Thoughts on Fortifications

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Thoughts on Fortifications

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 West >> Thoughts on Fortifications

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 5:02:49 PM

GrumpyMel

Posts: 864
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

Getting into this game and learning to play it better as well as enjoying it. However, I thought I'd share a few observations about fortifications. Does anyone else feel that fortifications are too quick/easy to build up and maintain? Some thoughts....

- Units enjoy the full benefits of fortifications even though they've just been fully switched into the line. This seems a bit unrealistic and I think makes for an unsatisfying game play mechanic. It seems to me that part of the benefit of fortifying is not just the physical apparatus (fox holes, barbed wire, entrenchments, etc), but the units familiarity with the battlefield... that isn't something that would be fully transferable to a new unit taking it's place in the line. From a gameplay perspective it creates a sort of shell game where a defender can simply switch in their most powerful unit(s) to a portion of the line where their forts have been depleted, making the hex practicaly unassailable until the forts have been fully rebuilt. This wouldn't be so bad against a human opponent that at least has to maintain proper reserves in good combat shape across the entire line to protect it.... but the AI seems able to "cheat" moving units to spots in the line where they really don't seem like they should be able to get to if they followed regular movement rules.

- Concentrated bombing (and concentrated artillery) seems to do nothing to fort levels. I've put entire air forces worth of air power ground striking a single hex on multiple occasions and the fortification level doesn't budge an inch. That's highly unrealistic... in reality concentrated air power and artillery was one of the solutions to built up fortifications. They should be ripping through the fort levels in a hex, instead of doing nothing.

- From a gameplay perspective, I've got myself bottled up in the toe of Italy and unable to break out due to Axis fort levels. Partialy this may be my own fault (it's my first game) due to choice of invasion spots (near Crotone) and not maintaining the momentum (though horrible weather made that difficult). However, I've still got something like an 8 hex front that the Axis seems to be able to hold with just a few weak units in high forts... and whenever I break a Fort down a level in one spot the HG Panzer Division and another strong unit seem to instantly warp into that location (8 hex's over mountains and rough terrain in light mud, through enemy ZOC's without taking a readiness hit) and if the fort isn't fully rebuilt by my next turn, the hex is still pretty unassailable due to the strength of the units occupying it). It makes for a pretty unsatisfying gameplay situation. I wouldn't mind it so much, if the AI really needed to have significant forces committed there to keep me bottled up.... but thanks to warping Panzer divisions and fortifications that seem completely impervious to concentrated air power and artillery...it doesn't.

- I really feel there needs to be a solution available to the player to knock out fort levels if they are willing to concentrate the resources to do so. By all means make manuver and keeping momentum important and penalize the player for failing to do so.... but the player should have a solution for bulling their way through a well fortified line if they run up against it... if they are willing to concentrate the resources and if their enemy really hasn't concentrated alot of reserves to give the defense some depth.

< Message edited by GrumpyMel -- 12/29/2014 6:05:31 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 5:05:47 PM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

Heavy artillery and engineers will reduce them, are they being committed in your ground battles?

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to GrumpyMel)

Post #: 2

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 5:18:45 PM

GrumpyMel

Posts: 864
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Heavy artillery and engineers will reduce them, are they being committed in your ground battles?

Yes, on every single attack. I've got the entire Tactical Air Force on Ground Support (and the entire 15th Air Force is assigned to Ground Strike the same hex in the Air Phase) most divisions have a combat engineer attached ... the symbol shows in the attack box.... and Corps and Army HQ's have artillery units attached and are near the Front Line.... I generaly massively outnumber the amount of tubes the enemy has committed to a fight.

I do tend to budge the Fort Levels a little but with such full scale assault...but it's like .02 or .04 on each attack....maybe if I get really lucky I'll move it .4 or something like that but the enemy rebuilds it something like .5 on each turn....and if it does get weakened, they instantly warp in the HG and another heavy unit (I think an SS PzGr division) from 1 spot in the line to another... no matter how far away they are... so the weakened spot becomes kinda unassailable...I face something like a 200+ defensive
CV in that hex the next turn. That's completely unrealistic.... (and unsatisfying gameplay) no way a defender should be able to maintain fort levels in a hex that is subject to repeated heavy bombing and artillery strikes..... Heck, you should be able to knock out Fort levels just from repeated bombing alone....without even committing a ground attack.... and certainly as a prelude to a ground attack.

< Message edited by GrumpyMel -- 12/29/2014 6:19:37 PM >

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 3

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 5:31:17 PM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

There was some discussion about air bombing reducing fort level, maybe you can post screenshot of some of your attacks so we could see what you are seeing.

