two rules questions about entrenchments

[TheAmishStig]

Originally Posted by Izzy_B

Come to think of it revetments dont really suit what I have in mind as those are something that requires a Vulcan to have built em as I understand. If I'm thinking of a small-sh force really dug in, it makes much more sense that some combat engineers could be with them than "a Vulcan came up to the edge of town in enemy territory, built these revetments then left".

Sounds like special case rule is more the way to go.

Natural terrain features [dunes, etc] that follow all the rules for Revetments? Either that or maybe they're old, left over from some previous battle/siege/whatever.

Though something for Drew: the Battle Box rules need errata.
- 15.03.5: Entrenchments may not be built within a Revetment
- 15.04.7: Entrenchments may be built within a Revetment

[ColBosch]

Entrenchments, as the rules yet again clearly state, can be built by combat engineer infantry. But that is beside the point. If you're trying to simulate winkling out infantry from reinforced urban positions, use the "non-nuclear combat" rules along with those for fortified buildings.

[TheAmishStig]

Originally Posted by ColBosch

Entrenchments, as the rules yet again clearly state, can be built by combat engineer infantry. But that is beside the point. If you're trying to simulate winkling out infantry from reinforced urban positions, use the "non-nuclear combat" rules along with those for fortified buildings.

Good call on the non-nuke / fortified buildings. I hadn't considered that angle.

Entrenchments are a regular sapper task, but I don't think revetments are. In the battle box PDF they're listed as Vulcan tasks that require 2 (small) and 4 (large) drones, respectively.

[Izzy_B]

@TheAmishStig The most current battlefields rules are aligned correctly between 15.03.5 and 15.04.7 that entrenchments may not be built within a revetment. Indeed revetments do require a Vulcan which is why (as above) I'm not inclined to use them.

As for natural features like dunes, were I doing to do a custom map again that would be an excellent suggestion, could easily be a variation on Hills/Mountains like I did before. Here however I want to do something with existing maps/playmats. As such to me the idea of dunes or previously existing revetments doesnt really "work" for say the big cluster of Town hexes in M1 or the various clusters of Town hexes in S2, etc.

@ColBosch if by "non-nuclear combat" you mean "no cruise missiles" I wholeheartedly agree. I tend to never use those in my games anyway. As for fortified buildings, looking through 11.00 again, certainly multiple buildings may be placed in single hexes. If the infantry are in a hardened building of some type, are you assuming spillover like 7.12.3/13.01.2? (with the qualifier of 8.04 regarding overruns?) If so what about 11.04 "buildings themselves do not suffer from spillover fire when other targets in their hex are attacked."

If the infantry are in a hardened building and assuming they get the 3X defense bonus for the Town hex, the hardened building itself confers no extra protection for the infantry and so I'm not seeing how that serves intent here.

I'm not making an intentional argument with you and appreciate your help of trying to figure this out with existing rules, perhaps I am not understanding you due to not enough coffee or not being very smart.

[TheAmishStig]

Originally Posted by Izzy_B

@TheAmishStig The most current battlefields rules are aligned correctly between 15.03.5 and 15.04.7 that entrenchments may not be built within a revetment. Indeed revetments do require a Vulcan which is why (as above) I'm not inclined to use them.

As for natural features like dunes, were I doing to do a custom map again that would be an excellent suggestion, could easily be a variation on Hills/Mountains like I did before. Here however I want to do something with existing maps/playmats. As such to me the idea of dunes or previously existing revetments doesnt really "work" for say the big cluster of Town hexes in M1 or the various clusters of Town hexes in S2, etc.

@ColBosch if by "non-nuclear combat" you mean "no cruise missiles" I wholeheartedly agree. I tend to never use those in my games anyway. As for fortified buildings, looking through 11.00 again, certainly multiple buildings may be placed in single hexes. If the infantry are in a hardened building of some type, are you assuming spillover like 7.12.3/13.01.2? (with the qualifier of 8.04 regarding overruns?) If so what about 11.04 "buildings themselves do not suffer from spillover fire when other targets in their hex are attacked."

If the infantry are in a hardened building and assuming they get the 3X defense bonus for the Town hex, the hardened building itself confers no extra protection for the infantry and so I'm not seeing how that serves intent here.

I'm not making an intentional argument with you and appreciate your help of trying to figure this out with existing rules, perhaps I am not understanding you due to not enough coffee or not being very smart.

Good stuff, then I need to update my PDF.

I'm trying to remember what book it's in, but he's talking about for non-nuclear is a special case rule for those situations where one or both sides are using lower-yield weapons to try to avoid collateral damage.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by Izzy_B

@ColBosch if by "non-nuclear combat" you mean "no cruise missiles" I wholeheartedly agree. I tend to never use those in my games anyway. As for fortified buildings, looking through 11.00 again, certainly multiple buildings may be placed in single hexes. If the infantry are in a hardened building of some type, are you assuming spillover like 7.12.3/13.01.2? (with the qualifier of 8.04 regarding overruns?) If so what about 11.04 "buildings themselves do not suffer from spillover fire when other targets in their hex are attacked."

