Whats in a bunker?

[PlasmaKrab]

Marcello said:I have to disagree. Things like modern AFVs and a lot of others of the things listed above would realistically be simply "dug in" and as such best represented in the game by using the entrenching option.

Depends on the defence you have in mind. I agree that, as Sniper23 said, it would be pointless to bury Abramses and such, but all users of modern material aren't masters of mobile warfare tactics. I'm thinking, why not, in 20 or 50 years, see Abrams turret dotted along ridgelines on potential border flashpoints of, say, Egypt, Quwait, Saudi Arabia...

As to modern equipment being more dug in that actually fortified, it depends on the delay you have in mind. Troops and vehicles can be hastily dug in in a matter of hours, and get out quickly to be moved somewhere else.

If you consider a really, really fixed defense (I agree, again, that there's little point to it in modern warfare), even modern material can be worth a decent preformed concrete wall and overhead cover. As I understand it, there is little more that this to ingame MG bunkers or ATGM positions. They are permanent in game scale but could probably be emptied from all their equipment in a matter of hours.

[hoplitis]

Actually after the last war in Lebanon the notion of "static defense" having no chance against a modern mechanized/armored army + total air superiority + high tech information gathering, took a blow. Of course that does not mean that we must rewrite the book, so to speak. The Hezbolah didn't build a "Maginot" line, they used "hit & run" (or hit & hide) tactics but they presented a form of "static" defense network in the guerilla sense, at least that was my (amateur) impression at the time. I'd really like some more "informed" feedback on this.
On the other hand even the most advanced army needs good and determined leadership and above all a plan (has anybody understood what did the IDF want to accomplish operationally? and I don't mean the whole plan eh! ).

[Marcello]

"Depends on the defence you have in mind. I agree that, as Sniper23 said, it would be pointless to bury Abramses and such, but all users of modern material aren't masters of mobile warfare tactics. I'm thinking, why not, in 20 or 50 years, see Abrams turret dotted along ridgelines on potential border flashpoints of, say, Egypt, Quwait, Saudi Arabia..."

The game deals with stuff up until to 2020. No way their Abrams would be released for such use by then.
The problem I have with this is that for a tank what you are looking for is already covered by the entrenching option, which models the whole affair much more realistically than the class 0 does, such as the tank being able to leave the position etc..

"If you consider a really, really fixed defense (I agree, again, that there's little point to it in modern warfare), even modern material can be worth a decent preformed concrete wall and overhead cover."

You can't give overhead cover to a turret without greatly diminishing its arc of fire.