RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)?

RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (Full Version)

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

Message

bednarre -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/8/2011 8:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hfarrish It seems to me the ideal solution is still building off Zort's earlier comments, which would be to limit the construction of level 4 forts to areas around cities, to limit construction by brigades and perhaps to limit construction by depleted units and modify it by a leader's administrative skill (not sure if this has been suggested before, but it would seem to make sense). As a dedicated Soviet PBEM player I think its fair to limit the high end of construction - no way would there be a line of concrete bunkers from the Black Sea to Leningrad, but by the same token, as others have pointed out, the Soviets were quite good at digging fast - so 1-3 forts should be relatively attainable. Not like these can't be broken by a well planned German offensive. What about level 3 forts 4 hexes deep?

bednarre -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/8/2011 8:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Stalin Line had been mostly abandoned after advance into Poland in 1939. Much of the artillery had been taken and was still in storage waiting to be put into new fortifications along new border to the west. The bunkers were still at the Stalin Line but much was in bad shape. Some parts were manned when the Axis attacked but it was not a very good defense because of neglect. Also, Stalin Line was made to channel attacks rather than stop them when it was built. I think Adnan has a good idea but there is no need for a Maginot Line level. No one has resources or time for that kind of fortification. The best you could get is several lines of field fortifications as at Kursk. Its seems like the higher fortifications should require the employment of an artillery unit, or use replacements. This could effectively put a damper on level 3+ fortifications. If the division organic artillery would be selected for this purpose, it should be at a much heigher risk of damage/destruction, since it is directly in the front lines. A line is only as good as its weakest point. The problem currently is when a level 3 fortification is placed in a hex, suddently the entire 10 mile front is covered with these type fortifications! All of the defenders in the hex get the fortification advantage. Fortifications were not deemed impregnable by the German and Allied generals. In the Battle of Sevastopol, the massive fortification was taken in 1 month (4 turns), with 24,000 German casualties and probabably 90,000 Russian dead, 11,000 captured, and 25,000 evacuated. I reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1941%E2%80%931942) This is a 4:1 exchange ratio in favor of the attacker! The key was German use of engineers and siege artillery, and taking the forts one-by-one. There were the equivalent of 8 Russian divisions at Sevastopol, so the battle could not be duplicated in the game.

bednarre -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/8/2011 9:39:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi Hi, the readings about the "breakthrough" of the stalin line tells a different story. In the cases it was manned, it was a hard but not impossible fighting But i agree - you need no maginotline, just for sevastopol :) I still like the idea that you can establish a defence line in a certain deep, but no "40m deep"-Fortress. Not with the limited resources (has anybody asked how these guys build all the trenches with barb wire? Where comes the concrete? At kursk the russians could lay a lot mines. Normally, no division has 100.000 mines for the 40miles deep defence layer... So not the level is the biggest problem, but the depth. One idea (can it be done?) is, that the army can give priority for certain hexes or for an area... in this area you can build a deeper defence line (as one row) with a higher fortification as 2. All other hexes can only be level 1 or 2 or zero (maybe zero or 1 to make it even harder?) This could help to avoid "Verdun at the eastern front". The player need to define the defence line, with priority. no line can be deeper as 2 hexes (similar to the biggest fortification layer at kursk), if you use troops behind, they can do some light dig-in (say, some artillery is better prepared, but honestly, if your gun can shoot 10 miles, nobody would dig in each gun so deep with 40 miles distance to the frontline. I bet, these guns would be in cover against air attacks, but nothing else. In no army existing You also should define what kind of defence you want. a linked static line with one,two or three reservelines as backup (better, but take longer... it starts with the first line and the last line will be finished last. Also if you want 360 Degree Defence... you give the order and the computer do the rest. So if you plan the Eastwall, but you have only limited engineer capability, you have a big problem - cause only 20% of the hexes has more as level1-defence. But if your heroes pay you the time (or both sides do not attack), you can dig and dig, you revice barb wire, mines, concrete, building material, and and and. If these defence systems are finished, they are really ugly (level 5-7) So you can force the enemy to fight at another place and time (like the northern sector) Oh - in winter (frozen surface) you should only reach level 1, only heavy engineering equipment should help to avoid it. So no russian "kursk is everywere defence-line" (or german). Assuming a 1000 mile front with 1 mine every 10 feet, about half a million mines would be required. A single, simple minefield would have, say, 6 rows, resulting in the usage of 3 million mines for the simplest minefield. An effective minefield would of course have several belts: assuming 5 belts gives about 15 million mines for one fortification line. Four lines would require around 60 million mines. There are an estimated 20 million mines still in Egypt, which was a very heavily mined area. About 300 million anti-tank mines were produced in World War II (by all of the major countries). The question is how long would Russian take to produce this incredible total! Also, vast railroad assets would be required. Assuming 5 lbs on the average per mine, this comes to 150,000 tons, or 300 railroad trains. Thus in a one month construction effort, 10 trains per day would be required just to deliver the mines. Delivering the concrete and steel would consume even more. Thus building fortifications should reduce Russian railroad transport capacity!

