• Although I very much like the new game Supremacy 1, I still think it lacks an important feature of WW1, Entrenchment. I think it would make the game much more historically accurate (and therefore better) if you could entrench conscripts, infantry, assault infantry, machine-guns, mortar infantry, and grenadiers. Intrenchment would require something like 1000 tools for every unit entrenched. And the result would be that the entrenched unit would suffer a hitpoint penalty (say like 10 HP every day) but it would have a massive defensive bonus, to the point where any attack on an entrenched position could result in a loss of as many as 30 conscripts to defeat 10 entrenched conscripts. It would make sence to be able to entrench anywhere on the map (exempt for rivers and ocean), and it might also have a moral penalty at home. I also think that un-entrenching should not be allowed, or if it is, it costs alot of HP to do so. Tanks also should have a decent strength against entrenched units.

  • Hmm... I see what you're saying here, and I gotta say, you're right. 1000 tools feels a little steep, especially on a per-unit basis. However, aren't fortifications and entrenchment kind of the same thing?? I mean, with forts come trenches. At least, that's how it played out historically.

  • I like your train of thought on entrenching, but agree that it's pretty much covered by building forts. Maybe later on it could be a thing where you could set a unit to be entrenched for a set amount of time(like 5 hours, with a -10 health every hour) to get a 50% bonus to defense. If a unit is at or below 50%, it can't entrench, and once it hits 50% it automatically abandons the trenches.

  • I agree with the function of the forts as a trench type of defensive 'barrier'. Instead of rehashing the trench idea (and it has been revisited many times over the years) visit the idea of specialized units to help remove the forts. Sapper units for example. Just a thought.