I like the idea of a pillbox with no attack nor defense value, affects infantry defense value, and take two SBR hits or two shore bombardment hits to take it out. Damaged ones still function, and are repairable. I don’t think it would be a good idea to bind them to the IPC value of the territory they are residing in.
I love this about you Turtle. Keep these kind of threads going!
Why thank you. I figured someone ought to.
I’ve seen a lot of house rules where Japanese get “pillboxes” or “dug in defenders” where infantry defend on a 3.
I really like the entrenchment rule. Is that in Great War 1914-1918? I haven’t read the rules.
I’ve been wondering, “bunkers/pillboxes”…are they two different pieces, or are they 1 piece that’s supposed to represent both?
The d-day rules, though they are a baseline, seem to me to be a bit too “tactical”, if you know what I mean.
For amphibious invasions and shore defenses, maybe something like a “sea AA Gun”, where it fires against each bombarding ship in the opening fire stage. I think this rule was also in D-day, however, and I did just say it was “too tactical”. Oh well, once we get a good idea of what FMG will provide us, I’m sure hammering out the kinks in the battle system won’t be too hard.
I really like the entrenchment rule. Is that in Great War 1914-1918? I haven’t read the rules.
yes except tanks ( technology upgrade) each reduce entrench bonus at 2:1, and stormtroopers ( again tech upgrade) reduce it 1:1
Storm troopers? Intresting. Maybe for my new FMG pieces, I can make the elite German infantry a storm trooper.
Stosstrupen were special tench raiders that bypassed enemy strong points and used lots of grenades and flamethrowers against entrenched enemy. This was a WW1 thing only. Of course stormtroopers existed in ww2, but its role was different because tanks overcame the static defensive minded direction of the Great War.
yah i think anything labled stormtooper in world war 2 were probobly just political soldiers
Hello,
my suggestion: bunkers/pillboxes: att 0 def 0 move 0 cost 2. Can take 1 hit. Can be rebuilt at cost of 1, if the territory is not conquered.
Must be built on a territory owned at the start of your turn (like IC) (and, if its an island, the sea-zone is not enemy-occupied), also required a minimum of 1 INF or ART on the territory and no more than two bunkers per given territory can be built (if you have 2 INF or ART, or 1 INF & 1 ART at the start of the turn).
Advantages: it can soak any one hit during a battle (just like BB).
Can be rebuilt: cost 1 IPC, if you still owned the territory at the beginning of your turn and their is still 1 INF or ART alive.
What do you think?
Too unbalancing in favor of the Axis and specially Japan?
Must be combined with Marines or Elite units to counterweight it?
Instead of bunkers/pillboxes,
I call it reinforced positions: Att 0 Def +1 Mov 0 Cost 1, gives +1 to any INF or ART on defense, as long as it did not move.
Must be built on a territory owned at the start of your turn (like IC) and, if its an island, the sea-zone is not enemy-occupied, also required a minimum of 1 INF or ART on the territory and no more than two reinforced positions per given territory can be built (if you have 2 INF or ART, or 1 INF & 1 ART at the start of the turn).
If we combine both later suggestions bunker and reinforced defensive position:
for 3 IPC you can have an ART or an INF on an island having DEF 3 and takes 1 hit before losing unit.
If their is 2 INF (or 2 ART, or 1 INF and 1 ART) on a given island, and pay 6 IPC,
this will give 2 units with DEF 3 and be able to soak 2 hits before taking damage.
The advantage is that you don’t have to move any other unit to upgrade a given defensive position:
but 2@3+ 2 hits is quite as powerful as 4@2 (4 INF defending same cost: 2 INF + 6 IPC/2 INF).
Maybe it is still too much and must be limited to 1 Bunker/pillboxes and 1 reinforced position per territory.
What could you say?
This type of unit should be like a port.
Takes the same damage/rules as Port or Airbase.
Makes any three units with it defend at 4 ( minus damage)
cost could be 6 or 12 ( not sure, but probably 6)
Only one per territory.
Hi IL,
where are those rules for airbase or port?
I don’t know them since I play only on 1941 and 1942?
Thanks,
as per global 1940
Makes any three units with it defend at 4 ( minus damage) cost could be 6 or 12 ( not sure, but probably 6)
Only one per territory.
If its limited to one per territory, it will only cost 3.
It boosts and protects only 1 INF or ART (not 3 units) and can be place anywhere either island or inland.
By
Makes any three units with it defend at 4
, do you imply any type such Inf Art and Arm, so its still only one unit that get boosted ?
Its better not to have a restriction…any 3 ground units @4. The idea is mostly Infantry will be candidates because of cost.
Damage is maxed at 6, first three SBR hits make it unusable.
What you suggest seems too powerful in a 1942.2 scenario for example.
I’m thinking about 1 Japan Inf, in Iwo Jima for instance.
It’s not a naval base but the Inf is deeply underground.
How a pillboxes homerule can provide a feeling of this hard won battle?
I’m not used to the airbase rule (I think Iwo Jima was an airbase) but can they provide the capacity to soak 1 hit like BB?
They can be damaged by SBR 3 hits takes it out, and 6 is the max hits. Player can spend IPC to rebuild
If the area where the base is is captured, the bunker is removed.
Also, if you have less then three units only that many get the boost.
Example: You got just two land units, so potentially you can boost only two to four.
What happens in an amphibious assault on those two Inf?
It will take only 2 hits to get ride of them, isn’t it?
Even though they hit twice with their @4, 2 shots by the attackers in the first round (think of a coastal bombardment @4 with a lucky 1 Inf@1) and it is over for them.
Well they just roll @4. If they are hit and no other units remain, the Bunker is wrecked ( max damage at 6). All the bunker does is boost up to three units @4 ( minus damage).
I see,
but it seems from MHPV that the capacity to soak a hit is a better way to recreate the spirit of a month long assault on a fortified ground, like Iwo Jima.
I suggested the cost of 2 to obtain a “free hit” that can not reduce the number of defending units to mimmick the presence of further units on a territory.
So a lesser number of soldiers can endure much more in a fortified position than on open ground, like the sand beach of an island.
Inf cost 3, so a “unit” unable to attack nor defend but still counting as one (like an AAA in 1942.2) must be less expensive.
