Entrenchment questions

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

Post Reply
User avatar
gchristie
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:34 pm
Location: Coast of Maine

Entrenchment questions

Post by gchristie »

Why is it that if one unit is entrenched and it is replaced by a new unit (shift + L click) the new unit receives no benefit from the entrenchments? The defensive works should degrade over time, but not immediately.

My other question has to do with existing fortifications. I had an engineer build fortifications on two sides of a hex, but I clicked too soon and fortified the wrong hex side. I would like to add a third hex side but the fortification option is greyed out. Is there a way to improve upon existing fortifications, or remove existing ones if I have to start from scratch?

User avatar
Steely Glint
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm

RE: Entrenchment questions

Post by Steely Glint »

Back in the day when my unit relieved another one in improved defensive positions we occupied their old defensive positions and lost none of the benefits of them.

This only works for like units, of course. Infantry relieving infantry, tanks relieving tanks. But improved positions do not mysteriously vanish when a new unit of the same type relieves the old one. Never happens.
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
User avatar
gchristie
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:34 pm
Location: Coast of Maine

RE: Entrenchment questions

Post by gchristie »

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

But improved positions do not mysteriously vanish when a new unit of the same type relieves the old one. Never happens.

My point exactly. So why does the game engine treat entrenchments this way? Can this be modified?
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Entrenchment questions

Post by Sugar »

I can imagine entrenchment is representing digging in as well as camouflage. Maybe infantryunits can use existing foxholes, but the units HQs have to camouflage newly, and terrain exploitation is time consuming.

Otherwise fortresses and engenineer built strongholds give two advantages to units, more max. entrenchementlevel and some defenseboni additional to the terrainboni; and if you`re switching two units, even half of the max. entrenchmentlevel is granted, together with disadvantages for the switching itself. So it is your decision to leave a chipped unit in its place, refresh and keep the entrenchment, or to replace by switching and receive some disadvantages.

Imho for a WWII-game this is already a very thoughtfull system, and it works alltogether in favour of representing aspects of operational manoeuvre warfare. In WWII none of the famous fortifications had the expected impact, neither Eben-Emael, nor the Maginotline, the Tobruk or the Singapur-Perimeters.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”