jules -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/8/2011 10:53:09 PM)
In game terms there could be a difference between “entrenchment” of a unit which is lost after moving out of the hex and a “real fortification”. The fortification level could only be build by support units if a unit (e.g. fortified unit) stays in the hex and is fully entrenched (e.g level 2). Both Levels could be added for combat resolution: so if unit A moves into hex x,y with 2 forts it has to entrench itself to 2 to have a max of 4. Or if it reaches an entrenchemt of 2 this is lost if moved out and unit B moves in. ... just my thoughts…

VictorCharlie -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 2:24:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bednarre quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Stalin Line had been mostly abandoned after advance into Poland in 1939. Much of the artillery had been taken and was still in storage waiting to be put into new fortifications along new border to the west. The bunkers were still at the Stalin Line but much was in bad shape. Some parts were manned when the Axis attacked but it was not a very good defense because of neglect. Also, Stalin Line was made to channel attacks rather than stop them when it was built. I think Adnan has a good idea but there is no need for a Maginot Line level. No one has resources or time for that kind of fortification. The best you could get is several lines of field fortifications as at Kursk. Its seems like the higher fortifications should require the employment of an artillery unit, or use replacements. This could effectively put a damper on level 3+ fortifications. If the division organic artillery would be selected for this purpose, it should be at a much heigher risk of damage/destruction, since it is directly in the front lines. A line is only as good as its weakest point. The problem currently is when a level 3 fortification is placed in a hex, suddently the entire 10 mile front is covered with these type fortifications! All of the defenders in the hex get the fortification advantage. Fortifications were not deemed impregnable by the German and Allied generals. In the Battle of Sevastopol, the massive fortification was taken in 1 month (4 turns), with 24,000 German casualties and probabably 90,000 Russian dead, 11,000 captured, and 25,000 evacuated. I reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1941%E2%80%931942) This is a 4:1 exchange ratio in favor of the attacker! The key was German use of engineers and siege artillery, and taking the forts one-by-one. There were the equivalent of 8 Russian divisions at Sevastopol, so the battle could not be duplicated in the game. Cannot the stacking limit be changed for certain hexes? That is Urban areas and high-level forts. Otherwise it is a major flaw if historical events cannot be recreated. If things have to be changed to make the 'game' work then that is at odds with it being a historical simulation.

pat.casey -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 4:30:40 AM)
If you want to talk stacking density, check out the siege of berlin in 1945. > 500k russians attacked the center of berlin held by about 80k Germans. If we assume 10k/division, that's 50 divisions attacking 8, and all inside the center of the city (the dense urban square). For the overall siege (attacking all the in-game urban squares, the soviets had north of 1.5m. I have to think the stacking density is a gameplay necessity rather than an attempt to model history accurately, since real-world troop densities varied hugely on the eastern front.

VictorCharlie -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 6:49:09 AM)
An idea from another thread. What about making units in Reserve state more likely to enter combat in urban areas? So increase the probability they will be committed. That will help increase numbers in urban combats. Still doesn’t help places like Sevastopol though.

