Unit swapping entrenchment bug 1.08 game > 1.10

[OxfordGuy3]

Hi - I just noticed a unit swapping entrenchment bug in a PBEM game I started under 1.08, now on 1.10 (standalone version). I swapped a unit on a hill that had entrenchment 1 with one in a city (at entrenchment 4) - under 1.10 I was expected the unit I moved into the city to have entrenchment 3 and the unit I moved onto the hill to have entrenchment 1, but no - the unit on the hill now has entrenchment 3 and the unit in the city has entrenchment 0 - how can this be?

I can send you the save, if that's possible (it's also on the PBEM servers)

[Sugar]

Both lost 1 entrenchment by swapping. Otherwise the unit would add 3 lvls of entrenchment out of nowhere. If both had 4, they'd end up with 3 each.

[OxfordGuy3]

But it doesn't really make sense, the entrenchment should be on the position, not the unit - this is how it works in similar games (e.g. Commander Europe at War GS) - how did the unit from the city "carry" it's 3 entrenchment with it? It prepared the entrenched position in the city, so the unit that moved into the hex should be the one to benefit from the prepared position. The position on the hill was barely prepared, so why should the unit that moved there suddenly be able in increase entrenchment by 2 levels. I think this new mechanic needs to be reviewed.

[Sugar]

how did the unit from the city "carry" it's 3 entrenchment with it?

I agree. Both should lose all their entrenchment.

[OxfordGuy3]

It doesn't make sense for them both to lose all their entrenchment either. If a unit has spent weeks digging in, working out fields of fire, placing sand bags or other defensive positions, why should a new unit that's rotated in not benefit from it? Do you think trenches suddenly disappeared when units where rotated in WW1? It does make sense for there to be some loss of entrenchment value, though, due to the disruption of the changeover, but to lose all makes no sense. I would also argue that when losing entrenchment from swapping, if the position being moved into only had one entrenchment, then the unit moving in should still get that one - i.e. doesn't get reduced to zero. But if it was higher than 1, it would get reduced by 1 level. This is how it worked (well) in Commander Europe at War GS

[Harrybanana]

I agree with Oxford Guy. The entrenchment should belong to the hex not the unit.

[Sugar]

Who cares what other games do, the mechanic has to fit this game. And you neglect the fact, that the fortifications provide their boni additional to the possibly higher lvl of entrenchment, even if the unit has no entrenchment at all, and that she gets the 1. lvl in the following enemy turn.

Together with the possibility to upgrade them, they`re a little op imho.

Compared to the predecessor intensely used fortifications prevent typical operational manouevre warfare, since the operation-range of units has decreased and the attack-values of (med)tanks as well.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the report and I'll take a look as I see the potential issue here.

[nnason]

For all you grognards out there, that want more detail on Nazi fortifications, read this excellent book, "Fortress Third Reich" German Fortifications and Defense Systems in World War II. Excellent maps, diagrams pictures old and new and a high level narrative on the entire war so reader can see the context of the Fortifications. High level narrative was quite good. By JE Kaufmann and HW Kaufman.

Probably will not settle differences of opinion above but will add color to the discussion. [:)]

[Sugar]

Many thx Noah,

it`s no real dispute, oxford guy is right to complain if something doesn`t work as expected.

I guess I´m not really satisfied with the direction the game took. Russia is artificially weakened by their request of developing lvl 3 Inf. (as well as the lack of doctrines), and to compensate the meaning of fortifications has been improved, leading to a WW1 style campaign imho.

We already discussed the meaning of fortresses in WW2, there was none. Maginotline, Eben Emael, Westwall, Tobruk perimeter, Singapur, all mostly useless.

[nnason]

Sugar,
I agree dispute was wrong term.

As for fortifications in the east and west the authors would agree that most of what Hitler called fortresses weren't. They quote someone saying Hitler seamed to feel if he designated a city as a fortress by will alone (his or the German soldiers) it "would be." That being said there were lots of plans for various lines some were upgraded old fortifications, some never got above field fortifications, some were half finished and provided real protection. The Germans spent a lot of effort in Norway and along the Baltic which were never used except perhaps as a deterrent. The strong Atlantic Wall around Calais simply pushed the Allies south to Normandy. And they built several lines between Finland and Norway that saw use late in the war. (Something I knew nothing about.) Lots more in the book.