_____________________________

(in reply to GrumpyMel)

Post #: 4

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 5:57:36 PM

Smirfy

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

I think it has been mentioned that Allied artillery and airpower are pretty redundant :D

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 5

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 6:14:16 PM

NotOneStepBack

Posts: 915
Joined: 6/17/2011
Status: offline

...go around them :)

You'll never win assaulting head first into a fort line, it's best to flank them with another invasion.

Art of war 101, don't attack where your opponent is strong.

< Message edited by NotOneStepBack -- 12/29/2014 7:16:03 PM >

(in reply to Smirfy)

Post #: 6

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 6:19:25 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I think it has been mentioned that Allied artillery and airpower are pretty redundant :D

Its not.. The disruption alone caused by massed air tips the balance in many critical battles... You just need to learn how to look deeper..

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Smirfy)

Post #: 7

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 6:20:33 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

It took the Allies two years to get north through Italy with good reason.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to NotOneStepBack)

Post #: 8

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 6:28:02 PM

Belphegor

Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline

I'm not going to say whether I agree with the current situation or not. In the current game against Pelton I was beating my head against his fort wall for some time. It occasionally took 2 weeks to recover troops and fatigue from failed assaults. Eventually, with massed air assault, engineers and arty I managed to start knocking down forts 2 levels in one attack. Then I got him shifted again. 1 or two hexes per turn... and ran out of steam.

I felt the key was to not really let him recover and attack at more than one location to stop the reinforcing. Although I welcomed the opportunity to cause more attrition.

I'm still way behind historical but attribute that to my opponent's gameplay not the engine. I'm still learning.

He has been annoyed with the apparent ease that I take hexes once I focused the entire tactical air force on one hex.

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 9

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 6:39:48 PM

Smirfy

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

It took the Allies two years to get north through Italy with good reason.

Yes they never left artillery range because German infantry weapons were so superior especially in Italy so it took them time to limber, unlumber move stockpiles and set up again.Add to that everything was booby trapped and your on a narrow front it was going to be methodical. And then you had the Allied troop withdrawals for DDAY and Dragoon. Both the Gothic and Gustav lines were both broken I remember correctly, despite this.

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 10

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 7:46:21 PM

Davekhps

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/10/2010
Status: offline

Italy is a tough nut to crack. The way the Allies have around it is to launch a phib invasion every time the Axis form a line, the AI will then dislocate (teleport?) to the rear, abandoning those forts. The phib has to be large enough to trigger this, a couple of divisions gets "walled off," while a robust invasion always seems to dislocate the line.

Eventually, you'll get to good tank country on both coasts that will allow for less fortification and thus easier breakthroughs. In the meantime, pound railyards and railways (I find both seem to be more effective than interdiction, but that's just a hunch).

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 11

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 8:06:09 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

People need to read up about Italy. From Wiki:

"Repeated pinpoint artillery attacks on Allied assault troops caused their leaders to conclude the abbey was at the least being used as an observation post. Fears escalated along with casualties, and in spite of lacking clear evidence, it was marked for destruction. On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage .[6] The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins. Between 17 January and 18 May, Monte Cassino and the Gustav defences were assaulted four times by Allied troops, the last involving twenty divisions attacking along a twenty-mile front."

4 months - 17 weeks of continued assaults, including air raids and much artillery.

BTW, no army left artillery range (except in totally exceptional breakthroughs). The reason 1918 in the west ran like it did was because the Allies had at last learned this. The skill is having mobile and flexible artillery which means it moves faster/sets up quicker. Totally superior infantry weapons = bog standard machine guns. Everything else is just a counter to the counter to machine guns!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Smirfy)

Post #: 12

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 8:07:52 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Davekhps

In the meantime, pound railyards and railways (I find both seem to be more effective than interdiction, but that's just a hunch).

Interdiction is for Christmas, railyard damage lasts all year (well, almost

)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Davekhps)

Post #: 13

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 9:58:26 PM

marion61

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Davekhps

Eventually, you'll get to good tank country on both coasts that will allow for less fortification and thus easier breakthroughs.

Why not invade into good tank country to start with?

(in reply to Davekhps)

Post #: 14

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 10:03:41 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Check out the starting situation in Italy in the May 44 campaign. The German units are bled white. Although the 1st FJ Division has 7000 men, its combat ready TOE percentage is 26%. German units in Italy are between 30-70% combat ready TOE. This, along with clear weather allows for a breaking of the Gustav Line. In good weather, the Allies can focus their interdiction over a few hexes of the front preventing the German units from fully utilizing what strength they have to reinforce critical spots in the line (in game terms, heavily disrupting units when they are attacked). Attacks will take ground and things can snowball just as they do in Breakout & Pursuit (or at least the Germans can be forced back).

