The Commander Series Forum

In our recent game we were discussing the merits of trenches, It went along this line if my inf was in partial cover rolling average dice I would need 18 rolls to get 6 hits (5-6 to hit) for the cost of 5 pts I put them in a trench now those 18 dice hit only 3 times (6 to hit) and on average rolls I will save one of these so only 2 hits. It seem to make the Infantry 3x stronger for such a cheap cost.

What happened to the old foxholes from BKCI?

Trenches are tough, but I wonder if you need to play around with the save throws depending on the quality of the trenches ranging from no saves for hastily dug trenches to earthen trenches and then the fully reinforced -- even concreted -- trenches worthy of 5-6 saves.

I personally really like the new 'to hit' requirements:
5-6 is natural/'green' cover
6 is all man-made cover with saves differentiating the benefits of each type. I really like this conceptualization. Also, it seems to me that making it tough is good. Small numbers of defenders should be able to cause grief to attackers if they are well positioned and especially if fortified. Concentrate your artillery, suppress and charge in!

Chris

ps. if you are concerned about the points cost, that is something I am not concerned with as I don't play point games.

pluss now its 5 points for a trench section as big as a stand, not like in BKC1 where it was 5 points for 12cm.

It was 5pts for 20cm!

We also have found units dug in hard to shift, especially if they are in BUA (4+ save is a tough nut)! A post-match discussion determined that we would use the auto-suppress rule for artillery fire, as this will make it slightly easier for the attacker.

I don't think its unrealistic that dug in infantry are hard to shift, our one gripe about old BKC was that infantry were way to fragile.

Also,

don't forget that you do need to pay a "nominal" charge for a bit of trench, whereas being in a building is free, so I reckon it's good. We had a house rule in the old system where infantry in trenches were hit on 6's by direct fire and 5's by indirect. The new book has negated the need to do that.

Infantry should be tough to shift if they are in trenches, bunkers,etc, imo.

You will need to hit them with artillery and direct fire while the grunts go in and close assault.

Just like real war......

Its why BKC1/2 are my favourite WW2 rules as they really do encourage combined arms tactics.

Should there be an intermediary step for being "dug in". Lets face it, a shell scrape or a foxhole is not the same thing as a properly dug trench with overhead cover etc.

That was my point above. IF an hastily made piece of cover is worth representing at all (remembering that soldiers that are stationary in the open will be looking for or making improvised cover anyway) why not just call it 6 to hit and no save. Or if it really just a scrape call it open or partial.

Terrain rules in any system are there to play with. Pete's refinements are great and force less houserule amendments, but they are still there to manipulate for scenarios or personal preference.

Chris

How many times were proper reinforced trenches actually dug in World War II?

It is one thing to have them in the rules, but another to use them in a way that is historically accurate.

I believe that in a defensive position where infantry have assembled to defend a line giving them the defence of a 6 to hit and no saving throw gives a realistic representation of the time. This simulates that they have dug a quick foxhole that makes them harder to hit, but if hit they take casualties or if you prefer that they have been hit but have taken fewer casualties thanks to their preparations.

Kit

There is one thing I had not noticed until I read the rules (p46 para 1) again today that the save for trenches are only for firing Direct/Indirect or Art and not used in Close assault.
I assume this is the same for BUA in Close assault as the save is under the firing in the rules?

Yes infantry in trenches are now a lot harded to ko
couple of things to consider.

1 make it 10pts per trench if you prefer

2 When attacking, with concentration of your forces and flank attacks you can often avoid half the dug in infantry in any defensive position and then the 5pts spent is wasted if its in the wrong place.

3 then leaving the trenches to move to the attacking threat is often in the open and very risky indeed.

2&3 are granted, very true if you know where the enemy is. Hidden deployment can kind of stuff you up there though.

However, I wish people would stop assuming that the crux of every problem revolves around the points. I don't use points. At All. Ever.

We were fighting a historical scenario, the Valkensward one from Bob Mckenzie's site.

The new trench rules give a good representation of places like Kursk or other parts of the eastern front where full-bore WWI scale trench building certainly happened.

thats a good point about hidden deployment.

its not in BKCII for those who are new to the game though.

I really enjoy points based scenarios by he way!!

I like the saving throw rules.

Combined with the concealment rules, it means Infantry have a fighting chance and aren't just the target for being picked off by long-range tank fire (one of the criticisms of the old rules).

