PBI dug in

[martin goddard]

For  ease of game. Dug in changes a template to dug in.  ie the template (1 or 2 square size) changes its character to being building for assault and shooting . This will be easier to mark and easier to understand.

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

That's neat, Martin.

Simon

[martin goddard]

I think so but the objective only benefits the one square.
Do we allow two open squares to become a dug in?


martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

I think so but the objective only benefits the one square.
Do we allow two open squares to become a dug in?


martin

I think that would work. Folk could even make a special template to use in such cases?

Simon

[Sean Clark]

I'd say these  rather nice dug in markers would do the trick.

[Nigel_s]

Sorry, I'm not seeing how dug-in applying to a scenery template is simpler than saying it applies to a single square.

Are you saying if applied to an open (or road junction) objective square then one square is dug-in, but if played on a scenery template then both squares are changed?

[martin goddard]

Hello Nigel

You are correct.

The proposal is to have dug in as a pair of squares or complete template.

It is to give a clear outline of the dug in. eg that hill template is now dug in. That objective template is now dug in.


martin

[John Watson]

Makes it very powerful.
John

[Smiley Miley 66]

As Martin pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago. Your "road junction" and the Square in front, now the attacker has to go through 2 squares ? Very cunning but good idea.
Once made those Squares stay that way all game ?
So making "special" templates wouldn't be a bad idea ?
What about extra points if both squares are held at the end of the game ? Or any dug-in, built up templates are held ? 2 points per ? Not Hugh amounts as it would skew the points tally ? But enough to make it worthwhile!
Just another quick thought, could you not add another bit to the assault and saving line(s) "behind barricades" (something like that ?) along with, buildings, rocky closed etc ? If it's added to the same line, it wouldn't be counted twice ?
Miles

[Colonel Kilgore]

Miles,
I think what we're saying is that you'd either get to dig in on the single-square objective, or a pair of open squares in front. But no mixing of objective and open square, as that would be 2 scenery types?
Simon

[martin goddard]

Miles you were very correct but this version will makes things easier/claere.

 Simon has it right for the new version of the dug in rule.

"Pick a hill or objective template. Or create a new template using a pair of partial/open squares."


martin

PS maybe it should just be templates for simplicity?

[Smoking gun]

In the current AK47 the templates your troops can "dig in" is specified. Could this approach be used for PBI?

Best wishes, Martin from Grimsby

[Nigel_s]

Hello Nigel

You are correct.

The proposal is to have dug in as a pair of squares or complete template.

It is to give a clear outline of the dug in. eg that hill template is now dug in. That objective template is now dug in.


martin

Got it. And i see how it makes sense on a feature such as a hill.

And i can see the benefit where you may not bring many woods or built up area templates, find yourself defending, so take the dug-in asset to create good cover.

Which makes sense to me. If you find yourself defending areas of open ground, you dig a foxhole.

Some companies in CA get a good number of asset dice

[Smiley Miley 66]

So you will need to Possibly "fortify" twice then ? Possibly the "2 Squares Template"  in front or either side of the "Partial" Objective. Then also the Partial Objective 1 Square itself ?
As this would in most games be the area you would most likely to Dig In ?
Obviously this could apply anywhere on the board and any Templates ?
Also not just an area near to or on the Partial objective?
Could this be used by either side ? As an attacker might want to say set up AT guns or Mortars on a Hill template ? Then Dig in as it might also be a good position but also "Exposed" ?
Then once done it would stay for the whole game ?
Miles

[Nigel_s]

I understand the intent is for the asset to be available only to the defender within the standard game. Could change for a scenario.