Discussion thread for possible new bunker creation rule.

[Aaron]

Well the wheel is still turning but the hamster has fallen off. Going from what youve said and using vanilla as an example i can see a Mech Bn getting into some sort of IP in 3 hours 75% of the time. Now you would have a 75% chance still to put a full Inf compliment of a Mech Bn from this IP into fighting positions plus build positions for your vehicles and be able to do this in another 3 hours. Now i cant prove this is impossible to be able to do this in 6 hours 75% of the time but to me that seems a little far fetch to put an entire Bn in fighting positions with vehicles in 6 hours. Now back to the bunker, that diagram is yes a fighting position and even the one with the overhead cover is still just a fighting position and not a bunker so it would still be considered an entrenchment, a bunker is a whole new monster, thats why it took 2 and sometimes 3 of us 2 full days to build one. Looking at it from your perspective yes you could add bunkers to MC but you should probably have 2 different digging-in modifiers (one for getting to an IP and the other for getting to an ENTRENCHMENT from the IP) and then and only then a small variable of that becoming a bunker somewhere along the line but not to soon i would hope. Shit hell we would waste 2 hours just trying to find an axe to cut a damn tree down because some non swinging morons broke half of them on the damn trees because they couldnt aim straight, yea you guys know who you are :)

Aaron

[Glenn Saunders]

Well the wheel is still turning but the hamster has fallen off.

Glad to hear it:)

So, here's the deal! We're not likely to be changing anything to do with which units can build IPs and Trenches. This point is not open for discussion. Nor will the series feature more or less forts. There are IPs, Trenches, Bunkers and Pillboxes.

What we are considering is allowing Engineers to build a Bunkers in PzC and MC. There sems to be interest and support for this concept on the forum and I believe there is a good chance we can get it done if we can come to a consensus.

The proposal on the table is to use the same PDT Value we have for Laying Mines and anyone who has tried to create a Minefield in the game know it is possible but not something that happens fast. Creating a Belt of minefields is damn near impossible and that works for me because the developers would not likely allow a line of Bunkers to be built either.

Currently the percentage used for Laying Mines (and were considering for Bunker) is HALF the Digging Parameter which is most PzC game (but not always) is 10%. But the Danube Front default game uses a value of 25% Digging in (I don't know if you modifed that in your Mod.)

What the math says is for Danube Front it would be 50% chance of a Bunker being built is 5 turns - thats 15 Hours using daylight turns. Or 90% chance in 17 turns which with nights of 6 hour turns is a couple of days. So to make this period longer you would have to reduce the digging In value in your PDT.

I know your not interested in PzC but for the interest of those players who are, for PzC where the Normal Digging In Value is 10% the math works out to 50% chance of building the Bunker in 13 turns, 90% in 44 Turns which I think is perfect.

And I think it is something I can get implemented (But I am not certain nor am I promising it on John Tillers behalf)

So the question is can you make this work for your Mod in Europe?

I ask because it seems to work for me and many others here. It will work fr MC in Middle East 67, and for Ed in Korea 85 ....and to be honest, it would be easier to do (READ MORE CHANCE OF IT HAPPENING) if we request this change as something across the board for both PzC and MC.

So is this in your opinion something that is good for the series or not?
And if NOT, can you make it work in your mod by lowering the Digging Value in the PDT?

Glenn

[Volcano Man]

What the math says is for Danube Front it would be 50% chance of a Bunker being built is 5 turns - thats 15 Hours using daylight turns. Or 90% chance in 17 turns which with nights of 6 hour turns is a couple of days. So to make this period longer you would have to reduce the digging In value in your PDT.

...for PzC where the Normal Digging In Value is 10% the math works out to 50% chance of building the Bunker in 13 turns, 90% in 44 Turns which I think is perfect.

Not to beat the dead horse too much more, but it is good that you mentioned the math.

I think the key in implementation would be that it must be implemented such that you don't jump from a TRENCH to a BUNKER, but rather a TRENCH to a Bunker, then a Bunker to a BUNKER. So, with that in mind, in MC it would be 90% chance of BUNKER by 34 turns and in PzC it would be 90% chance for BUNKER in 88 turns. That sounds pretty safe to me when you consider that you have to dig the hex into TRENCH level first. :P

[P.Ako]

So, with that in mind, in MC it would be 90% chance of BUNKER by 34 turns and in PzC it would be 90% chance for BUNKER in 88 turns. That sounds pretty safe to me when you consider that you have to dig the hex into TRENCH level first. :P

And then, when you've constructed the bunker or BUNKER or BuNkEr or bUnKeR or whatever you call it... the game ends...