Because of these two rules, infantry that hold their fire now have to be located (because they remain concealed) and the opponent can't afford to leave "un-cleared" terrain on their flanks or in their rear for fear of IATW-armed infantry popping out and taking short-range flank-shots. And infantry (particularly in trenches) need to be suppressed through artillery and direct fire, then assaulted to clear them out of their positions. I think all this is pretty realistic and a good improvement. But I would say that, since I'm an infantryman!!

Having said all that, I think accurate sub-categorisation into different level of 'trenches' is required when determining scenarios to make sure that accurate levels of protection and preparation are represented. The levels themselves are already well represented in the rules by the 'gun pits' (6+), 'trenches' (5+) and 'bunkers' (4+) categorisations IMHO. There are certainly differences between:

1) long-prepared (2+ days to prepare) deep trenches with overhead cover, revetted walls and linking crawl-trenches for movement and comms. (these would be 'bunkers' or 'trenches' for a 4+ or 5+ save as deemed appropriate. The longer the prep time, the more towards 'bunkers' grading they'd be IMO).

2) standing-height trenches, but with no overhead cover. These take 6-8 hrs to dig, and should be the most common for a scenario where defenders have been in place for a day or so. (these are the 'trenches' category IMO, for 5+ save).

3) rapidly dug 'shell-scrapes', to be later developed into deeper trenches or just provide some protection for shorter halts. These only take 30 - 60 mins to dig, and are only 6-12" deep (deep enough to lie in and get some minimal protection from fragmentation and / or 'grazing' small arms fire. This is the 'gun pit' grading (6+ save) IMO. As an aside, I think infantry should be allowed to dig in to this level as an 'engineering task' taking a full stationary turn (but by infantry!) during the game (on a successful command roll of course)...

cheers,

bish

I think if you are playing a points game and the defender has trenches he doesnt end up with too many troops dugin. Plus at most they are infantry, MG and the occassional AT gun. As the attacker if you knock out the at guns and roll up on the infantry with half tracks and light tanks theres not much the infantry can do unless you get wth in 10cm. Also remember if you are playing a senerio where troops can have trenches the attack out numbers the defender 2-1. At 1000 points a late war germans player with 9 Heer Infantry in trenches is going to pay 540 points more than half his army cost with out upgrades and support. those infantr dug in have still have to defend 4ft by 6ft battle field.

Mean while the late war russians with twice the points can take some flame tanks, a fist full of infantry, a couple t-34s, some su 76's and bunch of artillery with assests to try to crack the beast.

As the attacker you should be able to manuver around the small force. Also depending on the period you are playing there are combat engineers and flamethrowers which help alot.

We have played about 4 Stalingrad senerios and it is very hard to kill infantry that is dug in or in BUA but its not imppossible. Sometime you have to roll 45 dice. But if you have a good recce check you might get to roll those dice 3-4 times and at that point it doesnt matter how deep your trench is. We have all had ames where one turn you cant get command to save your life and the next turn you go from 9 to 2 making every roll.

Personally I like the new changes to trenches. It gives russians with 2/30 attack a fighting chance against the German blitz and gives those of us who love german armor a legitamate headache.

craig

I'd say no. They aren't a cheap option any more so frankly they should offer quite a lot of protection. Only problem for me is that I had trenches made out in 10cm lengths, which for my infantry is enough for four stand. I'll have a do a few shorter lengths for 'change'

I may be new to this site, but I'm not new to the study of history or wargaming.

It seems from the above posts that people here, with one exception, play the rules and do not fight historical battles.

As such for those gamers trenches are a good thing as it gives infantry a saving throw. The fact that only one instance can be recalled where field trenches were dug is completely ignored in favour of playing the game.

Yes trenches give your infantry a good defensive position. Yes they should give a good saving throw. However historically in World War II they should almost never appear on a battlefield.

I consider bishnak's proposal of a three tier defensive system very plausible. Having read this thread where gamers are more interested in how many points (as if real Generals have any choice in the forces they have at their disposal) and how effective they are relative to that cost, I believe that his suggestions are going to be ignored by the vast majority.

I'm an historian who fights wargames.

This forum looks as if it is for people who play games.

What is your one instance? It seems to me that prepared positions (loosely defined as trenches) were a common feature of most WWII battles. Does this mean contiguous lines of trenches as in WWI? No, of course not. Even in WWI that practice fell out of favour. But digging in or having entrenched/fortified positions were common, these ranging from the strongpoints in Normandy to the more improvised fortifying of captured Russian villages. Read Bidermann's account of the Eastern front in the Crimea and around Leningrad (my most recent primary read for WWII) -- lots of accounts of Russian and German field fortifications.