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 11:30:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bednarre quote: ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi Hi, the readings about the "breakthrough" of the stalin line tells a different story. In the cases it was manned, it was a hard but not impossible fighting But i agree - you need no maginotline, just for sevastopol :) I still like the idea that you can establish a defence line in a certain deep, but no "40m deep"-Fortress. Not with the limited resources (has anybody asked how these guys build all the trenches with barb wire? Where comes the concrete? At kursk the russians could lay a lot mines. Normally, no division has 100.000 mines for the 40miles deep defence layer... So not the level is the biggest problem, but the depth. One idea (can it be done?) is, that the army can give priority for certain hexes or for an area... in this area you can build a deeper defence line (as one row) with a higher fortification as 2. All other hexes can only be level 1 or 2 or zero (maybe zero or 1 to make it even harder?) This could help to avoid "Verdun at the eastern front". The player need to define the defence line, with priority. no line can be deeper as 2 hexes (similar to the biggest fortification layer at kursk), if you use troops behind, they can do some light dig-in (say, some artillery is better prepared, but honestly, if your gun can shoot 10 miles, nobody would dig in each gun so deep with 40 miles distance to the frontline. I bet, these guns would be in cover against air attacks, but nothing else. In no army existing You also should define what kind of defence you want. a linked static line with one,two or three reservelines as backup (better, but take longer... it starts with the first line and the last line will be finished last. Also if you want 360 Degree Defence... you give the order and the computer do the rest. So if you plan the Eastwall, but you have only limited engineer capability, you have a big problem - cause only 20% of the hexes has more as level1-defence. But if your heroes pay you the time (or both sides do not attack), you can dig and dig, you revice barb wire, mines, concrete, building material, and and and. If these defence systems are finished, they are really ugly (level 5-7) So you can force the enemy to fight at another place and time (like the northern sector) Oh - in winter (frozen surface) you should only reach level 1, only heavy engineering equipment should help to avoid it. So no russian "kursk is everywere defence-line" (or german). Assuming a 1000 mile front with 1 mine every 10 feet, about half a million mines would be required. A single, simple minefield would have, say, 6 rows, resulting in the usage of 3 million mines for the simplest minefield. An effective minefield would of course have several belts: assuming 5 belts gives about 15 million mines for one fortification line. Four lines would require around 60 million mines. There are an estimated 20 million mines still in Egypt, which was a very heavily mined area. About 300 million anti-tank mines were produced in World War II (by all of the major countries). The question is how long would Russian take to produce this incredible total! Also, vast railroad assets would be required. Assuming 5 lbs on the average per mine, this comes to 150,000 tons, or 300 railroad trains. Thus in a one month construction effort, 10 trains per day would be required just to deliver the mines. Delivering the concrete and steel would consume even more. Thus building fortifications should reduce Russian railroad transport capacity! Yes, you are true... now think about 40miles deep entrenchments with 100 or more lanes of mines... that is (if you dig in 4hexes deep as russian player for 1000miles =400 Units/hexes) incredible... in a 10miles-deep hex you need alone 20 belts... so we have 4x of the numbers you said - the result of this is: 240 million mines... nice. How should the russians produce em? And - again 1000miles, 40 miles, how long are the trenches? To dig in, you need say for each mile (in the depth!) 1 or 2 miles of trenches... this is: 40x1000x2=40-80.000miles of trenches... well, i tink someone has really to like digging. The barbwire... yeah... i agree totally that the fortification levels (in depth) are silly and not realistic So the best solution is, that you need Industrypoints... without you have only level1, level2 (in the moment the level1 of the game) needs so and so much points each hex, level3 (between 2 and 3) needs 10times the stuff, level 4 (3 in the game) needs 10times the stuff of level 3 and so on. (the multiplicator is just a random guess.... but if you want to build a deep fortification zone, you need a lot ressources, time and transportation stuff.

