Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918



Message

SMK-at-work -> Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/8/2007 11:44:47 PM)

I know siege arty isn't supposed to affect trenches, but should it affect forts that have been further developed by trenches? Eg a lvl 2 fort that has been bought up to lvl 3 or 4 by entrenchement doesn't seem to be affected by siege arty - I've been shooting at one for 3 phases with 2 siege units and havent' killed 1 level.

I suspect that the fort levels should still be vulnerable - the owning player is still getting benefit from them by virtue of getting to the higher entrenchment levels without having to pay for the lower ones, and if they do get KO'ed he's still left with any entrenchements that he's invested in, and can keep upgrading/repairing those.



SteveD64 -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 12:14:06 AM)

I tend to agree.  I also think units in high level forts (3 and 4) should be practically invulerable to artillery fire (that is until the forts are knocked out).



Lascar -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 12:27:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

I tend to agree. I also think units in high level forts (3 and 4) should be practically invulerable to artillery fire (that is until the forts are knocked out).

Would that be realistic? How many men could actually be sheltered in the fort structures? Considering that each corps represents the presence of at least 30,000 men.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 2:00:13 AM)

Fortified areas could hold a lot of men - Premzyl surrendered 110,000 - it's official garrison was some 30,000.  the "Paris armed camp" would have held 200,000+.



Lascar -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 2:11:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Fortified areas could hold a lot of men - Premzyl surrendered 110,000 - it's official garrison was some 30,000. the "Paris armed camp" would have held 200,000+.


Yes, but how many of those men where actually sheltered in hardened structures. Sure, you can have hundreds of thousands bivouacked in those cities but actually sheltered in shell proof structures??



SMK-at-work -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 2:17:25 AM)

They don't have to be all in shelter. 

The fortification means that you keep a lot of them to the rear where they're much safer - bombardments on hte front line don't kill as many men because those that are there are under shelter.....bombardments in the rear don't kill nearly as many people even if they aren't in shelter because the targets are more dispersed and harder to observe....even with aircraft - it's much easier to hit things that yuo can see from a tethered balloon or from the ground.



SteveD64 -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 2:50:07 AM)

At the beginning, when I first started playing I was pretty shocked that units on the Eastern Front could build level 4 trenches because, frankly, it rarely happened if at all (along the entire front).  After a couple of games I realized that it was way too expensive to construct huge trench lines along the entire front so the game took care of itself.

My main beef now is cut-off units that survive over a year behind enemy lines.  Disclaimer: I have not yet played with the latest patches (I've been playing version B) so I don't know if units wither away like they should.  Example:  I cut off three TE corps on the Italian front and they remained there for over a year and they weren't in a city.  Pretty hard to swallow.

Sorry for derailing the thread!



SMK-at-work -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 3:05:45 AM)

thye might have survived but they'd have been in terrible shape - one minor push and you'd probably have killed the lot.



kcole4080 -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 4:18:46 AM)

They're easy pickin's once their readiness hits the bottom.
You can eliminate them with 1 or 2 corps with few if any losses.



Joel Rauber -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 5:35:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

At the beginning, when I first started playing I was pretty shocked that units on the Eastern Front could build level 4 trenches because, frankly, it rarely happened if at all (along the entire front). After a couple of games I realized that it was way too expensive to construct huge trench lines along the entire front so the game took care of itself.
. . .



I'm not advocating any changes in the new official V1.2 that will soon be out; but I'm beginning to wonder if trenches shouldn't stay at 4 per industrial point. I voted for 6 back when we were voting; but the above comment is rather apropos.

My real opinion is to accept the next patch and get experience with the game and its changes and then look at the issue again in light of new experience.



barbarossa2 -> RE: Seige arty vs forts and trenches? (11/9/2007 7:06:13 AM)

One reason the several days shelling which preceeded the Somme offensive was so ineffective, was that they were often small calibre guns. They could not, and did not penetrate the deeper shelters that the Germans had built. So they sat and waited for it all to get quiet. And came back up when the shelling stopped (not attempting to provide a precise description of the fighting here).

What I AM trying to say is that ONLY larger artillery stood a chance here. But, perhaps "fort" artillery doesn't have an effect, because these huge guns fire so few rounds, that when their effects are measured against trenches in a hex that is 50 miles wide, the effects would be...well...insignificant. However, when firing against forts which contribute significantly to a hex's defensive value, they come into their own.

Just some thoughts.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125