I can't guarantee that the Germans won't send more forces to Italy in Campaign 43 than they did historically, but then the Allies have other options as well. But what did happen can happen in the game.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 15

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 11:14:40 PM

Kumppi

Posts: 209
Joined: 10/21/2008
From: Somewhere between Sweden and Russia
Status: offline

So is it better to make interdiction attacks against front line units than directly bombing the units? I thought that against units that don't move its better to bomb and interdict rear areas where units and freight move.

Is there any difference except targeting when you select UNIT or INTERDICT in the target selection when creating ground attack missions?

< Message edited by Kumppi -- 12/30/2014 12:18:43 AM >

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 16

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/29/2014 11:45:56 PM

Smirfy

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline

Like I said I dont doubt in th May 44 campiagns you guys have got the OOB and the various strengths and weaknesses right its actually getting them to that stage form the 43 scenario ;)

70% of Allied casualties in Normandy were due to mortars which aint bad for a "bog standard" weapon, To get to the Mortars one had to go through the superior infantry weapon to do that one needed artillery. As for Cassino the vetrans 36th infantry division demanded a congressional inquiry into Clarks handling of the 1st battle after the war. Dont think he had much artillery support ;) The next two battles were fought on unfavourable terms because the Allies got themselves in a fix at Anzio. Finally Alexander got a plan, and a lot of artillery and attacked in May when the weather was nicer. Believe he broke through.

(in reply to Kumppi)

Post #: 17

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 12:27:19 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Yes, interdiction is better than directly bombing the unit. Bombing may cause a few immediate losses, but will only put a small amount of interdiction in the hex. Interdiction may not put any immediate losses on the unit (it will only cause losses at very high interdiction levels), but in conjunction with an attack, it will pin the defending forces (by disrupting them at the start of the ground fighting). It is also good in the rear areas for intercepting supplies coming to units, reducing reserve commitments of units in the rear, and causing losses to units moving in from the rear (especially if on trains, don't rail into high interdiction). So in Normandy in 44 the Allies can both isolate the battlefield and pin the front line forces. In Italy, you probably don't have the forces to do both, but you can pin the front line units in the tough hexes you plan on attacking.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Kumppi)

Post #: 18

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 12:38:45 AM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

Ground attack unit can inflict a lot of disruptions which seems to have an effect on a ground attack later

_____________________________

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 19

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 12:50:12 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Yes, you're right in one way about ground attack. It also causes disruption, which is converted into fatigue at the end of the bombing run. This will also reduce the CV of the defending unit. There are many ways to skin a cat. Gary's strategy of choice for the AI is heavy interdiction, but you can find other ways to the same end.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 20

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 1:01:52 AM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

Yeah there are so many different things to do 8)

_____________________________

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 21

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 4:02:19 PM

GrumpyMel

Posts: 864
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

I'll try to post screenshots when I get a chance. It would be helpful to understand exactly what rules the AI has to face when compared to what rules a human opponent must face. Do the same movement rules apply to the AI that apply to a human player and do they suffer the same attrition/disruption and interdiction from moving through hex's that a human opponent would?

I realize the AI is dumb compared to a human opponent but I get the feeling that the AI is not having to follow all the same rules that a human player would.... simply due to the fact it seems able to shift it's strongest forces from one side of the line to the other in a single turn with no seeming loss of strength...over terrain that it doesn't seem like it should be able to accomplish that movement... and thus seems able to do things in this situation that a human opponent couldn't with the same resources devoted. Maybe I'm mistaken on that and it does have to follow the same rules? I definately don't want to pursue a strategy (like interdiction or hitting alternating sides of the line) that the AI can simply avoid suffering from because it doesn't have to follow the same rules.

Again partialy this is my fault for not the best strategy (hey, I'm still learning) but it seems like the Fort thing is just too strong. With the huge VP loss for Allied casualties...I'm not certain that it even makes sense to fight a war of attrition in Italy or do anything other then land somewhere, establish a 10 hex or so beachhead that can't be broken....and sit there for the rest of the game doing nothing and letting the landings in France and bombing Germany do all the work, VP wise. Sounds pretty gamey but that seems like it would be better from a pure VP perspective then taking the hit for casualties by trying to gain territory in Italy.

I assume a second landing in Italy to do an end run around a defensive line would be a solution... but it's not like you have an unlimited supply of Naval TF's..... do people not pull the ones in the Med. out for the invasion of France?