[Liquid_Sky]

Hmm..just for fun, I thought I would read the rules on Digging-In. (pg 19-20)

Interesting things to note: You cannot dig in during Frozen conditions.

Battalions have a 3 times normal probability to dig in. Companies are normal value....(two companies combined would be times 2, more would be times 3)

An engineer in the same hex will double the probability....( I thought my engineers had to do the actual digging)

That would mean that with an engineer in the hex, a battalion of ruskies would have a 60% chance to dig in.


For laying minefields the rulebook says "The probability that the minefield will be created in the hex based on a single Engineer unit is half the Digging-In Parameter Data value."

Does a single Engineer unit mean a company? Or does it literally mean, the size of the engineer does not matter (as long as its more then 100 men)...it will always be 5% (for Stalingrad). Me thinks I should boot up a test scenario to see

Okay...I ran a quick test, and after 50 turns, I was able to lay 3 minefields, with 3 hexes of engineers, one with three, and two singles. The one with three battalions didnt lay a single mine, one of the singles managed to lay one, move and lay another....the other laid one. So I suspect that multiple engineers in the same hex doesnt increase the odds, and that having engineers build bunkers based on half the digging in value will result in a few strategically placed bunkers, and not a whole line of them...

[Aaron]

That mathamatical manbojambo looks fine to me, still think its a lot of effort on your part for very little return. It dosnt seem like it would have much effect as your numbers show in many of the existing games both PzC and MC with how long it takes to build one. You would have to be playing a 350 turn scenario and have all your engineers in the rear with the gear building bunkers. As for my mod ive already decided to lower it to 17 before this discussion even began and maybe more just based on it having 2 hour turns and not 3. The Hamster died, poor Bastard

Aaron

[Aaron]

Hmm..just for fun, I thought I would read the rules on Digging-In. (pg 19-20)

Interesting things to note: You cannot dig in during Frozen conditions.

Battalions have a 3 times normal probability to dig in. Companies are normal value....(two companies combined would be times 2, more would be times 3)

An engineer in the same hex will double the probability....( I thought my engineers had to do the actual digging)

That would mean that with an engineer in the hex, a battalion of ruskies would have a 60% chance to dig in.


For laying minefields the rulebook says "The probability that the minefield will be created in the hex based on a single Engineer unit is half the Digging-In Parameter Data value."

Does a single Engineer unit mean a company? Or does it literally mean, the size of the engineer does not matter (as long as its more then 100 men)...it will always be 5% (for Stalingrad). Me thinks I should boot up a test scenario to see

Hey Sky a couple threads below theres a Digging-in thread that has a few answers your looking at.

Aaron

[Mr Grumpy]

Hmm..just for fun, I thought I would read the rules on Digging-In. (pg 19-20)

Interesting things to note: You cannot dig in during Frozen conditions.

Battalions have a 3 times normal probability to dig in. Companies are normal value....(two companies combined would be times 2, more would be times 3)

An engineer in the same hex will double the probability....( I thought my engineers had to do the actual digging)

That would mean that with an engineer in the hex, a battalion of ruskies would have a 60% chance to dig in.

As Aaron says, take a look at the "Digging in" thread. :)

[Volcano Man]

Brian (DS) brought up a good point to me about Sicily '43. The digging in % in that title is 30%, which is very high. This would result in bunkers being plopped out everywhere I think by the time the 300+ campaign came to an end.

So I guess my final view on the matter is that if Bunker / BUNKER building was allowed, it MUST be based on a PDT file on / off (1/0) switch, so that some titles might use it and some not (at the scenario designer's discretion). If that approach was not taken, then the digging in % in some titles might need to be revised, which could potentially be a lot of work.

[Mr Grumpy]

Brian (DS) brought up a good point to me about Sicily '43. The digging in % in that title is 30%, which is very high. This would result in bunkers being plopped out everywhere I think by the time the 300+ campaign came to an end.

I have played the Sicily campaign a few times and it is the only title i have had any success in laying mines in large numbers, so Glenn as DS/VM say careful with this title.........;)