vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002 From: Texas Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright I'll point out that no 'fortress' in World War Two actually resisted attack. Eben Emael fell, Brest-Litovsk fell, Sevastopol fell, Tarawa fell, Breslau fell, Berlin fell. Etc. If you manage to make some unassailable beast, you'll be creating something that no longer existed by 1939-45. The 'x8 if you're fortified' may lack something -- but I'm not sure it's all that inaccurate. At any rate, you may create something that in overall effect is less accurate than 'x8 if you're fortified.' The Maginot Line surrendered but was not defeated. Same for Corregidor. What level of effort would it have taken the Germans to capture Gibralter? But those are some BIG Fortresses. But all of this squabbling is missing the point of this thread. This thread is addressing fortifications in general. There is a entire heirarchy of defensive works that TOAW III does not address (or, if it attempts to address it, falls short). Namely, the F (x8) designation is something that any unit in the game can achieve on its own. However, to even build a reinforced (i.e., reinforced concrete) MG nest is totally beyond the resources (in terms of equipment needed as well as physical materials and cost) of most (all?) units shown in TOAW III. And that is at the lowest level of the defensive heirarchy I'm talking about. You can come up with your own heirarchy, but mine goes something like this: Level-1 Reinforced pillboxes, MG nests, artillery bunkers, etc. (i.e., the lowest level of defenses not capable of being built by the F classification (because units don't have the resources to do so)). [And I'm not talking about log structures/dugouts at this level (which are in fact handled by the current F level). No. I'm talking about Atlantic Wall, or Kursk, or Gustav Line types of reinforced concrete/steel structures in addition to a concentration of mines/dragon's teeth, etc. not available to units at the mere F level.] Level-2 Small forts (containing more than 1 type of weapon system capable of coordinated action) Level-3 Medium forts (stronger and larger than small forts) Level-4 Large forts (stronger and larger than medium forts) Level-5 Ouvrages (massive structures, like the German flak towers, containing hundreds/thousands of men and multiple integrated weapons systems, much like Bob Cross's "beached Yamato", and very hard to kill) Now, a Fortified Zone would be an actual TOAW unit (like a panzer regiment, or a rifle company), but instead of squads and tanks it would be composed of MG Nests, small forts, etc., depending on the size of fortified zone you are dealing with (i.e., the difference between a company-sized strongpoint on a hilltop and a section of the Maginot Line). A fortress like Sevastopol would consist of a variety of such Fortified Zone units within the hex/hexes it occupies. Further, these fortifications don't take up much (if any) stacking since they literally become part of the terrain of the hex they are in (like the tunnels in Gibralter, or the caves/tunnels on Iwo Jima). Thus, they are very strong but don't cause the hex they occupy to 'Go Red' in terms of stacking (which would defeat the whole purpose of these defenses in the first place). But, and this is the whole point of this thread, as TOAW exists today none of this heirarchy exists. And it should. Now, I realize that TOAW III did not have a superfluity of unit slots to make this happen, but since I only care about the WW2 era, then I can edit/modify dozens of equipment slots to make it happen. And here is my basic question, once again: can such defenses be given armor ratings and will that work in the game? That is the question I really want to get an answer to.
_____________________________
|