pat.casey -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 3:17:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi <snip> i agree totally that the fortification levels (in depth) are silly and not realistic So the best solution is, that you need Industrypoints... without you have only level1, level2 (in the moment the level1 of the game) needs so and so much points each hex, level3 (between 2 and 3) needs 10times the stuff, level 4 (3 in the game) needs 10times the stuff of level 3 and so on. (the multiplicator is just a random guess.... but if you want to build a deep fortification zone, you need a lot ressources, time and transportation stuff. I don't know that we need to add anything totally new like industry points. I'd think a non trivial admin point cost (like 20 points) and a cost in armaments would be reasonable. Perhaps Shift-F shouldn't place a (largely useless) garrison unit, but should instead expend APs and armaments to build a fort up one level (max one level increase per turn). Units can organically get to level 2. Admin points and armaments are required to get to level 3 or level 4? Not actually sure if the threshold between "organic fortification" and "needs engineering resources" should be level 2 or level 3, probably needs some playtesting.

timmyab -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 3:27:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey I don't know that we need to add anything totally new like industry points. I'd think a non trivial admin point cost (like 20 points) and a cost in armaments would be reasonable. Yes, I've been thinking along these lines as well.I think 20 points is a bit severe though.Perhaps 5 AP's to build a level 3 and 15 for a level 4?

alfonso -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 5:28:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi Yes, you are true... now think about 40miles deep entrenchments with 100 or more lanes of mines... that is (if you dig in 4hexes deep as russian player for 1000miles =400 Units/hexes) incredible... in a 10miles-deep hex you need alone 20 belts... so we have 4x of the numbers you said - the result of this is: 240 million mines... nice. How should the russians produce em? And - again 1000miles, 40 miles, how long are the trenches? To dig in, you need say for each mile (in the depth!) 1 or 2 miles of trenches... this is: 40x1000x2=40-80.000miles of trenches... well, i tink someone has really to like digging. The barbwire... yeah... i agree totally that the fortification levels (in depth) are silly and not realistic So the best solution is, that you need Industrypoints... without you have only level1, level2 (in the moment the level1 of the game) needs so and so much points each hex, level3 (between 2 and 3) needs 10times the stuff, level 4 (3 in the game) needs 10times the stuff of level 3 and so on. (the multiplicator is just a random guess.... but if you want to build a deep fortification zone, you need a lot ressources, time and transportation stuff. War is a complex business. For a human player to be able to run the millions of men of the entire East Front, the complexity of the real life war has to be accommodated not only to our limited individual capacity, but also (among other things) to the limited memory space of our email server. This means that the game tries to model, rather than replicate exactly each single detail. The tricky part is choosing the set of variables that model the reality in the most cost effective manner. When a unit prepares for a battle, it digs, recognizes the terrain, selects the most appropriate points for machine-guns, pre-targets the artillery, deploys minefields, sets barbed-wire barriers, establishes duplicate telephonic lines, and does a lot of other stuff that is basically abstracted in the game as a single variable : the fort level. We players tend to assign a physical reality to each abstraction included in the model ( the ZOC, the location of a HQ, the rail points, the blizzard penalties, the administrative points…). For each player, though, the translation is made in a different way. For some players a Fort 4 is like a warmed chateau and therefore it is absurd that it does not confer protection during blizzard. For other players a Fort 4 is like a thematic park of the minefield, and even calculates the millions of mines necessary to fort the front, to arrive at the conclusion that the game is silly (nothing that surprises me), at least in this aspect. What matters here is, in my opinion, the effect of that model in the game. Is it reasonable for a unit to duplicate, triplicate, quadruplicate, etc…its defensive potential in n1, n2, n3 weeks? I have zero idea of this, and I have read nothing in this thread that gives light to that point. To define what is reasonable, I would think that the best way would be to chose the n1, n2, n3 numbers that better reproduce (model) the events in the whole war, rather than calculating the metric tons of concrete that would be necessary to build a linear bunker. Big Anorak said that the fine tuning of the building speed was very cumbersome (a yo-yo affair, if I recall correctly). Perhaps precisely that is why the developers left that as an option for the players to play with. I tend to think that perhaps some hard discussions in this forum could have been avoided if the developers had left more optional settings included in the game (e.g: manpower multipliers, blizzard penalties). But, as matter of fact, since as proud players we do not accept to play under any conditions different from the 100% “normal” settings, we want them to give us the “correct” answers, and leave that “parameter adjusting” only for playing the AI. Somewhat lazy from our part (except Altaris and his 35% settings).

