I guess we can make it 2 units either inf or artillery.
I was thinking that the Blockhouse is an artillery unit in itself, just a stationary one. and it upgrades the units within.
basicallly, The blockhouse would be an alternative to buying 2 artillery units.
that can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage, gives the 2 units inside either a 3 on defense (which i like better)
or the preemptive fire on a amp. assault (in the 1st round)
the fact that you can repair them is the biggest advantage i think, but it would have to be held for a full round maybe…
Its a work in progress For The Spring 1942 game. Didnt want to radically change the rules.
This is where i feel the idea is remiss:
Lets call these Fortifications because the word includes all types of defensive improvements that are static. Blockhouse is just the name we used because it was ‘invented’ for AA D-Day.
The second thing is the fortification is not a unit that has its own firing value, but rather it facilitates the existing units defensive ability, So now we identify the units that would use it?
These would be infantry and artillery based on the profiles of the units that exist. Armor are not static and not situated on the coast so they are not part of the solution.
Infantry and Artillery would benefit from the fortification and +1 on defense makes sence.
However, it is not clear why ONLY A FIXED NUMBER OF THEM CAN RECEIVE THIS MODIFICATION.
I prefer to give them all a +1, while you like just 2
If you look at the units and what they cost roughly 1 basis point of defence is generally 1 basis point in cost.
So if you designing a new unit a 3-3 unit will cost 6 and a 1-2 will cost 3… so we plug in the numbers…
for 8 IPC you should yield 8 points ( roughly) of value. But since this is a fixed unit we must discount the value and also this only effects a specific border, so a further discount must occur so that it is balanced.
If you play it with no limit of units with +1 defense for all INF and ART and it only effects the border, you got a unit that can or may not have value, depending on how the owning player used it to his advantage. Clearly depending on his employment of this proposed unit, you can infer that it can attain value to the game.
Incidentally, a new pattern emerges from playtest. It works really good on islands and on long borders where you might expect the enemy to pass.
This contains strong historical undertones to historical modeling. Germany can make her Atlantic Wall, but it will cost, Japan can make her island assets very powerful if she leaves alot of infantry on the islands. Italy can buy one to protect itself from invasion and UK can build one bordering Lybia and Egypt, etc…
Many examples if provide make sence. But what you got is not validated by its cost, nor seems to be realistic.