I still feel it's very counter-intuitive that Ground Striking the heck out of a hex doesn't budge the Fort level any. As a player, I'd consider that the obvious tactic to try to soften up/bust a Fortification BEFORE (or instead of) committing infantry for a full scale assault.

Edit: No matter how many times I hit it or with what...the AI seems to always be able to build up it's Fort levels to 3.10 after an attack, in the hex that was attacked.

< Message edited by GrumpyMel -- 12/30/2014 5:05:54 PM >

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 22

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 6:00:51 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Well the Allies tried that at Mount Cristo and all they did was make it a better defensive position

So having airpower directly affect forts is not historical. Otherwise Normandy could have just been bombed to rubble and the Allies just walk ashore

Italy shows that there was a reason for Anzio as the RL commanders thought progress was too slow as well. So now you know how they felt too. A sign of a good game imho

(in reply to GrumpyMel)

Post #: 23

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 6:20:40 PM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

You must be hungry numdydar, thinking about monte cristo sandwich

_____________________________

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 24

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 6:52:13 PM

Jakerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

...go around them :)

You'll never win assaulting head first into a fort line, it's best to flank them with another invasion.

Art of war 101, don't attack where your opponent is strong.

This is reason why Germans when they invaded France never attacked trough Maginot line they went trough Holland and Belgium and bypassed Maginot line.

(in reply to NotOneStepBack)

Post #: 25

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 7:30:18 PM

GrumpyMel

Posts: 864
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

...go around them :)

You'll never win assaulting head first into a fort line, it's best to flank them with another invasion.

Art of war 101, don't attack where your opponent is strong.

This is reason why Germans when they invaded France never attacked trough Maginot line they went trough Holland and Belgium and bypassed Maginot line.

Except eventualy when they did decide to get around to attacking it... they got through it in 1 day with standard infantry attacks

"The Maginot Line was widely believed to be impregnable, and for all I know there may still be those who think that the fortifications could have resisted any attack. It may be of interest to point out that the Maginot defenses were breached in a few hours by a normal infantry attack, without any tank support whatsoever. The German infantry advanced under cover of a heavy air and artillery bombardment in which lavish use was made of smoke shell. They soon found that many of the French strongpoints were not proof against shells or bombs, and moreover, a large number of postions had not been sited for all around defense and were easy to attack from the blind side with grenades and flamethrowers. The Maginot Line lacked depth, and taken as a whole the position was far inferior to many defensive systems developed later in the war. In modern war it is in any case unsound to rely on static defense, but as far as the Maginot Line was concerned the fortifications had only a moderate local value."

F.W. von Mellinthin -chief of staff -197th Infantry div

(in reply to Jakerson)

Post #: 26

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 8:11:57 PM

GrumpyMel

Posts: 864
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well the Allies tried that at Mount Cristo and all they did was make it a better defensive position So having airpower directly affect forts is not historical. Otherwise Normandy could have just been bombed to rubble and the Allies just walk ashore

Italy shows that there was a reason for Anzio as the RL commanders thought progress was too slow as well. So now you know how they felt too. A sign of a good game imho

I think Monte Cassino is a bit of an exception to the rule... I mean it was a medieval abby/fortress built on a perfect defensive hilltop. I could see the same for bombing/shelling urban centers not making them much easier to assault. That should be a natural feature of the terrain.

What we are talking about with Fort levels (at least as far as I can see the logic of how they are represented) is what a bunch of infantry guys...not even Engineers can accomplish in a matter of a couple weeks, in their spare time with shovels. That's digging some trenches, setting up some sandbagged positions, laying out some barbed wire, setting out some mines or tank-traps...maybe a quick concrete bunker or two.

You really want to tell me that a few sand bags and some concertina wire in a farmers field should be essentialy impervious to damage by concentrated bombing, artillery shelling and escalated assault by engineers and armored vehicles?

I get that maybe serious hill and mountanous terrain and urban terrain should naturaly be difficult to assault.....but these Forts that are doubling and tripling CV's are being created on every hex on the map simply by normal combat units occupying them and being created in a matter of DAYS, maybe a 2-3 weeks even while the unit is in active contact with the enemy. It's just absurd that they aren't sustaining significant damage from that....or that I have to commit a full scale frontal assault just to get my bombers to hit some sandbagged strong-points hard enough to do some damage.

I should be able to pulverize those improvised defenses from the air...or with artillery... and at most have to commit a probing attack to see if they have been weakened enough to throw a full scale assualt at them.... and they really should not be able to sustain those defensive fortifications indefinately in a single hex...if I'm sending every single plane in the Med. to bomb it.... if the hex is unassailable then it should be unassailable by simple virtue of it's terrain features...not because some riflemen with shovels spent a few days digging foxholes.

