Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications

Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

plund -> Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/1/2017 1:22:03 PM)
Assuming that there are two identical units (no individual unit fortification level). One is located in non-base 3x defensive terrain (i.e. Wood Rough) while the other is located in a base hex on Clear terrain with Fortifications. Which unit will have the best defensive advantage during combat? At what level of fortification will the base hex be somewhat equivalent to the unit in the non-base 3x defensive terrain? Thanks in advance for any help rendered.

GetAssista -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/1/2017 3:14:59 PM)
x3 terrain for sure is better. ~ level 8-9 of forts is needed for x3 AV defensive bonus in clear terrain AFAIR (can't find exact bonus table ATM but it does exist and was mentioned on the forum earlier) Main benefit of non-base hex is that individual forts cannot be destroyed when already built by LCUs sitting there. Main benefit of base is that fort level is shared, hence they can be built by specialized engineers, above level 6, and quicker than on non-base hexes. Also supplies can be stored in base, while not in the non-base hex

obvert -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/1/2017 4:05:41 PM)
Here is the difference: Fort 1: 1,10 x AV Fort 2: 1,25 x AV Fort 3: 1,50 x AV Fort 4: 1,75 x AV Fort 5: 2,00 x AV Fort 6: 2,25 x AV Fort 7: 2,50 x AV Fort 8: 2,75 x AV Fort 9: 3,00 x AV So x3 terrain is very good defensive territory, well worth trying to maintain positions there. Additional forts built in the field can make these hexes incredibly tough to crack.

crsutton -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/1/2017 6:11:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert Here is the difference: Fort 1: 1,10 x AV Fort 2: 1,25 x AV Fort 3: 1,50 x AV Fort 4: 1,75 x AV Fort 5: 2,00 x AV Fort 6: 2,25 x AV Fort 7: 2,50 x AV Fort 8: 2,75 x AV Fort 9: 3,00 x AV So x3 terrain is very good defensive territory, well worth trying to maintain positions there. Additional forts built in the field can make these hexes incredibly tough to crack. In the end the 3X terrain because built up forts can be degraded by assault engineers whereas terrain cannot. There are other factors as well. DL is harder to maintain in terrain thus bombing attack by air can have reduced or no effect. I do not think that built up fortification in the open have any effect on spotting. Basically for Japan is is very difficult to hold any position in open terrain later in the game-even a city.

HansBolter -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/2/2017 10:12:11 AM)
Just build level 9 forts in the 3x terrain and you will be fine.[:)]

rustysi -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/4/2017 12:06:18 AM)
Also keep in mind that in a base hex it is 2X plus the fort level to capture the base. So a level three fort in a base hex requires a combat result of 5-1 to capture. Not so easily done if the base has significant ground numbers in it. This could mean several attacks before the base is captured, with the resultant numbers of destroyed/disabled devices for the attacker. All that being said I'd still prefer the 3x defensive terrain.[:D]

GetAssista -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/4/2017 7:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi All that being said I'd still prefer the 3x defensive terrain.[:D] There is no "still" here. Triggers for defending units to retreat from bases and non-bases are the same - attack should reach 2+forts odds. But base forts can be reduced and non-base cannot, hence base hex is easier to capture WRT this

rustysi -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/4/2017 9:03:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi All that being said I'd still prefer the 3x defensive terrain.[:D] There is no "still" here. Triggers for defending units to retreat from bases and non-bases are the same - attack should reach 2+forts odds. But base forts can be reduced and non-base cannot, hence base hex is easier to capture WRT this And as I said I'll still take the 3x defensive terrain because to get to that multiplier in a base I'd have to build to a level 9 fort. Ever do that? I haven't. Its much more difficult in my experience to get an opponent out of difficult terrain than a base. Now a base with difficult terrain is a defend to the last man position.[;)]

SheperdN7 -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/4/2017 10:40:41 PM)
Terrain over forts anyday. What happens when you put them together though? Angry opponents, that's what.

proflui -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/6/2017 2:04:07 PM)
But the best terrain usually is not a base and units do not share support. Given that is terrain still better than fort?

HansBolter -> RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications (1/6/2017 3:05:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: proflui But the best terrain usually is not a base and units do not share support. Given that is terrain still better than fort? As can be gleaned from the table provided by Obvert level 9 forts in clear terrain become the equivalent of level 0 forts in 3X terrain.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8115234