The Commander Series Forum

Did the costs for Trenches and Gun Pits get reversed?
According to the BKCII book it's 5 pts for a 5+ save and 10pts for a 6 save.

-Patrick

I think it just reflects the extra hassle in making a gun pit over a trench? Although we're reflecting that trenches are waaaay yo cheap for how good they are!

Uhmmm... that's exactly my point. From a game mechanic view the costs should be reversed, with a trench costing 10pts and a gun pit costing 5.

Possibly the logic is that a gunpit is a wider hole in the ground (to accomodate the width of the weaponry), and so gives less cover than a narrow trench and so a poorer save. Well its an idea.

Anyway I'll see how my dug in defenders do today against a mass of Panzers...

If they're in trenches and gun pits, alarmingly well from our experience!

We're not thinking 10pts for a trench, but much more - permanent hard cover is *really* good.

Well from yesterday I still have to find out how good, the Panzers didn't get past the hidden minefields and the heavy arty and mortars that were waiting to finish them off. Infantry just sat snug and concealed in their trenches as the 'big cats' burned.

Maybe there is also a need to think about minefields' points too. Certainly my regular opponent thinks so...

The difference in points (at least to me) represents the difference in what you can put in each, you cant put much firepower in a trench (Med Mortars at the most) whilst gun pits are more expensive because you can put some serious firepower in them

Happymc - yeah, that's what I was trying to say, only failed

RobertA - that's been the British experience in the Desert so far. So much so that the Eyties stopped them cold and the Afrika Korps counter attack then rolled straight into Cairo!

toxic/Nathan, - Sorry, too cyptic for me, what do you mean to say?

Do you think that the points values for hidden minefields are well set or do you think they need raising; as you do for trenches? If so I'd be interested to know how much you'd propose to use; for either.

We've been playing a Western Desert campaign, the Brits had two good cracks at the Italians dug in, and even at 2 to 1 odds we didn't manage to winkle them out of their holes in either!

I believe Pete recomended 3 to 1 odss, but I may be wrong.

Thanks Toxic and SCAdian!

We had a similar experience with a game the other day (we put together the Battle Report 'Tussle on the Tisza' - No. 288) that followed the Scenario (50% more for attacker) and the rules for hasty defence (max 10% of defenders points for field defences). After it we both thought that there was not much chance of the attacker getting through on those odds (unless the defenders deployment was, say uninspired).

Yep probably needs 3 to 1 odds and a very dark night. Probably accurate enough though.

Cheers, Robert

Just a quick check. If you have 1000 points defending in a hasty defense, you can have 100 points of defense. But it does mean that you will then only have 900 points for units. Correct?

My experience so far is also that trenches and so on are very good value for money. Maybe it's also due to the fact that most units have become more expensive in BKC II, but the points for defenses are (almost) the same as in BKC I?

OlenBUA, yep that's was my understanding (top of p46).

OldenBA, that sounds like a reasonable reason why! And RobertA, yep - 3:2 odds and the defender having field defences is a very tough nut. Even 2:1 are hard!

3:2 without field defences is a bit tough on the defender, though. Still better than the 1:1 Encounter game which usually results in a 1:1 attack/defence when someone grabs good terrain first...

OldenBUA - yes, that's right. The points for defences come out of your normal allotment, but the amount you can spend is capped.