Edit: From a gameplay standpoint.... damage should be occuring during the Air Resolution Phase with Ground Strikes (and I really think it should be much more significant then it is, as a rule).... and then the player should be able to decide in the Land Phase... yeah, it looks weak enough that I really want to throw a full scale assault on it... or no, it's not been hammered enough yet that I want to throw troops into the meat grinder.... lets hammer it for another week or 2 and see if that weakens it.

< Message edited by GrumpyMel -- 12/30/2014 9:22:59 PM >

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 27

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 9:34:47 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

Thought it might be worth posting the approximate fort level definitions that el hefe and I use in scenario design.

Level 1 - Hasty dug-in defensive positions with some earthen (just dirt) overhead cover. Heavy weapons are in basic defilade without overhead cover. Minimal camoflague. Can be accomplished within a week.

Level 2 - Continued position improvement with squad trenches and crew served weapons pits. Moderate camouflage. Additional week or two.

Level 3 - Connected trench networked system with both primary and alternate dug-in positions. Crew served positions in earthen bunkers with overhead cover. Additional week or two. More extensive camouflage. Typical WW1 or static eastern front positions.

Level 4 - Introduction of interlocking concrete field fortifications with elaborate defensive engineering works - tank traps, minefields, etc. Examples are the Panther Line and West Wall. Field units should not be able to build these on their own and require substantial engineering assets and planning. 3-6 months.

Level 5 - The only true "forts" in the game. Massive defensive works that take years to build. Examples are the Maginot Line and Sevastapol.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to GrumpyMel)

Post #: 28

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/30/2014 9:42:26 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

...go around them :)

You'll never win assaulting head first into a fort line, it's best to flank them with another invasion.

Art of war 101, don't attack where your opponent is strong.

This is reason why Germans when they invaded France never attacked trough Maginot line they went trough Holland and Belgium and bypassed Maginot line.

Except eventualy when they did decide to get around to attacking it... they got through it in 1 day with standard infantry attacks

"The Maginot Line was widely believed to be impregnable, and for all I know there may still be those who think that the fortifications could have resisted any attack. It may be of interest to point out that the Maginot defenses were breached in a few hours by a normal infantry attack, without any tank support whatsoever. The German infantry advanced under cover of a heavy air and artillery bombardment in which lavish use was made of smoke shell. They soon found that many of the French strongpoints were not proof against shells or bombs, and moreover, a large number of postions had not been sited for all around defense and were easy to attack from the blind side with grenades and flamethrowers. The Maginot Line lacked depth, and taken as a whole the position was far inferior to many defensive systems developed later in the war. In modern war it is in any case unsound to rely on static defense, but as far as the Maginot Line was concerned the fortifications had only a moderate local value."

F.W. von Mellinthin -chief of staff -197th Infantry div

By the time the Maginot line was attacked the interval troops had been withdrawn. These were a key component of the defence, and without them the line is like a brick wall without any mortar...

The line was not impregnable (even with interval troops) in 1940, but progress would have been slow and expensive.... bit like the game really!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to GrumpyMel)

Post #: 29

RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 12/31/2014 2:31:00 AM

cmunson

Posts: 6238
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

Thought it might be worth posting the approximate fort level definitions that el hefe and I use in scenario design.
Level 1 - Hasty dug-in defensive positions with some earthen (just dirt) overhead cover. Heavy weapons are in basic defilade without overhead cover. Minimal camoflague. Can be accomplished within a week.
Level 2 - Continued position improvement with squad trenches and crew served weapons pits. Moderate camouflage. Additional week or two.
Level 3 - Connected trench networked system with both primary and alternate dug-in positions. Crew served positions in earthen bunkers with overhead cover. Additional week or two. More extensive camouflage. Typical WW1 or static eastern front positions.
Level 4 - Introduction of interlocking concrete field fortifications with elaborate defensive engineering works - tank traps, minefields, etc. Examples are the Panther Line and West Wall. Field units should not be able to build these on their own and require substantial engineering assets and planning. 3-6 months.
Level 5 - The only true "forts" in the game. Massive defensive works that take years to build. Examples are the Maginot Line and Sevastapol.

Red Lancer

John, I agree with your fort level definitions completely. Given that, might we not see more level 4 starting forts in the 43 Campaign, especially Siegfried Line (West Wall) and maybe some of the Atlantic Wall hexes in the Pas de Calais region?

_____________________________

Chris

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 30