While I agree that most of the discussion above is about points (an approach I do not take), I can certainly understand why guys, often short on time, want a quick way to generate a scenario using them.
Cheers,
Chris

Greetings

I'm a bit mystified by the idea of trenches almost never appearing on a WW2 battlefield. If you mean a WWI style connected trench system (being replaced even toward the end of WWI) then I can see the point (although even this is an oversimplification) but slit trenches (with or without overhead cover) and more complex defensive positions based on trenches were standard features of many operations. Perhaps it is better to think of these collectively as 'field fortifications'.

Examples - fixed: German defence of the Narva line 1944; Soviet defences at Kursk 1943.

Examples - hasty: 12 SS defences in Op Epsom 1944, British airborne Oosterbeck perimeter 1944, US defence of the Ardennes 1944, Allied positions at Anzio 1944.

Contemporary literature contains references to use of trenches e.g. US Army Intelligence Briefings.

Regards

Edward

I gather that neither Chris nor Edward read the posting by bishnak where he defines three levels of fortification.

In six years of fighting on a global scale you can cite how many references to trenches having been dug.

Like I said they should almost never appear on a battlefield unless you are re-fighting the particular engagement where they are known to have existed.

Please - "US ARMY INTELLIGENCE" - use a credible source. If you actually read their briefings you will find that they refer to a trench as everything from an 88mm anti-aircraft gun entrenchment, to a foxhole dug by an infantryman in a couple of hours. Their terminology is used to cover such a wide assortment of objects it becomes worthless.

Have fun,

Kit

"I'm an historian who fights wargames."

And how do you 'fight' these? Dress up in uniforms and beat your opponent up with a rifle?

"This forum looks as if it is for people who play games"
Yep.
First clue: the word wargames - it has 'game' in in.
Second clue: it involves dice
Third clue: it uses toy/model soldiers

This kind of attitude is what puts people off gaming in the first place. Maybe you'd happier at the very excellent Yahoo group ww2anoraks, perfect for folk that can cite the exact elevation you need to fire a 50mm anti-tank gun to achieve penetration of 46mm of rolled-steel armour at 658 yards with the wind blowing at 5 knots on a Tuesday in August 1943, 30 miles north east of Kiev.

As for trenches not being that widely used - how about the siege of Leningrad, the battle for Stalingrad (Mamayev Kurgan for example), any of the Pacific islands that Japanese occupied, the Atlantic Wall...

Yes I read it and it expands upon my very first comment replying to the initial query: what the game calls trenches can be interpreted easily into a variety of cover types. Indeed, I would say that the scrapes that bishnak gives a 6 save should be no save at all -- just 6 to hit.

You are defining the word trench too narrowly. There were fully developed entrenchments in the war but, I agree they were rare. Of course, it is a simple act of using the basic mechanics in the game to represent the more common types of improvised or hastily produced cover that I think you would prefer to see on the table. Bishnak has done a good job of adding nuance to this.

Cheers,
Chris

Hey it's a game at the end of the day. and if someone has trenches you have to plan your attack to deal with it or try to flank them. yes units are hard to hit inside them with direct fire, if they wasnt it wouldnt be worth having. i found after playing 3-4 games with trenches the best way to deal with it is 1. artillery 2. loads of infantry. 3 flamethrowers. and the other thing to hope for is there dice throwing is bad and they get some command blunders where they get up out of there trenches and come to you.

KD.

i agree with what you said above, its a game and people should look at it as just that.

KD - mate, nice riposte

You do now owe me a new laptop screen as this one is dripping with coffee now

Kit - seriously, wargames are games. Full stop. This is a wargames website & funnily enough its forum is for the people who play not just wargames - but Pete's wargames- which have dealt with various game-representations of fighting across the period.

"Like I said they should almost never appear on a battlefield unless you are re-fighting the particular engagement where they are known to have existed."

Um - it's not *actually* a battlefield - it's a table with stuff on. And if I'm fighting an imaginary scrap, then I can pretty much put whatever I want on the table - because I'm making it up.

And there are *plenty* examples of trench-type cover / fortifications, call 'em what you will; including, of course, during the Spanish Civil War.

I have a sneaky suspicion you won't repost as I don't think you've come to the right place - but if you do, you'll soon get a feel for what it's like to be a gamer (and we can help you understand the pointy-stick rule as well- I think you might like that one)