|
Telemecus -> RE: Re: Fortified Regions/Zones w/ Art, vs Inf Div (1/30/2018 5:37:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lastkozak
The question I wonder about, is whether the benefit of having a FZ/R with artillery attached to it, out weighs the benefit of disbanding the FZ/R, when stacked with two other infantry div, and replacing it with a third inf div?
The FZ/R is just a brigade, really and I do not understand why the art would withdraw, when they already have fortified positions and kill zones set up. An old pet peeve, from other board games, that a stacking restriction is based upon units, thus in this game 3 depleted regiments or brigades is the same as 3 full soviet corps when it comes to stacking! (of course this is another issue entirely!)
Not even a brigade at 2,000 men. Axis only get 10,00 replacements a turn (or thereabouts) so you are redirecting them from being higher experienced replacements in infantry divisions to lower experienced fort zone men. And later on in the game you may want to disband them anyway for that very reason. However in the blizzard period when it is difficult to get men out of the pools and into ground units at the front this might not be a bad thing.
The general policy I have followed is forts are great additions for combat - but you do not want to lose them. If they lose a battle their directly assigned SUs can retreat, but you have lost the 2000 men or so in the fort as a surrender. So for a line you intend to hold a great addition - but not for a place you do not expect to hold.
Given limited resources a fort can be an efficient way to add some extra SUs and some troops to 2 combat units stacked in a hex and bump up disruption of the enemy. But usually that is still less powerful then a stack of 3 good combat units.
Forts come into their own when you leave them in the rear for many turns to dig deep - and for some fortification levels you can only get to them with a fort built there.
|
|
|
|
