[Rules] Entrenchments in the jungle, and elsewhere

[plloyd1010]

The battle in the Gifu against Drew-san has revealed another hiccup with the rules. This is about entrenchments in jungle hexes.


The original rule was the entrenchments provided a -2 DF modifier, except in towns and woods, where they gave only a -1 DF. The total net modifier being limited to a -2 DF, after all adjustments. That is how we we were playing until Drew-san (now fortified with a protein-shake), notices the new clause in the Direct Fire modifiers....

–1 if entrenchment is in other limiting terrain

The first thing to come to mind is that, as written, entrenchments are just permanent foxholes when it comes to light woods and such. they just don't as well for vehicles as digging in would. In other words, being a 5'-6' trench (with firing steps), is no better than lying in a 2'-3' foxhole once the trees have grown. The second notion is that agriculture makes entrenchments worse. Fields & tall/elephant grass are limiting terrain, but have no fire modifiers, hence entrenchments become like digging in again. This particular conditional modifier seems to not be very well thought out, or at least poorly worded.

The question becomes: Are entrenchments better defensively in limiting terrain than digging in? Should they actually be sort of worse?

[Hugmenot]

The second notion is that agriculture makes entrenchments worse. Fields & tall/elephant grass are limiting terrain, but have no fire modifiers, hence entrenchments become like digging in again. This particular conditional modifier seems to not be very well thought out, or at least poorly worded.

I raised that as an issue in May 2014.

I also wrote this in January 2015:

I like 4th edition rules better than the 3rd edition rules. Two complaints only and both related to fields.

1. Entrenchments in fields only offer a -1 shift against DF if it's in a field (a limiting terrain). I am not sure whether this was the intent or it was an oversight when the DF modifier was written.
2. You cannot see my Tiger tank if it moves in a field 4 hexes away from your troops but you can see it from through 10 field hexes if it moves in an open hex beyond the field within normal spotting range. I have a really hard time understanding this situation. I wish "Units can trace LOS through two field hexes but cannot trace LOS through three or more field hexes" or something like that.


I now use the -2 column shift for the entrenchment in my solitaire plays f the limiting terrain does not provide a defensive bonus.

[Shad]

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate:

• entrenchments in clear terrain grant a -2 DF modifier because they offer serious protection to the occupants
  
• jungle and woods terrain grant a -2 DF modifier because there's lots of stuff to get in the way of all your bullets, and to be hidden behind
  
• why would those two situations taken together not result in a -4 DF modifier? unless the designer(s) just felt that -4 was too much and knocked it down to -3 cumulative?
  

Modifiers or not, you're never getting your hands on another entrenchment, Peter. I just let you have the one in the clear terrain because I was getting a sunburn

[Hugmenot]

Because many of the bullets will be stopped by the limiting terrain and never reach the entrenchment. The entrenchment is as effective against the bullets that reach it but stops a lesser percentage of all the bullets that were fired.

Okay, it's a gross oversimplification but you get the picture.

[Shad]

Because many of the bullets will be stopped by the limiting terrain and never reach the entrenchment. The entrenchment is as effective against the bullets that reach it but stops a lesser percentage of all the bullets that were fired.

Okay, it's a gross oversimplification but you get the picture.

If that's not an argument for -4 DF I don't know what is!

[plloyd1010]

Was it those .50 caliber sunbeams that were lining up that you are referring too? But no, probably won't get another entrenchment, but I have 9 more turns to try.

Functionally, with entrenchments being a -2 modifier in non-woods/town limiting terrain, the shot is still only 2 columns down, due to the -2/+3 modifier limits. There is however, an a additional +1 modifier required to climb out of the hole. I am pretty sure that Brian Kipple felt that a -2 hole (caused by a -4 modifier total) was too much to climb out of.

While a -1 in limiting terrain would help my cause, it really doesn't feel right when considering it in light of digging in in such terrain.

[Hugmenot]

Let's say obstacle A block 50% of the bullets that reach it. Now use two of them, A1 and A2, with A1 in front and A2 in the back.

What is the percentage of the total bullets fired will A2 block?

It's a simple application of Bayes theorem.

[plloyd1010]

Quid erat illud? At quomodo id est hoc? Ubi values vos adepto vestri?

[pixelgeek]

2. You cannot see my Tiger tank if it moves in a field 4 hexes away from your troops but you can see it from through 10 field hexes if it moves in an open hex beyond the field within normal spotting range. I have a really hard time understanding this situation.

Well its a platoon of tanks so its a lot more obvious than a single tank at that scale :-) Its also a platoon firing at it and firing multiple shots.

Ground is also almost never flat so that open ground might be at a higher elevation. 

That said, I don't see that a rule to block LOS if enough limiting terrain is in the LOS would be unwarranted.