Entrenchments - A Simple Question ?

[vince hughes]

A question for the Grognards here and one that neither Alan nor I will add to till next Friday in order for any discussion to flourish.

Simple question is:

Entrenchment in a town hex. After surviving 'First Fire' what column shift(s) applies to the attackers ?

Cheers, see you Friday on this.

[richvalle]

Hi. First post here... wooooo!

I've played a few games of PG but by no means an expert. Still trying to get the fiddly bits of the rules.

I think I see where you are going with this question. Is it -2 or -4? The same question though to a lesser extent would be for an Entrenchment in woods. -2 or -3?

I think its -2 though I can see an argument being made for -4.

rv

[Hugmenot]

Vince,

-2 column shift only.

The modifier states "–2 assault against defending units occupying entrenchment or town hex". All modifiers can only be applied once per combat, not once per sub-condition. For example, "+1 side includes ENG unit in town or entrenchment hex" is NOT +1 per ENG nor +2 if in an entrenchment in a town hex.

I also note the Direct Fire Table includes a "–2 target hex contains entrenchment (–1 if entrenchment is in town or woods hex)" so I would have expected something something similar on the Assault Chart if the effect of an entrenchment was in addition to those of a town.

[plloyd1010]

In the technical sense, I think Dan is correct. From the simulation standpoint, some combination modifier would be reasonable. Else-wise why would street fortifications ever be used? I would probably go with the -3 idea from the DF table. In dealing with the actual problem I would just get as may guns as I could, and forget the assault.

[Hugmenot]

Peter, entrenchments in town hexes allow first fire in Assaults and units are not forced to rout if demoralized; pretty good stuff if the victory conditions include control of town or town hexes. Not to speak of the -1 additional column when targeted by Direct Fire. It will be very costly and/or time consuming to dislodge them.

[plloyd1010]

I started with "In the technical sense...". As far as the rules go, it's an "or" thing. After that I continued on with simulation vs. game consideration. The game thing says that despite eons of piling rocks, sand bags, flipping carts and cars, and digging into gardens that entrenchments in towns is an "exclusive or" proposition. History (simulation side) says that getting competent prepared defenders out of their positions is god-damned, bloody, (please insert 6 more superlatives of your choice), difficult proposition.

I think what you are suggesting is that it is that an additional -1 makes the proposition too hard. Perhaps it is, perhaps not. Historically it was costly and time consuming.

[vince hughes]

is god-damned, bloody, (please insert 6 more superlatives of your choice),

ridiculously grinding & wearisome let alone nut-crunchingly, arduous ass-bustin' !!

Did that fill in the gaps

[Hugmenot]

Vince, you cam add this to the 4th edition rules thread; easy enough to eliminate the confusion if the charts were more explicit.

[waynebaumber]

A simple question from a simple man?

-2 Only for assault. Plus first fire and no flee.

Simple answer from another simple man

[Hugmenot]

I should play more Skype games against simple men; I am sure most will end up as easy wins.