Maginot line

I dont think its in the game, no mention has been made of it being in the game to my knowladge anyway

I was thinking the exact same thing, not like the line mattered anyways

I don’t think LH ever mentioned it. But it didn’t do anything in the actual war, so I doubt it would be represented in the same way as the Burma road

The Maginiot Line isnt an actual “Line” per se.

It was just a string of fortifications along the France-Germany border. If anything, it would be represented by a lot of French troops in the territory bordering Germany

May be IL will add on his new global map.

OK try this again since apparently this is a controversial concept.

Maginot line = fortified zone.

Fortified zone is a force multiplier that when defending against canalized enemy troops has a huge D value in that Kill Zone in game terms.
Think of it in terms of the Tanker’s Trinity: protection+ firepower+ but mobility-… like mobility = 0.
However, as we know, the infantry garrison retains move 1.

Thus, IMTO it cannot be properly represented by a bunch of troops that are freely re-deployed with that same D value.

A fortified zone would require a totally different piece.

Sorry if that’s offensive or something equally radical.

#533-530

LH did mention “strong boxes”.

The Maginot line had a trinity of firepower, protection and obstacles.

The Border Post line would give alarm and prevent enemy surprice attacks.

3 miles behind the border was the Support Point line, with Flood Zones were basins and rivers could be flooded on demand, behind that was mine-fields with anti-tank obstacles, followed by anti-personel barbed wire.

6 miles behind the border was the Principal line of concrete bunkers with infantry, snipers, twin-machine guns, anti-tank guns and heavy artillery. Behind that was Observation Posts that directed the fire, supply depots and armoured reserves to counter attack…

It would be suicide to attack a fortified line like this. The defenders was protected by concrete bunkers and immune to fire, while the attackers was sitting ducks in a mine-field with obstacles and barbed wire. The only time an attack like this succeeded was on Eben Emael, and that was because Belgium was not at war, and did not expect any attacks.

In light of this, it seems difficult to model this in an A&A game. It would be a very expensive piece, like a Blockhouse that cost 15 IPC, cant move, take 4 hits before its killed, roll a dice on 4 or less for hit when defending, and half the attackers value. This Blockhouse piece can only be placed on a land/land border or sea/land border, and faced only one way. If you attack from another direction, the unit is by-passed. To model the mine-field, the attackers are halfed, so two infantry roll like one die etc.

To design a fort unit into the A&A system.

Inf cost 3 IPC, and def on 2 and att on 1, for a total of 3 combat values, so lets say 1 IPC equals 1 combat value.

Tanks cost 6 IPC and have a total combat value of 6. The benefit of movement seem to be an extra reward for buing this expansive unit.

Artillery cost 4 IPC and have a total combat value of 4, plus it boost up one matching infantry, making a total combat value of 5.

Blockhouse could cost 5 IPC. The fortification units had lesser men than infantry units or armour units, but heavier guns, so lets pretend it has 1 IPC-worth of infantry, 2 IPC-worth of heavy artillery, 1 IPC-worth of concrete bunker protection and 1 IPC-worth of mine-fields, anti-tank obstacles and barbed wire.
The Blockhouse could roll a die on 4 or less for hit, and take two hits like a battleship.
The Blockhouse could roll 3 dices on 3 or less for hits, and take only one hit, just to simplyfie the system, but this would also depart from the classic system.
The Blockhouse could half the attacking value, so 4 attacking infantry can only roll like 2 dices, or a tank hit on 1 only.

I think there is a point to which a game can be complicated, or modeled in depth. Axis and Allies is complicated already compared to some games, but not nearly as much as some others. So in my book I still consider it simple enough to play enjoyably. It is basically RISK on steroids with the ability to buy different units and some other basic rule differences. RISK is over-simple and can lead to some amount of boredome. Axis and Allies allows the player more options.

While I am generally a proponent of bigger is better, too many options isn’t always a good thing. And the less complicated a game is, the better its success. My point here is that I don’t think blockhouses are a necessary addition, perhaps even a smart one. The recent addition of Mech Infantry, Tac bombers and Cruisers have been very helpful and have added to the game dynamic. Blockhouses or other fortifications just seem… to be pushing what we need for the game. I guess I’d like to see how it would work out in practice, but to me fortification pieces would add another step and be another distraction to a moving game… Making AA a little too detailed if you will.