Great_Ajax -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 6:50:14 PM)
Here is the entrenchment values and what they represent in game that I proposed to the testing team and has been generally accepted. Personally, I think that level 4 and level 5 entrenchments should only be allowable with an AP investment such as fortified regions/zones. Level 0 - Hasty defenses. Individual foxholes and selection of dominant terrain. Crew served weapons behind limited cover. Some clearing of firing lanes. No engineer obstacles and hasty emplaced mines. Level 1 - Company level strongpoints with full trenchline with communications ditches. Cleared firing lanes. Infantry disrupting engineer obstacles and some emplaced mines. Crew served weapons emplaced in weapons pits with some basic protection. Level 2 - Trenches extended to neighboring companies and battalions. Secondary positions in place behind main line for depth. Crew served weapons in reinforced gun pits. Reinforcing of existing positions. Shelters dug-in to the trenches. Camoflagued. Vehicle pits. Level 3 - Further reinforcing of gun pits and trench lines. Sophisticated anti-infantry obstacles, minefields, and anti-tank ditches. Level 4 - adding significant concrete weapons emplacements and concrete anti-tank ditches and obstacles to existing field fortifications. Level 5 - consistent concrete weapons and troop fortifications. Underground reinforced and inter-connecting tunnels and bunkers. Large caliber weapon systems in completely enclosed reinforced concrete bunkers. Trey

Panama -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 7:51:33 PM)
During the entire Patriotic War I don't remember reading one instance where concrete fortifications were erected by the Soviets. If I recall, if it wasn't built before the war, it wasn't built at all. Also, why do people think of field fortifications as solid lines of resistance? That is folly. Serious field fortifications were placed in the path of German advance and density increased in relation to the proximity of the perceived goal. Why go to the trouble of building deep and concentrated fieldworks in a quiet sector? I do have to agree that players building wall to wall fortifications of high levels in depth is a stretch and the expenditures of resources to accomplish that feat are not properly represented. Then someone mentions one mine every ten feet. Why do fieldworks have to have one mine every ten feet? What field manual is that from? Perhaps the fortifications in the game represent strong points in the hex and not a wall to wall, ten kilometer by ten kilometer system of trenchs, pill boxes, mines, wire, gun pits, tank traps, tank ditches and remotely controlled flame throwers. [8\|]

EntropyAvatar -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 8:10:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso What matters here is, in my opinion, the effect of that model in the game. Is it reasonable for a unit to duplicate, triplicate, quadruplicate, etc…its defensive potential in n1, n2, n3 weeks? I have zero idea of this, and I have read nothing in this thread that gives light to that point. To define what is reasonable, I would think that the best way would be to chose the n1, n2, n3 numbers that better reproduce (model) the events in the whole war, rather than calculating the metric tons of concrete that would be necessary to build a linear bunker. I think this is the right way of looking at it. Keep in mind, however, that having a unit build a level one fort not only doubles it's defensive potential, it's also doubles the potential of up to two other units that can be placed there at a later time.

Altaris -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/9/2011 11:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EntropyAvatar quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso What matters here is, in my opinion, the effect of that model in the game. Is it reasonable for a unit to duplicate, triplicate, quadruplicate, etc…its defensive potential in n1, n2, n3 weeks? I have zero idea of this, and I have read nothing in this thread that gives light to that point. To define what is reasonable, I would think that the best way would be to chose the n1, n2, n3 numbers that better reproduce (model) the events in the whole war, rather than calculating the metric tons of concrete that would be necessary to build a linear bunker. I think this is the right way of looking at it. Keep in mind, however, that having a unit build a level one fort not only doubles it's defensive potential, it's also doubles the potential of up to two other units that can be placed there at a later time. Thank god someone is back to talking about what makes the game realistic and fun! Keep in mind that fort level 3 means a whopping 4 times multiplier for CV. That makes it hard to break into a hex with anything less than a deliberate attack with 3 units. No way to make much progress in a single turn that way, and pretty much pulls the teeth out from the German mobility.

