Lets talk Bunkers/Pillboxes

[baron Münchhausen]

@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? :?

[Imperious Leader]

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

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.

[Imperious Leader]

right.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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?_

[baron Münchhausen]

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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

[baron Münchhausen]

Somebody else think about the same combination we tried to develop earlier:

Re: Idea: Entrenchment
� Reply #16 on: May 07, 2012, 04:13:24 pm �
This is a great idea but it would work much better in a game with a limited scope, say just Europe, and a heavy infantry focus with emphases on defensive warfare. So essentially you’ve got a great system for a WW1 themed game, I use a similar one in my home brewed WW1 game, but in that artillery has its own bombardment phase to try to knock out the trenches, A&A doesn’t work that way.

An idea I’ve used in a couple of home made A&A variants is to add the fortress (the blockhouses from D-day) facility. It can only be placed in a Territory with a victory city, costs 15 IPC and takes 3 hits to render in-operable (but can have up to six points of damage done to it). Unlike the other facilities (Airfield and naval port) it doesn’t have it’s own “built in” AA defense and it’s bonus is raising the defense of up to 4 infantry to 3 or less. Keeps it balanced and works well.  Clyde85

[baron Münchhausen]

A other interesting way to create bunkers rules:
Post subject: Now that we have colored AAA guns, what can we do w/AA guns
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:22 am

AA1942 2nd edition has power specific AAA guns (colored anti air art). These new guns follow the rules for AA in Alpha+3 (fire up to 3 shots each, and can be used as a casualty). What can we do with the light gray AA guns (or old white relics) now that we will be buying AA42 to get the new sculpts including power specific AAA guns (you know your gonna buy it).

Here’s my take on it (knowing that much of this is other rules I’ve seen meshed together).

Use the neutral gray AA as an artillery bunker (or machine gun nest) to boost defenses of a territory (it would def a territory from all directions for ease). On a coastal tt it would def from amphib (Atlantic Wall), but would also def the same tt from other land tt as well to simulate the Siegfried or Maginot lines. On Iwo, or Okinawa islands they becomes dug in defenders for Japan, on Gib it helps to defend “The Rock”.

House rule:
An art bunker cost 5 IPCs, it is considered a facility so can’t move (it’s concrete, or dug-in). It has a built in unit (no need to station a unit with it). It fires a pre-empt kill shot every round @ 2 (enemy casualties don’t fire back). It fires in the beginning of the combat phase just before normal combat. In an amphib the bunker fires at the same time bombardment would happen, so it would get its pre-empt kill shot on the beach, but then could be taken as a casualty (didn’t want to add another part of the combat phase here). It can take one damage (save an inf), but if it is damaged it can no longer fire (like the built in unit was killed). It is never removed, and damage can be repaired for 1 IPC (manned unit replaced) during the repair phase. As a facility it stays with the territory (never destroyed), but you would have to knock out the built in unit defending in order to take control of the territory even if it is the only thing there. If captured you can repair it on your next turn for 1 IPC (re-man it).

Several would be placed at set-up (see below), but you could buy more if you like. 0-1 IPC tt get max of 1 bunker, after that the tt IPC value could dictate placement (cost 5 IPCs each).

For G40 I was thinking you could place one in the following territories, but I may have gone over board.

Germany- Germany (Berlin), W Germany, maybe S Germ, Romania
Russia- Russia (Moscow), Len, Stal, Caucasus
Japan- Japan, Okinawa, Iwo, Manchuria, maybe Caroline Is
UK/Anz- England, Gib, India, Malaya, maybe Kwang, Sidney, Malta, and/or Egypt?
Italy-S Ita and, N Ita
US- E US, W US (like they need it), maybe Haw and/or Phil
France- France , and Normandy (representing the Maginot line, but then Normandy becomes part of the Atlantic Wall.  WILD BILL

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

––I’m just ‘marking’ this very useful thread for future reference

“Tall Paul”