Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Pendraken Rules! => Blitzkrieg Commander IV => BKC-IV Rule Queries => Topic started by: fred. on 07 April 2019, 10:54:03 PM

Title: Dig In
Post by: fred. on 07 April 2019, 10:54:03 PM
Hi chaps

Well done on getting the new version of the rules out.

Can I ask about Dig In, it's referenced several times as a thing troops can do instread of moving, but I can't see anywhere that it is defined.
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Big Insect on 07 April 2019, 11:03:59 PM
Thank you  :) it has been a labour of love

Dig In ... ok ... I must admit I thought we'd done that.

I'll have a check through the rules as it obviously needs to be defined..
Generally we play tested it that a unit that was dug-in was harder to spot/see (but not from higher ground or the air), harder to hit from direct fire (but not from indirect-fire - such as artillery, air-strikes and mortars) and gave a small advantage in the initial round of an assault. This generally worked pretty well.

Allowing units to use an Initiative action to dig-in also helped game-play.

Let me have a read through - again, it might have slipped through the net as we went through final edit.

Many thanks for raising it.

Mark

Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: fred. on 01 May 2019, 10:26:47 PM
Hi

Have you had chance to look at Dig In?
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Steve J on 02 May 2019, 06:57:23 AM
I've not been able to find the rule regarding Dig-In. In BKCI it allowed a unit to dig-in as an Intiative move as long as it was 20cm away from the enemy and out of LoS. It was then hit on a 5+. As useful rule IMHO.
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Cross698 on 02 May 2019, 11:25:31 AM
I've used it as a house rule for a while for Infantry, HMG, Mortars and Anti Tank Guns as an action - either Initiative or as a command and gives the troops +1 protection to be Hit from direct firing, so in the open 5+, Partial 6 etc but no saves.
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 02 May 2019, 12:14:13 PM
If I may - a practical comment on this - in real life it takes several hours to dig a proper fighting trench. On one occasion the ground was so hard that not even an explosive digging charge could loosen it. But - as soon as an infantry unit halts the men take up ground covered positions, which both hide them and offer some cover from fire. I'd like to see all stationary infantry given the cover bonus.

IanS
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Cross698 on 02 May 2019, 02:31:26 PM
I see the "dig in" as part of the unit making best use of the ground for cover, as much as it digging into the ground.   I suppose their is an argument that anything with a low profile should have a -1D6 for direct fire, especially beyond half range.
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Big Insect on 02 May 2019, 06:14:07 PM
The whole Dig-In thing is under review and debate folks ... the idea was to allow units to create some form of quick cover, enough to allow them to effectively go to ground and have some sort of protection from direct fire attacks.
These are small fox-holes and scrapes - so not trenches.
Some AFVs can dig a scrape within a minute or 2 with a dozer blade attached (for example).

I am just working through the rules to check the implications of this on other more 'formal' field defenses.

Bare with me please and I will come back once I am happy with what I've done.

Thanks
Mark
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: T-Square on 09 May 2019, 02:25:31 PM
Mark,

You may want to also allow Dig-In as a deploy command for Infantry units only.  It would be the last command that could be given an Infantry unit during the turn.  (This simulates the time needed to pull out your entrenching tool and dig like hell.)  This would provide soft cover for the unit.  (Hit on 5/6). (This becomes a trade off decision for the player.  "Do I want possibly more commands this turn or for the unit to have a bit of cover.")

As far as AFVs and digging in, I'm not sure.  I've read that tankers always try to find that little natural rise to get hull down behind.  However, at our scale of game play, I'm not sure if it is needed.

Terry
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: stevemetheringham on 19 May 2019, 09:59:08 PM
Mark

We had a game last week and I spent ages looking for what 'dig in' meant :)

I think it could also be considered just being more careful and taking better advantage of what cover is available.

Steve
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Big Insect on 19 May 2019, 10:11:10 PM
Hello Meth - Dig-in is on the errata list - it appears all over the place, in not only BKCIV but with no hard description - I'm working on it and will come up with a definition.

You are right about it basically being very careful ... but I also see it as troops not only making use of natural cover, but also enhancing that cover with their entrenching tools, so more scrapes in the ground and shallow fox-holes than full blown trenches or deep holes. Hence why it is possible to Dig-in as an Initiative action.

The Errata is well on its way. Thanks to every-bodies calm and measured posts and debate, Leon is quietly building the list in the background.

I hope the game played well Steve ... anybody else I know involved from the old Armati tribe?

Cheers
Mark
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: stevemetheringham on 20 May 2019, 08:02:05 PM
Mark

The game generally ran well, however I personally thought artillery seemed powerful against infantry , but I need to play some more.

I was keen on some sort of 'Dig in' move to make infantry less vulnerable, particularly in the open.

We had some green and veteran troops, but could see no real difference

The game was at home against some local gamers - I doubt you know them. - I was however in Brentford over the weekend where 10 of us (mostly the usual gang) we played Armati.