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 10:31:07 AM)
well, it is a simplification But we speak about 40 miles deep defence zones... so one mine all 10 feet to simulate 40miles deep defence zones of level4 are, well silly. And if we take it serious, you need more mines as the russians produced in the whole war. just remember, in the game the russian can fortify the whole frontline with 3-4hex-deep level4-rows... so you basically has 1000x40=40.000squaremiles of dense defence. Sorry, even today, no industry could handle this in less then 10 years. 40 miles deep, just remember. If we speak about a small area of one 10miles-hex, that is possible. But 40 miles of level4? That is the problem - not only for the russians, the same is true for the axis side - later on.

mmarquo -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 1:52:13 PM)
Actually, the greatest fortifications of the war are not modeled in the game: i.e. the rubbling of cities such as Stalingrad; for example, perhaps every attack on an urban hex should cause an instantaneous increase of "fort" level. [;)] Marquo

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 4:49:23 PM)
well, yes... but i still wait for the evidence of 40miles wide cities... can you show me some? Esp. in russia in the forties? You are true in one thing - the improvement of such fortifications in destroyed cities should be in the game. But honestly, the game is not able to create such combats like stalingrad42/43... how long could an encirceld 6.army survive? Without the fuel and the supply it needs in gameterms? So i think as long as such epic battles can´t be done, your question is not really necessary [;)]

Zort -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 6:03:52 PM)
I think one thing we are forgetting is that in the game a fortification is 360 degrees of protection where most of the examples above and in real life fortifications are only the front areas of the unit. So to replicate this in the game, units would have to have a "front facing" and there would need to be flank attacks.

Sabre21 -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 6:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo Actually, the greatest fortifications of the war are not modeled in the game: i.e. the rubbling of cities such as Stalingrad; for example, perhaps every attack on an urban hex should cause an instantaneous increase of "fort" level. [;)] Marquo This was actually a tester suggestion well over a year ago and resulted in the intrinsic fort values that city and urban hexes get which eventually were added to other difficult terrain types like swamp and rough.

squatter -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 8:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe Here is the entrenchment values and what they represent in game that I proposed to the testing team and has been generally accepted. Personally, I think that level 4 and level 5 entrenchments should only be allowable with an AP investment such as fortified regions/zones. Level 0 - Hasty defenses. Individual foxholes and selection of dominant terrain. Crew served weapons behind limited cover. Some clearing of firing lanes. No engineer obstacles and hasty emplaced mines. Level 1 - Company level strongpoints with full trenchline with communications ditches. Cleared firing lanes. Infantry disrupting engineer obstacles and some emplaced mines. Crew served weapons emplaced in weapons pits with some basic protection. Level 2 - Trenches extended to neighboring companies and battalions. Secondary positions in place behind main line for depth. Crew served weapons in reinforced gun pits. Reinforcing of existing positions. Shelters dug-in to the trenches. Camoflagued. Vehicle pits. Level 3 - Further reinforcing of gun pits and trench lines. Sophisticated anti-infantry obstacles, minefields, and anti-tank ditches. Level 4 - adding significant concrete weapons emplacements and concrete anti-tank ditches and obstacles to existing field fortifications. Level 5 - consistent concrete weapons and troop fortifications. Underground reinforced and inter-connecting tunnels and bunkers. Large caliber weapon systems in completely enclosed reinforced concrete bunkers. Trey Great post. Especially when you say level four or five forts should only be completable by fortified zone units. Isnt this the quick fix - that only fort zone units can contribute towards raising a hex to 4 or 5? That would entail an AP cost, a manpower comittment, and a significant investment of time to build this level of fort.

