Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
MLB
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by MLB »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:04 pm
One thing after this game I am thinking of doing is making the entrenchments better against HE.
(I realise my iG dice were hot but even so the trench should be better than hiding behind a brick wall?)

In other words not dropping a level - leaving it as hard cover.

In real life the slit trench was safe against anything but a direct hit.
Valid point, but I’ve always considered most ‘entrenchments’ in the context of CoC to be more like foxholes than a properly prepared position. Perhaps the existing rule is fine for foxholes and a new rule required for a new terrain type only available for a prepared position (and perhaps at more than one support point?).
The Tactical Painter https://thetacticalpainter.blogspot.com
Painting little soldiers for tactical battles on the table top

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7421
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Well I agree, it depends on your definition.

A shell scrape or shallow foxhole dug in 10 min or less is quite different than a slit trench dug over say 2 hours.

I would also say it is mission dependent eg how long have the defenders had to prepare or is it an encounter or hasty defence etc .?

User avatar
DougM
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:22 am

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by DougM »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:04 pm
One thing after this game I am thinking of doing is making the entrenchments better against HE.
(I realise my iG dice were hot but even so the trench should be better than hiding behind a brick wall?)

In other words not dropping a level - leaving it as hard cover.

In real life the slit trench was safe against anything but a direct hit.
I like that idea. But I suppose it is very much scenario dependent, so on how long troops have had to dig in, and the ground conditions. One of the problems in the desert was the difficulty in rocky areas of getting a decent entrenchment dug, similarly with frozen ground.
---------------------------------------------
https://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------

Munin
Posts: 1109
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by Munin »

I would just use the existing rules, but allow defenders who stay on the same board for more Campaign Turns to upgrade their Entrenchments to Bunkers for some cost in their Support. Not sure what that cost should be, but that seems reasonable. That way, HE would reduce the Bunker to hard cover. That said, bunkers should probably be subject to Stuka attack just like buildings.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7421
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by Truscott Trotter »

DougM wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:48 pm
Truscott Trotter wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:04 pm
One thing after this game I am thinking of doing is making the entrenchments better against HE.
(I realise my iG dice were hot but even so the trench should be better than hiding behind a brick wall?)

In other words not dropping a level - leaving it as hard cover.

In real life the slit trench was safe against anything but a direct hit.
I like that idea. But I suppose it is very much scenario dependent, so on how long troops have had to dig in, and the ground conditions. One of the problems in the desert was the difficulty in rocky areas of getting a decent entrenchment dug, similarly with frozen ground.
Exactly - you already find them changed as far as availability in the PSC's. Problem is 2 pts per team is too expensive.
1 pt per team is bad enough if you are talking 6-8 teams - anyway am not suggesting this for normal rules but for out house rules as we have upped the HE factor against troops in cover so I want to make entrenchments more worthwhile Vs a brick wall etc.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7421
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Munin wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:18 am
I would just use the existing rules, but allow defenders who stay on the same board for more Campaign Turns to upgrade their Entrenchments to Bunkers for some cost in their Support. Not sure what that cost should be, but that seems reasonable. That way, HE would reduce the Bunker to hard cover. That said, bunkers should probably be subject to Stuka attack just like buildings.
I think that is an excellent idea for use in a campaign setting.

If you then combine it with writing down on a sketch map where you intend to have the trenches it allows them to be included in the Stuka attack - as any trench is useless when a 500lb bomb lands near it. :lol:

gilliessim
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:29 pm
Location: North Lanarkshire, Scotland

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by gilliessim »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 9:28 pm
Well I agree, it depends on your definition.

A shell scrape or shallow foxhole dug in 10 min or less is quite different than a slit trench dug over say 2 hours.

I would also say it is mission dependent eg how long have the defenders had to prepare or is it an encounter or hasty defence etc .?
Just to say that 2hours will get you a shell scrape - 10min you are better finding natural cover than trying to dig anything. To get a proper trench you will be digging for anywhere from 6-24hrs depending on the ground and men available. Also for trenches you will likely only get 2-3 men inside digging unless you are excavating a massive area, you need room to swing a pick. Add to all that the requirement for revetment and reinforcement which has a significant logistical trail, a "proper" trench is only likely when the defenders have had at least a day to prepare. And they will be utterly knackered.

poiter50
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by poiter50 »

It all depends on the soil ib the area. Rock impedes progress, sand collapses on itself.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7421
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by Truscott Trotter »

2 hours for a shell scrape ?
You need a bigger spade 😂

I was going by first hand WW2 accounts both British and Soviet, maybe they had more incentive.
2 men slit strench in NWE 2 -3 hours.

Anyway we have no idea how long defenders have neen in place befire a CoC game and there is not time to dig during game so maybe having 2 levels of bought defenses is good.

gilliessim
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:29 pm
Location: North Lanarkshire, Scotland

Re: Gembloux Gap Turn 1

Post by gilliessim »

Try digging a shell scrape in wood block after tabbing 15 miles. You won't be doing it in 10min, unless you literally mean a scrape and not a minimum 1 foot deep, that you can have two people lie down inside. Maybe 30-40 min in forgiving soil.
As for a slit trench, absolutely no way you are doing it in 2-3 hours with no mechanisation. Chest depth roughly, 3-4m long, revetted and reinforced. I'd love to see someone do this in 2-3 Hrs by hand. Even in a well tilled field it will only be the upper surface that will be easy to dig. If you aren't reinforcing it then the minute an HE round falls near you, all you've done is dig a grave for yourself as it will collapse.

That's if your unit is carrying shovels and picks with them. Lots more fun with a useless entrenching tool that is liable to break.

Post Reply