Hoffman, I couldn’t agree with you less. This game need a distinctive defansive unit like a Blockhouse. Fortifications was a big part of WWII, but that is not modelled well in this game. What do mechanized infantry, tactical fighters and cruisers add to the game ? Absolutely nothing.

@Razor:

Hoffman, I couldn’t agree with you less. This game need a distinctive defansive unit like a Blockhouse. Fortifications was a big part of WWII, but that is not modelled well in this game. What do mechanized infantry, tactical fighters and cruisers add to the game ? Absolutely nothing.

I think they add choice… choice of what to buy, and they expand different special abilities that were definitely present in the war. They add combat dynamic and they provide different choices in different situations. I am not saying blockhouses were not important, it’s just that strength in mobility was a new and defining feature of this war.

Like I said, I wouldn’t mind seeing how a blockhouse piece might work out in practice… I just have preconceived doubts about it. They were important aspects of the war absolutely, but I question whether we need to go that far in AA.

The problem with the blockhouse / fortification is the scale of the territories in this game.
Not only is it hard to outflank entire countries but fortifications generally don’t provide 360 degrees of protection. The maginot line didn’t face Spain, for example.

So, nice piece but hard to scale the effects properly.

#549

I feel that a blockhouse piece would be an unnecessary addition. You guys complain about representing all elements of the war, but it’s not a very good representation if a line of fortifications costs the same for a small territory and a large one. For accurate representation, you would almost have to make a chart stating how much the unit costs in different sized territories. The addition of mechs and tacs has increased the focus on speed and manueverability for this particular game, but a blockhouse piece would just slow things down again.

Ah yes! … I have rallied support.

@Razor:

Blockhouse could cost 5 IPC. The fortification units had lesser men than infantry units or armour units, but heavier guns, so lets pretend it has 1 IPC-worth of infantry, 2 IPC-worth of heavy artillery, 1 IPC-worth of concrete bunker protection and 1 IPC-worth of mine-fields, anti-tank obstacles and barbed wire.
The Blockhouse could roll a die on 4 or less for hit, and take two hits like a battleship.
The Blockhouse could roll 3 dices on 3 or less for hits, and take only one hit, just to simplyfie the system, but this would also depart from the classic system.
The Blockhouse could half the attacking value, so 4 attacking infantry can only roll like 2 dices, or a tank hit on 1 only.

For blockhouses or fortifications you’d have to come up with a slew of new rules and contingency plans. Plus, with the rolling scheme you outlined, blockhouses would be extremely powerful, especially if you were allowed to buy them indiscriminately (as many as you want). Nothing that rolls on 4s, or rolls 2 dice should cost only 5 IPCs … nobody would do any attacking for fear of getting slaughtered. And rolling three dice for one unit, I am sorry, but that just seems rather bogus.

A little more thought may provide some useful possibilities though. I mean, why not think it out. You’ve got nothing to lose. And if you really wanted to make a house rule for them you could… you might need to buy an extra set of AA D-Day for some more blockhouse pieces though.

I seriously doubt that there will be any blockhouses or similar units in AAE40. It’ll just make an already-complicated game even harder to understand, without adding that much to the gameplay.

They’d be a good house rule to add, and they would better represent the Maginot Line, but I don’t think they’ll be in this game.

Blockhouse could cost 5 IPC. The fortification units had lesser men than infantry units or armour units, but heavier guns, so lets pretend it has 1 IPC-worth of infantry, 2 IPC-worth of heavy artillery, 1 IPC-worth of concrete bunker protection and 1 IPC-worth of mine-fields, anti-tank obstacles and barbed wire.
The Blockhouse could roll a die on 4 or less for hit, and take two hits like a battleship.
The Blockhouse could roll 3 dices on 3 or less for hits, and take only one hit, just to simplyfie the system, but this would also depart from the classic system.
The Blockhouse could half the attacking value, so 4 attacking infantry can only roll like 2 dices, or a tank hit on 1 only.

I’m reluctant to use these types of blockhouses in the game. I think they’re far too powerful for their cost. If they only cost 5 IPCs, they should defend on a 4 (with only 1 roll, not 3), not move, and maybe have some other special power, like boosting another unit’s defense. I don’t think I’d add them into my games, though. They just make the game more complicated and encourage stagnant defense (like infantry stack) rather than the mobile attacking that the mech inf and dive bombers help provide.