bednarre -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 9:25:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey If you want to talk stacking density, check out the siege of berlin in 1945. > 500k russians attacked the center of berlin held by about 80k Germans. If we assume 10k/division, that's 50 divisions attacking 8, and all inside the center of the city (the dense urban square). For the overall siege (attacking all the in-game urban squares, the soviets had north of 1.5m. I have to think the stacking density is a gameplay necessity rather than an attempt to model history accurately, since real-world troop densities varied hugely on the eastern front. Well, it keeps the Russian stacks in a "can be overrun" status. It unfortunately also kills Russian counter-attack capabilities, which they placed a great emphasis on (and keeps the Russian player interested in summer of 1941). Is it a necessity? Better command and control simulation would help. This means alot of Russian can't move their full movement allowance, alot of units can't attack even if adjacent, poor defense coordination, etc. The key is to couple this with a reduction in German CV relative to Russian CV. It seems like a 4:1 to 6:1 ratio comparing units with comparable numbers and equipment would be more appropriate. I do not think German morale was a problem in 1941-1942, dispite the setbacks. Allowing their morale to so decline to reduce the CV ratio below 4:1 does not seem appropriate either. In regard to frontages, the following link is very interesting. It shows the German battlion defense frontages were about half of their attack frontages (0.25 to 0.625 miles on attack, versus 0.5 to 1.25 miles on defense). Interestingly, a Russian division frontage was listed at 2.5 miles on attack and 31.25 to 75 miles on defense! http://balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/infantry-unit-frontages.htm The "Handbook on German Army Forces" lists the German infantry attack frontage at 2.5 to 3.125 miles, compared in defense of 3.75 to 6.25 miles. Along a 10 mile front, the weakest sector would be chosen for attack. If three Russian divisions were defending in the hex (3.3 miles each), a breakthrough is only required against one division. Diversionary attacks would be made against the other 2 divisions, but why attack all three! The key is one German division could break through one Russian division. Once a single division is forced back, the others will either have to retreat, counterattack, or risk being surrounded. If there is poor coordination in defense, retreat or being surrounded would be most likely. In a poorly coordinated attack, like the Russian Army would make early in the war, the three attacking divisions would attack all three defending positions. This tends to maximize casualties, since more defending troops are engaged. There is also more likely to be a poorly defended sector if the tactical capability of the troops is inferior (seasoned versus inexperienced). The Germans seized many bridges in 1941 intact. In game terms this means the Russian CV should be higher than current, but wastefull (standard all of attacker versus all of defender combat simulated). However, German CV to the increased Russian CV will still result in breakthoughs. Since only a subset of the Russian divisions in the hex would be attacked, there would still be a high combat odds ratio in favor of the attacker. One attacking division would displace the defenders, but only one of the defending divisions would be mauled intially. The other divisions would suffer casualties based on their capability to do a timely retreat (probably getting somewhat mauled but still intact).

timmyab -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 9:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bednarre Interestingly, a Russian division frontage was listed at 2.5 miles on attack and 31.25 to 75 miles on defense! http://balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/infantry-unit-frontages.htm That's a printing error I should think.It says 50-120 km, it should probably be 5-12 km.

Great_Ajax -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 10:02:11 PM)
I think the author may be referring to the original defensive deployments of Soviet units on the border at the launch of Barbarossa which are poor examples to use. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: timmyab quote: ORIGINAL: bednarre Interestingly, a Russian division frontage was listed at 2.5 miles on attack and 31.25 to 75 miles on defense! http://balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/infantry-unit-frontages.htm That's a printing error I should think.It says 50-120 km, it should probably be 5-12 km.

