I don't think that the maximum capacity is supposed to force FF. It's based on the room the units need to function in the fortification alongside allied units. It doesn't mean there's literally no room for a crazed nutter to jump in and start a UFC cage match.

The enemy can theoretically still reach base contact/CC. This would represent all sorts of point-blank weapon use, not just literally hacking at each other with hand weapons - shoving gun barrels inside firing ports, dropping grenades in air vents, etc.. The attacker will, obviously, receive no benefit for being "in" the bunker during assault, while the defender would get full cover saves as normal. So, even if CC is a disadvantage, the defender still gets a nice benefit.

If a bunker is impassable to the attacking unit, then the unit cannot enter it to reach base contact. Both units use FF.

If a bunker is difficult terrain, the unit could enter the bunker to reach base contact but would have to make a terrain check to do so (and might be forced to do so by the ZoC rules).

If a bunker has no effect on the unit's movement, it could reach base contact as normal.


Same.

That sounds exactly like what I'd usually describe as a fire fight, but I'm happy to accept your interpretation that capacity 1 doesn't mean the opponent's models can't enter and cause the fight to be CC instead of FF since it's more generous to the opponent.

We may have to accept that most of the long trench lines people set up look fantastic and well-defended in battle report photos but are actually just ways to help the opponent clip your infantry

It's a difference between this:





and this:


One is an imagined fortification line, the others far closer to real.

That said, part of the problem is the game system, in that it does very little to simulate the dangers involved with moving under fire. As a result, true trench lines are stripped of their historical function as highways... or rather, "low-ways" that allow the PBI to deploy for attack or counterattack in some modicum of safety.

It's interesting, by the way, some of the reason that WWII defensive positions tended to be less intricate than the West Front trenches of WWI is that armored units took over the role of mobile reserves. A successful defense would not have been as predicated on building the infrastructure (i.e. second and third trench lines) to allow large-scale infantry counterattacks.

Those FW pieces were more designed as defensive barracades than as trenches. Forge World's W40k Vraks trench set-ups were more akin to the historical trenches:


You make a good point about epic not simulating the dangers of moving under fire. Perhaps an interesting house rule could be that if a unit has not spent the entirety of the current turn in cover then it counts the cover save as one less than it would otherwise be? That could make moving up through trenches more important.

I agree. From my test games using trenches the problem has simply been that while the units inside them gain cover saves, too few of the stands from a formation will be able to make a counter attack and get to use their fire fight value, so they generally lose vs any well planned attack. By well planned, I just mean an attack that picks an end and clips it. There has proven to be a LOT more value to having units in standard area terrain where they don't have to be spaced at a rate of 1 per 4cm. Plus the area terrain is free

The quickest way to 'fix' trenches would be to allow as many units into them as can fit the space, which might overpower them, or to allow counter attack moves for units in trenches to be more than 5cm (the 'low way you described).

The quickest way I've thought of to 'fix' the whole issue with clipping formations that makes defending unrealistically harder than attacking would be to allow the formation that is assaulted a longer Fire Fight range than the one assaulting. For example 30cm FF for the assaulted formation only (not support), making clipping suddenly a lot less of a key strategy and wider formations more viable. That's a core rule suggestion though, so to understate it it's not likely to be an easy win.

As it stands, I'll probably skip trenches when playing Krieg but use them for Mossinians and Baran not for the trenches sake but because the Bunkers are great and the Barbed wire is excellent.

Or create trenchline bastions 15cm across...

You can surround them in barbed wire, place bunkers in places, etc.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Would it help to allow two units per 4cm if they can fit? The W40k trenches can fit two lines of infantry in them after all.

15cm of trenches only fits 3 stands.
Or if you mean 15cm wide and X lines of trenches deep then you're better off in standard conventional area terrain that's a similar shape and has no restrictions or spacing requirements.



Yes, increasing the density of defenders reduces the ease with which they can be clipped.

For example, if you enter a FF with the far end of 20 Krieg infantry stands in trenches, 1 or 2 stands will be in range to FF back. After a counter charge of 5cm that usually goes up to 3 stands. With two per 4cm, that would double to 2 or 4 in range and 6 stands after the counter charge move.

If you enter CC with the far end of 20 Krieg infantry stands in trenches, 4 stands will be in range to FF/CC back. After a counter charge of 5cm that usually goes up to 5 stands. With two per 4cm, that would be 8 in range and 10 stands after the counter charge move. Even then half of the formation is out of the fight so you might have been better off in a nice well placed piece of terrain

Don't place the trenches in one single line. Place them behind each other. Leave some empty. So you ave your troops bunched together which makes them less prone to be in clipped and have space to countercharge without leaving the trench-system.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

The placement of the trenches, wire and bunkers is the key (as BL says). Try setting up a vietnam style 'firebase' - trenches in a series of concentric circles, bunkers on corners and in the centre etc - or better still, several interlinked firebases. The point of such defences is to avoid having any flanks (to prevent clipping) and to provide interlocking / supporting fire.

Also remember, that the enemy is always going to be able to get a foothold in a trench somewhere, and can be very difficult to remove - so consider how you will counter-attack when planning the layout of the supporting trenches.

The theory is good and it's not that you are wrong, you're very obviously right - that is better than spread out lines of trenches. It's just that you can generally do that so much more efficiently with a piece of area terrain.
On paper, a vietnam firebase of trenchworks sounds awesome. In the game, your average 25cm by 10cm block of area terrain in the right place does a much better job than trenches placed behind one another.


Hmm that's something I hadn't considered Ginger: Setting up trenches to try lure the opponent in so I can clip the end of their formation for an easy win instead. Alright, I'm half joking. Only half mind you

Having said all this about trenches, I do love Bunkers (capacity 3 and a save that is actually better than area terrain) and barbed wire (can actually hurt something!).

Well placement of trenches you can control. Placement of area terrain only in a limited fashion.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Something like this:


Admittedly it's 23cm across, but careful placement means that you can make it more likely that an opponent will engage the front, and thus maximize the quantity of stands engaged. Replace the gun emplacements with bunkers and it becomes even more intimidating.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I don't think that the maximum capacity is supposed to force FF. It's based on the room the units need to function in the fortification alongside allied units. It doesn't mean there's literally no room for a crazed nutter to jump in and start a UFC cage match.[/quote]

LOL !! that made me laugh for real, hahah nice call Neal.



Tim NZ

That's a really nice fortification Spectrar, looks great! Nice detailing with the supporting struts.

It will also serve as a really good example of the issue I am talking about (hope you don't mind!).

Imagine you're playing an experienced opponent and have set up your large infantry formation (16-20 stands) in that fortification at a rate of 1 stand per 4cm. They decide to hit you with a fire fight rather than a close combat, and identify 4 possible points to clip; the four corners. We'll accept they are hitting you in the front rather than rear due to impatience, slow unit speed or lack of teleport/thunderhawk abilities.

If they hit either of the front two corners with a firefight at 45 degrees from about 15cm away (probably a little closer to get all their stands edgewise within 15 cm) then

1) How many of your infantry would be able to FF back?
2) How many of your infantry would be able to FF back without a 5cm counter charge that would take some OUT of the fortification towards the enemy?