Question on Strongholds

[RLW]

I have a couple of questions on strongholds.

1. Since they are static can they attack using assault combat?

2. Do benefit from the terrain in their hex from bombardment, Direct Fire, and/or Assault fire?

I am thinking that it may be more realistic to treat a stronghold as an armored target and use armor rules for them with an armor factor of around 6. That way a bazooka has a fair chance of knocking them out with its AT value of 6. Also if in a woods or town square with no infantry they would suffer a -1 column shift. DF would only cause moral checks just as any DF against an armored target. A unit with DF and AT factors could elect to use either (but not both) in a given DF segment. Any thought on that as a house rule?

[vince hughes]

Bazookas are not required to knock them out and I would not use that as a house-rule personally.

Strongpoints will fall as of their own failings and enemy pressure put on them.

For example, if they are demoralised, they can not retreat and a failure to recover means an elimination whether in assault or otherwise. So they can be knocked out without even entering the hex. They can eliminated via X results on the bombardment and direct fire tables too.

And yes, they can counter assault. They are not uniquely pill-boxes but represent all manner of bristling defences. Assault is an abstract representation of fighting that includes melee as just one part of assault along with close range fire-fighting and grenade throwing etc. Therefore, when an assault within the hex is launched by the forces with a strongpoint, it is still representing enemy forces still close to the strong-point that are now taking fire.

Play them as written, as the rules are quite adequate as they are. Especially if you erase any thoughts that they are merely pill-boxes.

Terrain benefits for them are the same as other troops too.

[Michael Murphy]

Better yet, they do NOT count as a combat unit for stacking purposes. That alone can make strongpoints a valuable asset on defense. A strongpoint and two platoons gives you the strength of three plt wihout the vulnerability of being three plt in a hex.

[RLW]

Bazookas are not required to knock them out and I would not use that as a house-rule personally.

Strongpoints will fall as of their own failings and enemy pressure put on them.

For example, if they are demoralised, they can not retreat and a failure to recover means an elimination whether in assault or otherwise. So they can be knocked out without even entering the hex. They can eliminated via X results on the bombardment and direct fire tables too.

And yes, they can counter assault. They are not uniquely pill-boxes but represent all manner of bristling defences. Assault is an abstract representation of fighting that includes melee as just one part of assault along with close range fire-fighting and grenade throwing etc. Therefore, when an assault within the hex is launched by the forces with a strongpoint, it is still representing enemy forces still close to the strong-point that are now taking fire.

Play them as written, as the rules are quite adequate as they are. Especially if you erase any thoughts that they are merely pill-boxes.

Terrain benefits for them are the same as other troops too.

Thanks for the response. I'll play them as is.

And as a rule, I prefer not to use house rules anyway.

[RLW]

I think it all boils down to what strongholds are intended to represent. The current rules model something that allows greater stacking without the stacking penalty but at the expense of not being able to move and being subject to being eliminated if it fails a rally when demoralized. And this I have no doubt adequately models something on the battlefield and maybe perfectly the effect AP was trying to represent.

But consider these two cases:

An INF unit is in an open hex and not dug in. A stronghold is in another open hex. They both receive massive bombardment. Both eventually become demoralized and then both eventually fail their rally attempt. The INF unit flees the scene, and lives to tell the tale the stronghold is eliminated. This implies that one is safer being in the open during a bombardment than being in a concrete bunker. That seems to me to be a bit counter intuitive.

Thus I don't see how in PG one would represent the historical advantages of being surrounded by thick concrete verses being in the open during bombardments using strongholds. One would think that they should at least offer a negative column shift against bombardment, say a -2 like entrenchments.

[larry marak]

A strongpoint taken out by bombardment might well have either internal fragmentation of concrete inside the location, or fixed guns destroyed with ammo burning. The intrinsic crew may indeed be able to evacuate and live to fight another day, but their fixed weapons and defenses are abandoned and destroyed.

[RLW]

I agree. But one would think that would be a bit harder to accomplish verses a regular unit in the open hence some clumn shift or something of the sort.

That leads me to another question. Can strongholds be entrenched or dug in?

Now since entrenchments are defined by the scenario I would think that a scenario designer could declare them as such as scenario special rules (as who is to stop them from doing so). Thus (I imagine) a scenario designer could specify a special rule that one or more strongholds could also be entrenched, giving them added protection. I also suppose the scenario designer can specify if other units can share that entrenchment or not... i.e. is their room for more in the bunker.

Would that contradict any stated PG rules?

For example Rule 16.42 says:
AFVs, cavalry and transport units may enter a hex with an entrenchment marker, but receive no benefit from it.

The rule does not exclude strongholds. Can they thus receive benefit from an entrenchment?

And as for being dug in rule 16.2 says:
Activated, undemoralized units may "dig in" at any hex except a town, woods or entrenchment hex

A stronghold is a unit. Thus can it be dug in like other units?

[vince hughes]

That leads me to another question. Can strongholds be entrenched or dug in?

Srongpoints can indeed be entrenched or dug-in.

And in your example of comparing a strong-point to a unit when both demoralised, I don't think the two are comparable at all.

A unit is a whole platoon, a strongpoint is not supposed to be such and may be just a handful of fellas in whichever 'strong-point' they are in.

I have used a lot of strongpoints in the Westwall and Siegfried battles. Believe me, they do their job well and can make good stacks devastating stacks.

[RLW]

So (in summary) I gather that:

1. Strongholds are affected by the terrain in their hex just like any other unit.
2. Even though they can't move, they can attack using Assault Combat
3. They can dig in or be entrenched and benefit from these just as any other unit.

I think I now have a better feel for what strongholds represent in PG (and at the platoon level of abstraction) and how the rules apply. I haven't used strongholds much.. and one of the reasons is that I wasn't quite sure on how the rules applied to these situations.

And BTW, (after more pondering on the subject) I think I agree... the rules concerning strongholds seem fine as is... no need for any house rules.

Thanks for all the replies!

[vince hughes]

RLW,

They take a couple of scenarios to get used to and employ best use. Well at least that was how it was for me ? Also, worth remembering is that scenarios that call for the 'Airborne' strongpoints mean a lesser quality strongpoint overall. Too many of them are unoccupied in the mix. The scenarios that call for Cassino strongpoints are far more interesting as they have some real good uns' in there. Where possible, keep a good leader nearby to stop them from eliminating on any failed recovery from demoralisation recovery rolls and they will serve the defender well.