Idea: Entrenchment

@Vance:

Instead of making them a hit soak, how about:

Infantry entrenchment.
One infantry per territory per turn may be entrenched at a cost of $2.  No more than 3 entrenched infantry may occupy a single territory.  Trenches are represented by a trench roundel placed under the infantry unit and are immobile.  An infantry unit to be entrenched must have been in the territory at the start of the turn.  If entrenched infantry are later moved or killed, the trenches remain unless they are destroyed by the enemy.

Entrenched infantry are immune to attack by enemy infantry, mechanized infantry, artillery, or shore bombardment.  Only armor and air units can kill entrenched infantry.  Trenches may be destroyed by artillery or shore bombardment.

Example: you attack 2 entrenched infantry with 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, and a cruiser bombards.  On the first dice roll you hit with the infantry and a cruiser.  The infantry hit doesn’t count but the cruiser shot de-trenches 1 infantry.  The defender doesn’t hit anything.

On the second dice roll you get hits for the infantry and fighter.  The enemy also gets a hit.  The untrenched infantry is killed by the infantry hit and the fighter hit kills the entrenched infantry. One trench remains unscathed.  You decide to lose the artillery and occupy the territory with 1 entrenched infantry.

So if you are amphibiously assaulting an island with entrenched infantry you will always want shore bombardment (to weaken enemy defenses), air support (to kill the enemy), armor (to kill the enemy), and infantry (hit soak to protect your armor OR to occupy a usable defensive position).  Bringing artillery might be a bad idea because trenches would soak hits  from artillery and you might want to preserve those defenses for yourself.

I like this, but I think you should be able to place entrechments equal to the territories IPC value. Islands have a max of 3, No ipc territories have a max of 1.

Soaking up a hit and boosting an infantry or artillery (what about mechs? Are they ‘just’ infantry with trucks or no?) to 3 defense seems reasonable to me.

The cost should be the same as the amount of trenches already in the territory. I don’t like hard limits, and this would simulate the cost of various stages of fortification quite well I think.

So if you decided to place 10 in Moscow:
0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=$45
to soak up 10 hits.

Past a cetain point, it stops being viable and so self-balances.

Limit to no more than one placed in any given territory per round.

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.

@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.

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”.

I like it.

1 free entrenchment per turn, per country.

but no more entrenchments in a territory than there are infantry?

@Der:

@MacNaughton:

@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.

Great idea over all but there are some bugs