A graduated cost- Now there’s a good idea!
Fortifcations. Cost 2 icp’s to start first level. Can buy extra levels at 1 icp. Up to 3 levels only per territory. Absorbs 3 hits. Then fort is destroyed. Then have to remove any hits after that. In are 1939 game, France starts with a 9 level fortification along the Franco-German border which is removed once France falls. In the 1942 game, Germany starts with a 9 level fort known as the Siegfried line goes from Switzerland borded to end of Belguim border. UK starts with 2 six level forts at Gilbraltar and Malta. 1 six level on each island.
I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?
@Der:
I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?
Because this game is both strategic and economic. And those two aspects are absolutely linked. All of your economic advantages are dependant on your strategic maneuvers. And all your deployments that enable your strategic maneuvers are dependant on your economic strength. It is the principle by which the game is balanced at the start and the principle by which nations gain the momentum toward victory.
You change the game at a foundational level when you start creating deployments that have nothing to do with your economy.
@Der:
I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?
You change the game at a foundational level when you start creating deployments that have nothing to do with your economy.
But using that reasoning why don’t we have to pay for the gas when we move our armor? Or pay for the bombs we use in strategic bombing? Or pay to fix battleships and carriers?
My original concept of entrenchment was not things like blockhouses or shore guns that would cost IPCs - it is just giving an infantry a shovel and saying “here - dig in.” For example - how much economic cost was involved in the Japanese tunnels at Iwo Jima? I’d say it was 90% shovel work.
By limiting the digging in to one entrenchment chip per turn, a limit is already imposed. Why impose a financial limit also? But each person can implement what they want with their own game. To me you are not actually producing any new weapon - you are just digging holes to hide in.
Kuenstler.
Your logic is sound.
It’s the same logic as “Infantry are already considered entrenched, that’s why they have a defensive value of 2”.
Kuenstler.
Your logic is sound.
It’s the same logic as “Infantry are already considered entrenched, that’s why they have a defensive value of 2”.
Right - that’s why you can’t let it take over the game. Infantry are already entrenched - but are they entrenched the same everywhere in the world? Isn’t there a difference between infantry who just found a log to lay behind and those who have been there long enough to build tunnels? Isn’t it different to be entrenched in a destroyed city like Stalingrad than in open Farmland?
Adding one entrenchment per turn to a key area just adds a little more strategy to the game.You put out your new units, you put out your entrenchment chip where you have had inactive infantry since the beginning of your turn. Done. Simple.
I like it.
1 free entrenchment per turn, per country.
but no more entrenchments in a territory than there are infantry?
@Vance:
but no more entrenchments in a territory than there are infantry?
I’d say as long as there is one infantry in there you can be entrenched up to a certain cap level. Too much bookkeeping otherwise. A small force can hold up a much larger one quite a while if entrenched enough.
@Der:
@Der:
I still see no reason to BUY entrenchment if you only get to add one chip per turn. It is only digging trenches. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on weapons?
You change the game at a foundational level when you start creating deployments that have nothing to do with your economy.
But using that reasoning why don’t we have to pay for the gas when we move our armor? Or pay for the bombs we use in strategic bombing? Or pay to fix battleships and carriers?
Because paying to upkeep a unit is different than paying to deploy a unit or build a facility.
Because paying to upkeep a unit is different than paying to deploy a unit or build a facility.
Well, hopefully everyone who likes the basic idea can adapt it the way they like. I think you are envisioning more elaborate things like concrete bunkers with fixed guns which would require some economic investment, where I’m thinking more of just ordering infantry to get their shovels and dig trenches and tunnels.
I’m happy to see some people like the basic idea and are getting creative with it!
Great idea over all but there are some bugs
