Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Combat Commander: Europe» Forums » Rules

Subject: Fortifications in Buildings? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jeff Jessee
United States
Helena
Alabama
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Can all fortifications except foxholes be placed in buildings?

In the A35 series of actions, it indicates that foxholes cannot be placed in buildings or water terrain. The other fortifications only specify that water terrain is restricted.

I can understand placing wire in a building to represent rubble but it seems a bit odd and counter-intuitive to me to think of placing mines, pillboxes, bunkers or trenches in buildings. I cannot find where this is specifically prohibited though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jjessee wrote:
Can all fortifications except foxholes be placed in buildings?


Yes. By the way, foxholes also can be placed in building hexes (not by Hidden Entrenchments, but there are other ways to create foxholes).

Don't forget that a hex is 30 meters across, i.e., about 8400 square feet. Most buildings are much smaller than that, so there can be lots of other features in a hex. Why couldn't you build a bunker or trench, next to a farmhouse? Don't forget that fortifications are not cumulative with the cover of the building; they are an alternative to it.

Anyway, the rule is what it is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Luub
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually, I think foxholes can be placed in building hexes, just not with the Hidden Entrenchment action. You can with a Dig In action, for example.

When a pillbox goes into a building hex, I just imagine that you were shooting your machine gun into what you thought was a hotel lobby, but turned out to be a bank vault!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Spangler
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think of fortifications (apart from foxholes or wire) as essentially hardening and giving more cover to a terrain feature. A pillbox or bunker in a farmhouse need not be thought of as an actual pillbox built inside the living room or kitchen but as the use of rubble, furniture, wood, and other things to create more cover and protection than might have been there before.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan McKinney
United States
El Segundo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Sandbags. Think of reinforcing the interior with sandbags. Among other things, it helps prevent spalling (from stone walls) or slivers (from wood). You can also put wire mesh in the windows to keep grenades out. You might board up the windows aside from some loopholes for firing. You might cut new loopholes, possibly near ground level (behind some shrubs?) or from a windowless attic, both to improve arcs of fire and to make it harder for attackers to spot the openings through which you are firing. Basements are also amenable to all sorts of improvements.

Take a look at the army's urban warfare manuals (you can find them online). There's a huge amount of improvement to building that they recommend if you want to use them as defensive positions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Jessee
United States
Helena
Alabama
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you all for the feedback. The abstractions make sense and I understand what you are saying. I had thought about that to some degree but what confused me were the placement directions for foxholes and terrain chart.

Why does placement of foxholes via the Hidden Entrenchment action specifically say they cannot be placed in buildings? If the abstraction applies generally, why is there an exception here?

Also, the terrain chart lists streams that are crossable but specifically denies placement of fortifications in a stream hex. Since the hex is 30 meters, and the stream is not that wide, why does the abstraction not hold here?

I really enjoy this game, by the way. These things are in no way a criticism, I just want to make sure I understand the reasoning behind these points. I'm sure it will come up eventually with some of the people I play the game with.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Jensen
United States
SANTA ROSA
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Why does placement of foxholes via the Hidden Entrenchment action specifically say they cannot be placed in buildings? If the abstraction applies generally, why is there an exception here?


We had a reason for including this specific restiction during development but I can't recall it at the moment....

Quote:
Also, the terrain chart lists streams that are crossable but specifically denies placement of fortifications in a stream hex. Since the hex is 30 meters, and the stream is not that wide, why does the abstraction not hold here?


Simplicity: "Fortifications are not allowed in Water Terrain".

My rules and mechanics are based more upon how well they work together in a game sense then how well they fit reality. This is detailed in the Design & Development Notes in the playbook - which is a good read all its own if you haven't gotten there yet.

Quote:
I really enjoy this game, by the way.


Awesome! Thank you.

Quote:
These things are in no way a criticism, I just want to make sure I understand the reasoning behind these points.


Often, as alluded to above, the "reasoning" behind a certain mechanic is more inline with producing a good, free-flowing game rather than trying to recreate the finer points of real-world accuracy.

Hope this helps!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Jessee
United States
Helena
Alabama
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the feedback! One of my coworkers who plays things like "War in the Pacific" will bring it up next time we play, no doubt. I am very pleased, though, that you opted for smooth gameplay & simplicity over extensive realism in your design. I have two sons (13 & 15) and this is the first tactical level WWII game NOT using miniatures that I have been able to get them interested in. I tried LnL but did not meet with much success.

They both enjoy CCE, though, and I believe that is largely due to the smooth flow with the card play and the numerous visual aids. We are looking forward to CCM and CC: Pacific.

Now if only I could get my wife to play (hope springs eternal)...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jjessee wrote:
I am very pleased, though, that you opted for smooth gameplay & simplicity over extensive realism in your design.


I would say that the tradeoff is between simplicity and detail (not realism). CC:E has less detail than, say, ASL, but that doesn't really make it less realistic. High levels of detail can detract from realism, as players can micromanage their firepower according to precise formulas, know all of the things that are likely to happen, etc., etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Winter
United States
Salt Lake City
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jjessee wrote:
We are looking forward to CCM and CC: Pacific.


Has there been any kind of official announcement of CC: Pacific? I kind of assumed that the series would progress to that and plan on pre-ordering the second it's made available but I haven't heard anything concrete.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Jessee
United States
Helena
Alabama
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad mentioned some brief details on Consimworld (Post #1868). He indicated that game would be stand-alone and not require CCE. I assume that means the American deck might be focused more around marines and so on but I have not seen any other details or any announcements.

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?13@911.05dnc8ysC0j.13@.1dd0...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Jessee
United States
Helena
Alabama
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Regarding simplicity versus detail as relates to realism, I completely agree that simplicity does not automatically equal less realism or that detail means it is more realistic. As you point out, some detailed games can allow too much control.

I much prefer something with the right feel to it that plays fast and requires some tactical thinking but has (at the tactical level) a good bit of chaos thrown in but not so much that it cannot be overcome with skillful play. I think this games fits that description nicely.

Regarding the specific issue of abstraction for hexes and how that relates to fortification placement, though, I don't think it makes overall game any more or less realistic. If you can get a similar "bottom line" outcome from a less detailed game that you get from something with all the chrome in half the time and still require historical tactics then the "realism" point to me is moot...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.