Slitherine

I think they are a bit modeled strangely.. Strongpoint is supposed to be light fortification, which main role was to stop enemy infantry, but its the infantry which is most effective destroying it, while tanks, which were the bane of such positions, end up coming up short when attacking these...

The best possible solution i think would be making these "soft target" with a lot more close defense, but reducing hard attack down a lot.. In my own files i have them with SA 7 HA 2-4 (based on country) and GD 12 (soft) CD 8. also Initiative is 4, so base infantry attacking a strongpoint without help of artillery, is quite problematic (yet im using different initiative setup for infantry, with INI 1-2 for SMG infantry, 3-4 for Rifle equipped infantry. Initiative represents range of engagement, therefore infantry with longer range has advantage, while short range weapons like SMGs have Soft attack bonus. im also using LMG/MMG for ground defense stat, as these weapon main purpose was to suppress the enemy, and therefore providing protection to own infantrymen)

Judging from their looks and their role is most scenarios, I guess these do represent proper bunkers, not some kind of MG nest. Maybe they are named improperly.

JaM2013 wrote:I think they are a bit modeled strangely.. Strongpoint is supposed to be light fortification, which main role was to stop enemy infantry, but its the infantry which is most effective destroying it, while tanks, which were the bane of such positions, end up coming up short when attacking these...

Stop right there. I'm not sure what game you were playing, but in PzC, strongpoints and forts are invincible to infantry throughout the war when supported by a high RoF artillery piece. They die incredible easily (often a one-shot) to any kind of armor that comes out from 1943 onwards (i.e. has a decent gun) and many pre-1943 armored units do well against them as well such as StuG AT units. Yeah, infantry with the fortkiller trait do well against unmanned and undefended forts, as they historically would, but surely you don't leave your forts undefended when you play, right? Strongpoints and Forts already work exactly as you claim they should with no tinkering required.

Strongpoints are heavy and should be the bane of both tanks and infantry. They didn't just have machine guns but also anti-tank guns and various tank traps e.g. ditches, dragon's teeth, and mines. Many of these bunkers were made of such thick concrete that only point-blank shots from the heaviest of tank guns worked, if at all.

Best avoided if at all possible. I think the game does a good job of modeling them both in gameplay and historical context.

strongpoints and forts should be "soft" targets, so tanks with high velocity guns wont be more effective than specialized bunker buster tanks with large caliber guns..

so, now if you change them to soft target, their close defense needs to go up, otherwise infantry will slaughter them with ease.. their normal defense also has to be higher so they are less likely damaged by light artillery. infantry on its own should have a hard time, therefore initiative for these bunkers should be slightly higher than infantry has..