On of the most COMMON way of building defenses in the WW2 was of course trenches.

I have only played the original game (ToI) and not found any trenches...

Will the be rules/markers for trenches in any of the expansions??

Why not make your own markers/rules? Eg. cover against artillery +2, cover against direct fire +3. Spend one movement point to get out of trench. Engineer squad spends 4 movement point to dig a trench. Etc.

I'm not sure why you're saying trenches are missing from the game.

Engineers can dig entrenchments that give +2 cover. Max of 3 per hex.

There is a diffrence between Trenches and the Entrenchments in the game. Entrenchments works more like foxholes. Trenches provide cover while moving around in the position or between positions.

That's alos my opinion what Hefsgaard say.

If you have trenches, you can move infantery "almost" secured from one hex to another...

I don't like to have "house rules" for something that is/should be .... "common" in a game... I love Tide of Iron as game. but I really miss the trenches.

I have played Conflict of Heroes and that games have more "realistic" rules. but Tide of Iron "looks better".

Now it feels a bit hard to choose between them...

Get 'em both!

Was thinking the same. It looks like ToI won't get much support from FF anymore though.

No negative waves, Dude. FFG will step up and get this game back on track....Keep rollin' 6's..keep rollin' 6's, keep rollin' 6's....

Hefsgaard said:

I think trenches can be covered by scenario special rules, something like putting two entrenchments in each hex of a row of connected hexes and ruling that it costs only one movement point to move from one entrenchment in one hex to another entrenchment in an adjacent hex. Putting three entrenchments or two entrenchments and a pillbox in each hex could represent an even more elaborate trench system, and you could also rule that adjacent bunker hexes (from Normandy) are part of the trench system and can be entered for one movement point from an entrenchment or pillbox in an adjacent hex.

Light vehicles should not be able to cross trenches unless they have been bridged by engineers, and tanks should have to pay two or more movement points to enter a trench hex.

Trenches should probably have a cover value of 3 or 4.

Wouldn't trenches be something that was only put down as part of the map setup? Considering the work involved in making trenches (hell of a lot of digging and then reinforcing the trenches, etc) versus entrenchments that require a fraction of the time digging (if at all) and then stacking of sandbags. It would take hours/days to dig even a small network of trenches whereas entrenchments could be constructed quite rapidly. As Hefsgaard says, foxholes are very much like entrenchments but deeper, allowing a soldier to stand rather than just crouch (as opposed to the foxholes used in the Vietnam war which seems to refer to a whole network of entrances and tunnel systems.

A WWII trench in france (though they could be more basic or much more elaborate):

A foxhole used in Beirut (an entrenchment looks pretty much the same but is not deep enough to stand in):

Entrance to a foxhole in Vietnam:

Nyogtha said:

I would fully agree with the above. If you are building a scenario that requires trench works they should be built into the scenario at the designers descretion. Based on my experince trenches would not be something constructed during the heat of conflict, but an emplcement constructed ahead of time.

Not all Trenches were created equal as the other post indicates....some were earthen, some concrete, some covered, some open. As a result cover values as well as movement costs would change depending on the scenario and type of works depicted. If we ever get a Pacific version I am sure tunnels would be a mechanic that will need to be worked in as well.

I think Trenches are a great idea, but pretty tall order order to ask FFG to create them for every type of scenario that might exist. Maybe some PDF downloads depicting various style of trench works would be nice. I am guessing we have some talented members on the forum that could create and upload them as well.

Thoughts on missing trenches:

1) FFG probably just can't incorporate EVERYTHING into a game at this level of moderate complexity, so I would think that it's not so much an oversight but something that's been deliberately factored out for overall playability;

2) The game is called "Tide of Iron": so the implicit emphasis is obviously going to be to promote conventional MOBILE armored warfare and NOT so much static "trench" warfare a la WWI; and

3) As an evolving system, there's always the possibility of trenches possibly being added in a future game expansion or add-on.

Does anyone use larger size entrenchment counters? I went and enlarged them in color copies, so the edge extends out past the bases so that it is easier to see the counter when the infantry base is on top of it. I thought about just making them the same size as the entire hex, but then you dont see the terrain under it and might forget if it is a forrest hex.

The bunker counters I enlarged to about half the size of the board hexes.

I was thinking that maybe it would be better to use a 3d plastic edge sandbag (similar to Memoir 44) and/ or a plastic Bunker model into which the 88 flak or other AT gun could fit.