Lets talk Bunkers/Pillboxes

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.

@Imperious:

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).

To be sure to fully understand you’re idea “minus damage”:
if the bunker receives 2 hits by SBR and 2 Inf are within, both are now defending at 3, isn’t?
And if there is a third Inf, it still defends @4?
And two more hits by SBR will give to those 3 Inf: Def 2/2/3?
And finally, a total of 6 hits by SBR, no more bunker: 3 Inf defending as usual, 2/2/2?

To be sure to fully understand you’re idea, if the bunker receives 2 hits by SBR, if 2 INF are within both are now defending at 3, isn’t?

Yes, but if the bunker gets a 4th hit, only 2 units fire at 4. If a 5th hit, only 1. 6th hit none.

And if there is a third Inf, it still defends @4?

Yes as long as the bunker does not have 4 or more damage points.

And two more hits by SBR will give to those 3 Inf: Def 2/2/3?

4 hits total will allow only 2 units to fire at 4.

And finally, a total of 6 hits by SBR, no more bunker: 3 Inf defending as usual?

yes. and the cost of repair is 1 IPC per damage point, just like global 40 rules.

I input this example in a precedent post:

@Baron:

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.

Don’t you find this quite unreal to have a defensive item unable to protect 2 inf against 1?
I’m still thinking of long (hours) and numerous bombardment against japanese pillboxes unable to touch the defenders and taking the marines flatfooted when they arrived on the beach to fall on a heavy fire from the hidden japanese defenders.

You say:

"if the bunker gets a 4th hit

by SBR implied

, only 2 units fire at 4. If a 5th hit, only 1. 6th hit none.

"
How does SBR work in this case?

If a bomber rolls a “6”, is it a hit or a miss?
Does it require a 4 or less?
Or is it considered 6 hits, so no more bunker?
Or if 1 bomber gets one hit (dice roll 1 to 4), it means that we need 6 SBR to get ride of this bunker/pillboxes?

I suppose that pillboxes (acting like airbase) are under a SBR,
is the 3 Inf able to hit the bomber?
If the answer is No,
does it implies that their is a AAA included in the pillboxes package, so they can stop the bomber with preemptive @1 shot?
:?

@Imperious:

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.

I think it implies that every bomber get 2 hits per SBR. Does it required to roll 1 to 4 to hit? :?

I think it implies that every bomber get 2 hits per SBR. Does it required to roll 1 to 4 to hit?

Bombers roll one die for damage and the result is the damage placed under the pillbox. So if it rolls 5 only 1 unit gets to roll @4

@Imperious:

I think it implies that every bomber get 2 hits per SBR. Does it required to roll 1 to 4 to hit?

Bombers roll one die for damage and the result is the damage placed under the pillbox. So if it rolls 5 only 1 unit gets to roll @4

So the 3 Inf of our examples can do nothing to stop this SBR…
Sooner or later (unless repaired by IPC) the bunker will be blasted.

right.

@Imperious:

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.

I would rather prefer to downsize the defensive value of pillboxes/bunker to separate them from Port or Airbase (inbuilt  AAA and 6 damage points).

Allows Inf and/or Art (but not Arm), and only 2 units to defend at 3.
Cost 4 and allows to soak 1 additionnal hit during combat _.
Must be built on a territory owned a the start of the power’s turn.
Only one per territory.
Can be SBR (4 damage points) and have no inbuilt AAA (so it’s a free ride unless their is already a AAA in the territory).
First damage point, no effect.
Second damage point, only 1 unit gets @3,
Third damage point, no unit gets bonus,
Fourth damage point and more, destroys the pillboxes/bunker and the “extra hit” protection.
Can be rebuilt on a 1 on 1 IPC basis.
If it is not damage but suffers an attack in which the bunker absorb one hit, it is “repaired” at the end of the attacking power turn (same as a battleship).

It is a bit more complicated than the two originals separates options: bunker (2 IPC for 1 additional hit) + reinforced position (1 IPC for a +1 def).
But it gives more value for IPCs.
And it allows 2 ways to attack this fortification (not only land, but also air) to increase the tactical options for the players.

Is it a too powerful defense?_

It is a bit more complicated than the two originals separates options: bunker (2 IPC for 1 additional hit) + reinforced position (1 IPC for a +1 def).
But it gives more value for IPCs.
And it allows 2 ways to attack this fortification (not only land, but also air) to increase the tactical options for the players.

A more simple way to deal with it, is to consider them as independant buying (for those extra-bucks “left over” after the main purchase):

For 1 IPC, you give to an Inf or Art +1 on def. Up to 3 units stationned in a given territory.

For 2 IPCs, you built a bunker that gives 1 extra hit to fend off an attack in a territory. Max 1 per territory.
If defenders survive but used the extra hit, it cost 1 IPC to repair the structure.

It can be SBR, but it is done differently: a single roll of 1-4 means it is destroyed, a roll of 5-6 it is undamaged.
If their is a AAA in the territory, it get 1 @1 shot on the bomber.

All these in a single territory will give: 3 units (Inf/Art) defending @3. And an extra spare hit. For the cost of 5 IPCs.

So a reinforced defensive position of 3 Inf and a bunker gives: 12+2= 14 IPCs/ 3@3 / takes 4 hits.
It’s seems superior to 2 Inf+ 2 Art= 14 IPCs  4@2 / 2 Inf+ 1 Arm= 14 IPCs/ 2@2  and 1@3 /takes 3 hits.

And reinforced defensive position of 3 Art and a bunker that gives: 15+2= 17 IPCs / 3@3 takes 4 hits,
seems slighlty inferior to 3 Inf and 2 Art: 9+8= 17 IPCs / 5@2 takes 5 hits.

I found one of the influence in my way of thinking about pillboxes:

Re: Amphibious Assault Bonus
� Reply #7 on: July 07, 2012, 07:43:42 am �

0 Vote Down Vote Up
Reply with quoteQuote
Hi Inmajor,

You can’t bypass Japan. Control of all Axis capitals is an Allied victory condition. And yes, I would defend any threatened capital with a considerable infantry stack.

In terms of your suggestion: making every amphibious assault a modal choice for the defender between two options is (pardon my frankness) clumsy and time-consuming. Choose one mode and go with it. But I wouldn’t go with the first-strike option; and the original proposal of +5 free hit soaks seems extreme as well.

So what, you may reasonably ask, is my alternate suggestion for how to implement a defender-friendly house rule? Please see my contribution to the thread on Entrenchment, reworked slightly and posted below:

---

During the ‘Purchase Units’ phase, each player may choose up to 3 Infantry units in different territories under their control and pay 2 IPC for each. Put an ‘Entrenchment’ counter under those infantry units. Those infantry units cannot move for the rest of the game.

You may remove one ‘Entrenchment’ counter from the board instead of a unit each time these infantry are allocated as a casualties during defensive combat.

Only one infantry per territory may have ‘Entrenchment’ counters placed under it, and only one counter may be added to this infantry per turn.

If it turns out that Entrenchment becomes a dominant strategy, you could rename it ‘Engineers’, make it into a Weapons Development, and limit access in that fashion.

---

That way, the defence builds gradually, and you pay for it… Think of the effort, for example, in building up the Atlantic Wall, or the Maginot Line, or the cave complexes of Iwo Jima: these took time and resources to develop, and even then they didn’t function as an auto-nuke to the attackers (remember that each of these defences fell, when their time came).

Hope this helps,

MIR  Make_It_Round