What happening here (No Orm please)

[warspite1]

I thought there was a limit to the amount of entrenchment each division can achieve (although I cannot find this in the manual).

Is it correct that a Soviet Brown Infantry (in defensive mode) in a wood with no fortification, can have an entrenchment level of 233?

[willgamer]

Look at the in game Terrain Window Tool Tip for MX-ENTR (manual p. 23).

[Jonathan Pollard]

I wouldn't be surprised if fog of war can exaggerate the amount of entrenchment an enemy has. I think I've encountered higher-than-possible reported entrenchment at least once already.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

Look at the in game Terrain Window Tool Tip for MX-ENTR (manual p. 23).

warspite1

So the maximum was 250 when there was a fort there. The fort must have disappeared during the attack - even though it wasn't successful - although I felt sure I attacked there because the fort had already gone.

So presumably next turn the Soviet units will have a reduction in entrenchment level (unless they re-build the fort I assume), although would have thought the reduction in entrenchment levels should have happened that turn....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

I wouldn't be surprised if fog of war can exaggerate the amount of entrenchment an enemy has. I think I've encountered higher-than-possible reported entrenchment at least once already.

warspite1

Well I don't know for certain but I would be very surprised if the Germans haven't got 400+ recon points given the number of divisions next to the Soviet stack.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: willgamer

Look at the in game Terrain Window Tool Tip for MX-ENTR (manual p. 23).

warspite1

So the maximum was 250 when there was a fort there. The fort must have disappeared during the attack - even though it wasn't successful - although I felt sure I attacked there because the fort had already gone.

So presumably next turn the Soviet units will have a reduction in entrenchment level (unless they re-build the fort I assume), although would have thought the reduction in entrenchment levels should have happened that turn....

warspite1

Yes, nothing in 6.1.13 to suggest that the fort disappeared during battle - therefore it should have gone before I launched my attack (thanks to my direct artillery). So why was the entrenchment so high? Vic/ Cameron is this a bug or WAD please?

[lancer]

Hi Warspite,

From what I gather you've attacked a hex with a fortification that was destroyed on the turn you attacked?

The pioneers would have destroyed the fortification at turn start but any defending unit would still retain the benefit for that turn provided they didn't move.

That's working as intended.

Fortifications represent not just bunkers but minefields, wire, cleared fire zones, tank traps etc. They are best thought of as areas that have been fortified rather than a cluster of bunkers in a specific spot. 'Destruction' doesn't infer that they have all been blown up but that an approach path has been forged through the area to enable troops to negate the various defensive advantages that exist within the area.

It's not an instantaneous effect and, because we're dealing with areas, there's going to be a transition period between the fortifications providing a benefit and not doing so at all.

Fortifications can also take damage as a result of battle, especially if the attacking units have artillery. This isn't a big effect but if the fortification are low on health then it can be the straw that broke the camels back. The history replay should allow you to see if the fortifications were in place at the time of combat.

Cheers,
Cameron