I think he was suggesting the non-nuclear weapons optional rules in my article "The Rise and Fall of Pittsburgh" from Ogrezine I (p.30). Basically, everything except Lasers and AP weapons fire at half strength (no rounding) with no spillover from anything, and no terrain damage other than direct attacks against bridges, road and rail. That would make getting dug-in INF in town hexes MUCH harder to get out, since you can't eliminate the 3xD multiplier AND are firing at half strength (1:1 on 3INF would need a base 18(!!!) attack factors).

[Izzy_B]

Originally Posted by offsides

I think he was suggesting the non-nuclear weapons optional rules in my article "The Rise and Fall of Pittsburgh" from Ogrezine I (p.30). Basically, everything except Lasers and AP weapons fire at half strength (no rounding) with no spillover from anything, and no terrain damage other than direct attacks against bridges, road and rail. That would make getting dug-in INF in town hexes MUCH harder to get out, since you can't eliminate the 3xD multiplier AND are firing at half strength (1:1 on 3INF would need a base 18(!!!) attack factors).

Interesting... looking at that article again its pretty elegant in its simplicity.Sounds like it could avoid some ugly math as well. My little whiteboard is full of ideas I dont like right now due to the math.

Not to count my chickens before they hatch (there's more to this scenario idea than I've mentioned here) but if this thing develops well using your idea and is accepted for a next potential Ogrezine, we might have to work out some kind of formal permission?

[offsides]

Originally Posted by Izzy_B

Interesting... looking at that article again its pretty elegant in its simplicity.Sounds like it could avoid some ugly math as well. My little whiteboard is full of ideas I dont like right now due to the math.

Not to count my chickens before they hatch (there's more to this scenario idea than I've mentioned here) but if this thing develops well using your idea and is accepted for a next potential Ogrezine, we might have to work out some kind of formal permission?

I understand about the math. My original scenario idea to go with the Pittsburgh article involved playing out a cruise missile bombardment of the city followed by a ground assault. I scratched it when I figured out that with 2 laser towers per factory (of which there were 3) off-board cruise missiles had about a 2% chance of surviving their initial appearance on the board, and that didn't include any other forces trying to shoot them down. Which meant either you had to take out most of the towers before firing a single missile (which defeated the purpose of using them to soften up the factories to be retaken) or there would have to be a minimum of 50 CM's allotted to the attacker before any other forces came into play. Needless to say, the scenario was scrapped :P

As for permission, I don't think so. The rules are posted in the Ogrezine article making them available at the very least by reference, and I'm sure Drew & co. would work with you regarding how much of them could/should/would be reprinted in your article. Plus, IIRC, Steve himself rewrote and simplified my original non-nuclear rules even if he didn't take any credit for them. So as far as I'm concerned, I have no issues with you or anyone else using them however you like so long as SJG doesn't have any problem with it.

[Izzy_B]

Originally Posted by offsides

I understand about the math. My original scenario idea to go with the Pittsburgh article involved playing out a cruise missile bombardment of the city followed by a ground assault. I scratched it when I figured out that with 2 laser towers per factory (of which there were 3) off-board cruise missiles had about a 2% chance of surviving their initial appearance on the board, and that didn't include any other forces trying to shoot them down. Which meant either you had to take out most of the towers before firing a single missile (which defeated the purpose of using them to soften up the factories to be retaken) or there would have to be a minimum of 50 CM's allotted to the attacker before any other forces came into play. Needless to say, the scenario was scrapped :P

As for permission, I don't think so. The rules are posted in the Ogrezine article making them available at the very least by reference, and I'm sure Drew & co. would work with you regarding how much of them could/should/would be reprinted in your article. Plus, IIRC, Steve himself rewrote and simplified my original non-nuclear rules even if he didn't take any credit for them. So as far as I'm concerned, I have no issues with you or anyone else using them however you like so long as SJG doesn't have any problem with it.

Yeah, sometimes a scenario idea is too smart for its own good. Based on something Cat said here on the board, I started on an M6 brown water navy idea that rapidly sank under its own weight. (side note, I've got it direct from Winchel Chung that his GEV design was influenced by a design in Popular Mechanics for a PACV Vietnam war brown water navy hovercraft. Is that common knowledge?)

Anyway if this one turns out good after I test it out a few different ways I'll let Drew & Co. decide how to handle quote/reprint questions and if non-nuke is used of course credit you for the idea.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by Izzy_B

Yeah, sometimes a scenario idea is too smart for its own good. Based on something Cat said here on the board, I started on an M6 brown water navy idea that rapidly sank under its own weight. (side note, I've got it direct from Winchel Chung that his GEV design was influenced by a design in Popular Mechanics for a PACV Vietnam war brown water navy hovercraft. Is that common knowledge?)

Anyway if this one turns out good after I test it out a few different ways I'll let Drew & Co. decide how to handle quote/reprint questions and if non-nuke is used of course credit you for the idea.

I didn't know that, or at least I didn't remember that. Always nice to learn a little more real-world Ogre history! I hope things work out, I'm interested in seeing your scenario now!