Steve
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Dr Dave on 20 May 2019, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: stevemetheringham on 20 May 2019, 08:02:05 PM
I personally thought artillery seemed powerful against infantry...

Was it a barrage or a concentration?
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Big Insect on 21 May 2019, 12:38:08 PM
Thanks Steve

The big difference between Green and Vets is all around how easily or not they can be suppressed.
Interesting that you think artillery is potentially over powerful ... Infantry in the open will usually get murdered by artillery - but I am not sure that the Dig-in rule (once I have crafted it) would help much, as its the direct fire that is mostly off-set by digging in.

Do you mean a more robust form of defense - such as a trench ?

I had forgotten about Brentford ... where did you come?

Cheers
Mark
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: stevemetheringham on 22 May 2019, 08:36:47 PM
Mark

It would be good to see you playing Armati again - it is still fun!

With respect to Veteran and Green being different to suppress where is this stated - on page 36 (& p48) it just says you need to repeat the 'to hit' dice value - or am I missing something?

There is a difference when hit by opportunity fire, when Green are supressed on a 6 (p77) and veterans on a 4 (p80), so veterans are much easier - i that what was intended?
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Cross698 on 22 May 2019, 09:28:43 PM
Yes it has been left out of the Special Abilities, certainly in v2 it was 1 less dice to suppress or fall back and Green/conscript was add a dice. Hopefully this is an ommision from the rules.
And Green cannot "dig in" according to the Special Ability!
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Big Insect on 22 May 2019, 09:52:12 PM
Good spot Steve
It's a reversed error - Vets should be harder to Suppress not easier - although there is an argument that Vets know about combat and so should take cover more quickly ... it's a tough one.
But it's already on the errata list

I still like Armati Steve - just got far too many other things going on right now (gaming and work and family stuff)  :)
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: stevemetheringham on 23 May 2019, 08:26:20 AM
Mark

Is the intention that veterans are always harder to suppress and green easier or just for opportunity fire?

The argument that vets would take cover only makes sense if there was some benefit to it - like being 'dug in' is suppressed.

It looks as if the interaction between suppressed, veteran, green and 'digging'  and direct fire, opportunity fire and artillery wants clarifying :)

Steve
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Big Insect on 23 May 2019, 11:33:21 AM
It does Steve ... the intention generally is that Vets should be less easy to suppress than normal (regular) units and Green/Raw unit worse than both.

The interaction between Suppression and the special characteristics has proven more complex than originally intended, but the errata will sort this out.

Thanks
Mark
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Jimbo94 on 23 May 2019, 11:58:05 AM
Quote from: Big Insect on 23 May 2019, 11:33:21 AM
It does Steve ... the intention generally is that Vets should be less easy to suppress than normal (regular) units and Green/Raw unit worse than both.

The interaction between Suppression and the special characteristics has proven more complex than originally intended, but the errata will sort this out.

Thanks
Mark

In our first game the Russians were Green
I spotted that they couldn't dig in and that they re rolled 6's to hit but missed wher they are noted as being easier to supress
Where is this please

Thanks
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Cross698 on 23 May 2019, 12:11:49 PM
In v2, it has not been translated across to v4 as it was missed off the Special Rule. Effectively when rolling for suppression or fall back add an additional dice for GREEN, and lose a die for veteran, so if they receive only one hit they don't test etc.
;)
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Jimbo94 on 23 May 2019, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: Cross698 on 23 May 2019, 12:11:49 PM
In v2, it has not been translated across to v4 as it was missed off the Special Rule. Effectively when rolling for suppression or fall back add an additional dice for GREEN, and lose a die for veteran, so if they receive only one hit they don't test etc.
;)


Ah yes, remember it no from BKCII or maybe CWC
That would have made it even tougher for the Russians than it already was

Thanks
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Cross698 on 23 May 2019, 01:26:00 PM
Personally I would drop the fact that Green cannot dig in, seems a bit bizarre to me, unless not issued shoves etc  ;)
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 23 May 2019, 01:50:48 PM
Quite likely they threw them away,a s heavy and uncomfortable (and no I'm not trying to be funny here). See 36th Texas Division at Monte Cassino
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Big Insect on 23 May 2019, 02:59:43 PM
The Green cannot dig-in should only apply as an Initiative Action.
They can Dig-in as a Commanded Action.
Again this will be clarified once we do the full Dig-in errata.

Many thanks
Mark
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Cross698 on 23 May 2019, 04:13:14 PM
Makes more sense.
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: stevemetheringham on 30 June 2019, 04:54:42 PM
Mark

We are considering another game in the near future, and wondered if this has been sorted?

Is there an errata sheet?

Steve
Title: Re: Dig In
Post by: Big Insect on 30 June 2019, 09:33:41 PM
Not yet Steve - I am having trouble devoting time to getting it finished, as well as answering more queries.

I will have think about the Dig-In specifically and reply you my thoughts directly.

Cheers
Mark