barbed wire, building concrete strong-points). Again, the number of turns it would take for the unit to create each type of fortification could be debated. Finally, the combat engineer would have a little more offensive/defensive power. The bridge engineer unit is a pretty limp-wristed unit when trying to attack something. In my opinion, their attack/defense values should be increased. Maybe this is something for Panzer Corps II, but an expanded role for the bridge engineer is a long-time coming.

I like the idea of bridge units that could be built by engineers and exposed to subsequent destruction. There was a great mod of Allied General called "Spanish General," which in one scenario (Ebro) featured pontoon bridge units that could moved into position to cross a two-hex-wide river (the Ebro). The pontoon units had a movement of one, and could move on one another (so as to reach the other side of the river), and they could be attacked and destroyed. This was important in the scenario, because if you were the Republicans you had to be able to get across and maintain the crossing to bring up reinforcements, whereas if you were the Nationalists, you could try to let the first wave across and then destroy the bridges before the reinforcements arrived. Very exciting stuff.

Zhivago wrote: It would also have the ability to BLOW UP bridges--and also railroad lines--sort of a "scorched earth" function).

I dont think this is a good idea for a few reasons:
- the AI; nothing more to say here
- how would the game count in the strategic impact of blowing up some important bridges? Supply in later scenarios? Going back to offensive?
- huge change of balance in some scenarios that are river based (and there are a lot of those)

Aloo wrote:

Zhivago wrote: It would also have the ability to BLOW UP bridges--and also railroad lines--sort of a "scorched earth" function).

I dont think this is a good idea for a few reasons:
- the AI; nothing more to say here
- how would the game count in the strategic impact of blowing up some important bridges? Supply in later scenarios? Going back to offensive?
- huge change of balance in some scenarios that are river based (and there are a lot of those)

While this game may represent a mere shadow of reality, blowing up bridges (and building new ones) was common-place in WW2. I can't understand why having that as an option in this game is a revolutionary or bad idea. Your reasons "against" the idea are not persuasive, in my opinion. I think having more options in the game is a good thing, and helps new strategies/tactics evolve.

I know that blowing up bridges was normal in WW2 but htanks for pointing it out any way

My reasons (not persuasive... rather subjective) against the idea are based on how the game works, not on the idea itself (it would make bridging eng much more usefull and allow for some new and interesting scenarios).

It is revolutionary and a bad idea at the moment, as the AI will have no way to handle this in any of the existing campaigns.
The concept is already there in the market garden scenarios from the West DLC campaign. I didn't allow the bridges to be blown so I'm not sure but I think the scenarios needed special scripting when going back to the same maps to check if the bridge was blown or not.
This would be a very nice addition to MP or a new version of the game but for this version in SP it would ruin a lot of scenarios.

Aloo wrote:I know that blowing up bridges was normal in WW2 but htanks for pointing it out any way

My reasons (not persuasive... rather subjective) against the idea are based on how the game works, not on the idea itself (it would make bridging eng much more usefull and allow for some new and interesting scenarios).

It is revolutionary and a bad idea at the moment, as the AI will have no way to handle this in any of the existing campaigns.
The concept is already there in the market garden scenarios from the West DLC campaign. I didn't allow the bridges to be blown so I'm not sure but I think the scenarios needed special scripting when going back to the same maps to check if the bridge was blown or not.
This would be a very nice addition to MP or a new version of the game but for this version in SP it would ruin a lot of scenarios.

I'm glad that you qualified your opinion as being "subjective' rather than "objective."

This sounds like a fun option for muItiplayer games, just not workable with the current AI.