Forts

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Forts

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Forts

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Forts - 1/24/2011 12:56:20 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Tonights dilemma: Soviet forts - a waste of APs or a most useful way to spend APs during initial Barb onslaught?

Post #: 1

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 12:58:49 AM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

They are useful only if you build them well behind your lines and they have time to build up the entrechment levels. They are waste if they are going to be seeing fronline action within a couple of months. These should be used as long-term defensive plans.

Trey

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 2

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 1:45:16 AM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I wouldn't build any initially; too expensive (16 APs). Even if they are free, they are ONLY good for two things:

1. Ditch digging behind the lines, and
2. Guarding the Finnish Border

Disband when the enemy is near, they are a waste of manpower in combat.

You can also use NKVD Regts to guard the Finns just as easily, and without spending APs

_____________________________

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 3

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 1:45:52 AM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

Yeah fort lvl 3-4 with with rifle division or two inflict pretty good casuties for attacker if he need to attack you and cant isolate you first. It is really nasty tactic for soviet to build up these along the costline in the south and leave couple rifle division inside them too.

They cannot be isolated as they get supplies from sea and it really delay german advance as they have to leave units behind to handle these forts. Even if german decimate these forts in the end they take some nasty casulties while doing it and suffer painful delays really worth of losing couple rifle divisions and fort for it.

Only problem is that you need time to build up them to be properly effective.

Alone they cant do that but supported with rifle division or two in same stack makes german roar in pain if its done correctly.

< Message edited by Jakerson -- 1/24/2011 1:46:44 AM >

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 4

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 4:49:51 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Build lots of them on the front Oleg, lots and lots of them. Use them as speed bumps. Don't listen to them.

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 5

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 5:55:27 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I detect some propaganda here.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 6

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 7:18:08 AM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

I built 1-3 of them per turn, I reinforced them with a sapper bn, a mortar bn and a mg-art bn or AA guns or AT guns, where I could. They can make a huge difference in the combat and will cause a lot of enemy casualties even if the battle is lost. Their artillery is considerably more effective then regular guns, it fire more often, it fires far more accurately.

But they need several weeks to come on line so you need to build them behind your front lines. They support but do not replace troops. They are also the only thing that you can attach support troops to, and they can accept artillery.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 7

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 7:28:28 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Tonights dilemma: Soviet forts - a waste of APs or a most useful way to spend APs during initial Barb onslaught?

Oleg, the Soviet forts are extremely expensive at the beginning - they are simply not worth the AP's... I would avoid them completely...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 8

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 11:14:49 AM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

Spend the APs in getting your better generals to the areas that need defending. They will increase defensive CVs for more units than the Forts will.

_____________________________

It's only a Game

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 9

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 2:18:42 PM

wildweasel0585

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline

make a defensive line in the rear and then load them up with some arty

(in reply to karonagames)

Post #: 10

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 2:31:59 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Oleg, the Soviet forts are extremely expensive at the beginning - they are simply not worth the AP's... I would avoid them completely...

Yikes, interesting comment from a developer (at least I think you are)! I typically use them extensively (as Russian), especially along the Finnish border and in front of Moscow (to build up fort levels from the beginning of the war), and am not sure that I would have enough units to use for these purposes instead of forts...

Also, I have thus far not gotten into swapping leaders around (although I swap units around as needed), didn't realize that the effect can be that great...is this the best use of early war APs for the Sovs, or creating new units, support units, etc.?

< Message edited by 76mm -- 1/24/2011 2:32:45 PM >

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 11

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 3:00:42 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Listen to no one, build them!!!! They are your primary defense force. Right on the front line. Pull everyone else back, those troops are no good, the forts are where it is at,

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 12

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 3:02:51 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Oleg, the Soviet forts are extremely expensive at the beginning - they are simply not worth the AP's... I would avoid them completely...

Yikes, interesting comment from a developer (at least I think you are)! I typically use them extensively (as Russian), especially along the Finnish border and in front of Moscow (to build up fort levels from the beginning of the war), and am not sure that I would have enough units to use for these purposes instead of forts...

Also, I have thus far not gotten into swapping leaders around (although I swap units around as needed), didn't realize that the effect can be that great...is this the best use of early war APs for the Sovs, or creating new units, support units, etc.?

Yep... both me and "BigAnorak" who alpso posted here are ALPHA/BETA testers for WitE...

We don't use forts (at least not as Soviets at the beginning)... it is much more efficient to spend those precious APs somewhere else!

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 13

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 3:11:32 PM

karonagames

Posts: 4712
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline

quote:

is this the best use of early war APs for the Sovs, or creating new units, support units, etc.?

The great thing about this game is that there is no "best" strategy - each player can and will develop their own style of play.

I focus on "value for money" from APs, and the more I play, the more I see the influence of Leaders on Soviet combat performance. 7 rated infantry leaders can put together strong counter attacks on Panzer spearheads, and can swing defensive battles in the SU's favour.

The right support units attached to the right HQs is also looking like good value in my book.

_____________________________

It's only a Game

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 14

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 3:16:39 PM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

Fortified Regions have two values. The first is you can attach 3 support units to them. Pre-December 41 this is the only way a Soviet player can guarantee support units show up to battle, they can also attach artillery support units. A Sapper Bn, a mortar Bn and a MG-Art Bn added to the base F.R. substantially increases its fire power.

The second is that they add guns to the battle. Given how artillery poor the typical 41 Rifle division is, a fully kitted out F.R. with 100 guns is a huge force multiplier. Plus they get bonuses that regular artillery do not. When you watch the battle you see them firing often, far more often then the pathetic artillery of a rifle division will fire. It is also significantly more accurate so you see a lot of hits. This means the enemy gets hammered by your artillery and machine guns on the way to the battle. So they will take losses in the battle and not the anemic 100 or so they take in a regular battle where they blow your troops out of position before they close so your troops rifles can do something.

Unsupported they won't stop the enemy, but in 41 winning for the Soviet player is defined as forcing the German player to switch to deliberate attacks. And a fully kitted out F.R. with an infantry division in a good entrenchment behind a river line is nothing that falls to a hasty attack from a single division. If it is worth doing this is up to you to decide, I've so far only once changed out a commander, but that is house rule for me. The AI forced out one of my F.R.'s (and 2 Rifle Divisions) by massing 60,000 men and took 1600 casaulties mainly from the artillery and only just pulled it off because it got doubling on a large number of its units as the odds were 2.1:1. I am dubious that 3 Rifle divisions would have survived even the first attack, and this was a F.R. with only an attached Sapper Bn and AA Bn, plus he managed to work one division around the land side so he wasn't coming all across the rivers. I am certain that the casualties would have been lower against 3 Rifle divisions.

As an extra bonus an over-run F.R. generally has 50% of its men and guns escape the battle so its fairly cost effective to leave them as speed bumps.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 15

RE: Forts - 1/24/2011 4:13:03 PM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

Personally, I tend to go for the leaders and support unit transfers in 1941. Forts don't create guns, do they? So if your divisions are low on guns, they'll be in even shorter supply if they're competing to fill their TOE with Forts. I take the point about better gun fire from Forts but they don't have an impressive digging capability and a long term planned defence belt is also long term visible to an opponent who can usually plan to encircle it.

Out of interest, what's the survival rate of artillery attached to a fort that surrenders?

Winning battles improves morale and experience which can have a longer term advantage than just causing some good enemy losses and losing all the troops that did the damage. Good generals with troops they are suited to command and good SU allocation is probably the best way to achive this.

(in reply to PMCN)

Post #: 16