bednarre -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 10:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe I think the author may be referring to the original defensive deployments of Soviet units on the border at the launch of Barbarossa which are poor examples to use. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: timmyab quote: ORIGINAL: bednarre Interestingly, a Russian division frontage was listed at 2.5 miles on attack and 31.25 to 75 miles on defense! http://balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/infantry-unit-frontages.htm That's a printing error I should think.It says 50-120 km, it should probably be 5-12 km. Probably, equating to 3.125 to 7.5 miles. This does indeed give 3 Russian divisions per 10 mile hex, at least defending! Attacking would be more like 4 divisions. These are typically frontages, not the densest every employed. But in extreme cases, it was rumored the Russians lined up the artillery wheel to wheel.

timmyab -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/10/2011 10:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe I think the author may be referring to the original defensive deployments of Soviet units on the border at the launch of Barbarossa which are poor examples to use. Were the Russians really spread that thinly at the start of Barbarossa?That's about 30 divisions for the entire border at a conservative estimate.

Panama -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/11/2011 3:58:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timmyab quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe I think the author may be referring to the original defensive deployments of Soviet units on the border at the launch of Barbarossa which are poor examples to use. Were the Russians really spread that thinly at the start of Barbarossa?That's about 30 divisions for the entire border at a conservative estimate. Two things. Stalin believed Hitler would follow what seemed to be his typical process to war. Make demands and threats. Wait a week or two. Attack. Stalin was depending on those one or two weeks to fully mobilize. I think it was wishful thinking on Stalin's part. Stalin was extremely concerned about massing troops at the border. He feared the Germans would use it as an excuse to attack claiming they were only defending themselves from an impending Soviet attack. An often used phrase on the Soviet side was, "Do not provide a provocation". Stalin was evidently living in la la land at the time and had his head buried in the sand.

mmarquo -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/11/2011 4:51:34 AM)
"So i think as long as such epic battles can´t be done, your question is not really necessary" Adnan, My question was not necessary? Something must be getting lost in the translation...thanks for your reply anyway... Marquo [&:]

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/11/2011 7:26:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo "So i think as long as such epic battles can´t be done, your question is not really necessary" Adnan, My question was not necessary? Something must be getting lost in the translation...thanks for your reply anyway... Marquo [&:] hi, thank you for your replay... i meant (sarcastically), that the game cannot reproduce the kind of "kesselschlacht" of history, so the important(!) defence multiplicator you described is not needed (cause no combat will really have the benefit of these nearly full destroyed cities wit all these rubbed buildings) So, i agree 100% to your opinion - i am just frustrated that the game has so many "failures" that are harcoded (like allways 360 Degree-defence, easy to built 40-50miles deep Fortress-defence, the blizzard-bug (i call it this way), the "all russian troops are fully winterized"-megabug (but nobody is interested in correcting it, cause in the time before blizzard, the axis troops are on steroids.... and so on) From my pov, biggest mistake is the "weekly" turn, day-for-day would be far better, cause in such combat could develop more realistic - so we could finetune many problems. Now we have for example the big problem that reducing the capability to build fortifications are true for the whole war - so no "winter-no-digging" is possible.... i hope i did not offend you - it was NOT my plan to do so. Because you are right about the improved defence (like stalingrad 42/43)

bednarre -> RE: Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)? (3/11/2011 6:23:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jules In game terms there could be a difference between “entrenchment” of a unit which is lost after moving out of the hex and a “real fortification”. The fortification level could only be build by support units if a unit (e.g. fortified unit) stays in the hex and is fully entrenched (e.g level 2). Both Levels could be added for combat resolution: so if unit A moves into hex x,y with 2 forts it has to entrench itself to 2 to have a max of 4. Or if it reaches an entrenchemt of 2 this is lost if moved out and unit B moves in. ... just my thoughts… If the "number" of level 3+ forts in the hex was tabulated, the fortifications could be gradually destroyed. Now an entire level in built up, and then an entire level is destroyed. Interestingly, this could be of great benefit to major urban centers as well, tracking how much of the city has been taken. Level 2 and 1 forts should not be tabulated if they model entrenchments and foxholes. Combining this with your idea, the Level 2- forts would dissapear in the hex when vacated, but the Level 3+ forts would remain (those not destroyed).

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.421875