Fortifications Are Very Wrong (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2



Message

ImperatorAugustus -> Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/14/2022 11:19:35 PM)

So I've mentioned before that fortifications should not be destroyed on capture, and should be inter tile interactions instead of tile based, like rivers. This is intended as criticism, suggestion, and discussion.

During Blau the extremely weakened Soviets attempted to create a defensive line SW of Stalingrad, but abandoned them before making much use. Theses fortifications would sit there and be unmanned for months through the Rapuitsa and winter, yet reports from 6th state that German troops in the region were making good use of theses defenses to actively repel the Soviet pocket reduction attacks. Reasserting that fortifications should not be destroyed on capture and that decay is way too fast. Level 3 don't take the additional weather penalty, but its almost irrelevant because normal decay will drop them below 3 within a turn or 2 since it only goes up to 10%.

Arbitrary coastal tiles in the middle of nowhere do not decay.

A player, especially the Germans cannot hope to create the historical or plausible defensive lines. Level 4 fortifications are unable to be made at all, despite the manual straight up saying it could be done in the game timeframe. You are giving up limited German manpower and MP to create any form of this even just off the frontline. The Mius Line was 50km deep in Sept 43. Though a fair part was reused from 1941 (again a failure of the decay system).

There is also inconsistencies in the game design, as to where in cases like StB where Velikie Luki and Leningrad are lvl 5 forts, which is saying they are the equivalent to Sevastopol.

Thus I propose the fortification system be changed in the following ways; Fortifications are inter tile based like rivers, are not destroyed outside of actual combat damage or can be destroyed by PREPARED scorch earth, all construction SUs should either be able to convert to on map or be assigned to any tile for free and prevent decay, construction SUs vacate instead of being destroyed/captured on tile swap, level 4 and 5 fortifications can be built by temporarily upgrading a unit with an element of 'architects' and 'engineering' assets (LOW PRODUCTION ELEMENTS), all level 4/5 forts should allow for 'city fort' style stacking, instead of fortified zones the axis should be allowed to create static units like are in game already (having actual defense cvs) out of any nations manpower so long as they are normally allowed there, fortified region/static/fort units should not cost AP for the non initiative player, but are limited per turn based on year, fortifications in port/city/urban/heavy urban should not decay, Level 3 fortifications take a year to natural decay the 10% down to lvl 2, decay in general is much slower and instead fortifications have a prepared factor that is more akin to now. A brigade sized unit can remake a position to prepared in a full week, it is a modifier to the fort cv modifier. removal of the proximity to enemy fortification rule for the player who is not the initiative player.



ToxicThug11 -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/14/2022 11:34:11 PM)

Interesting suggestions and definitely something to think about



Stamb -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 8:17:38 AM)

It was also strange for me that fortifications are lost during hex capture. I think it should work in this way.
Example, there is lvl 3 fortification with Soviet troops there. Axis are able to capture it in a battle. Because of a battle fortification get -1 lvl always to represent artillery/pioneers activity. Then there is a random chance if there is additional lvl or lvls reduction.

Also it is very strange that fortifications lvl 3 decay so fast, If I remember correctly it is not simple trenches but fortifications with a concrete.
It is especially painful for an Axis side as it take a lot of supplies to build them to lvl 3 in addition to a time.



Gam3r -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 12:22:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

It was also strange for me that fortifications are lost during hex capture.




they are facing to the wrong direction :)



Stamb -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 12:31:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gam3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

It was also strange for me that fortifications are lost during hex capture.




they are facing to the wrong direction :)

[:D]



DesertedFox -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 12:35:08 PM)

Rule 20.4.1

quote:

To better simulate the ability to pre-register fire locations,
the effectiveness of the Defender’s artillery fire is related
to the fort level of the hex containing the firing artillery.
The higher the fort level, the more effective artillery in that
hex will be in combat.


I doubt it is hardly reasonable to think that the enemy can use the pre-registered sighting of your arty for their own.



Stamb -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 12:52:14 PM)

That makes sense, but trenches and concrete fortifications, if not destroyed during a battle, can be used by an infantry



DesertedFox -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 1:10:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

That makes sense, but trenches and concrete fortifications, if not destroyed during a battle, can be used by an infantry


In one sense that would be reasonable but from another unreasonable.

If for example it was decided to leave a maximum lvl 1 fort in an occupied hex (reduced from ay a lvl 2 or 3 fort) to

simulate trenches, arty would still gain some benefit from this.

However, this is not the major issue with this scenario. Trenches that were placed to give a tactical advantage against

enemies approaching from the west are most likely going to be useless with an enemy coming from the east. This would

be the case when placed on a hill slope and definitely when defending behind a river,



Feltan -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 3:23:08 PM)

I think I might be able to agree with the IP if we were talking about city fortifications ... they might be more stable and long lasting. And, well, a fortified building may be of value no matter if you are heading east or west.

However, field fortifications are another matter. As one who has dug his fair share of foxholes and built bunkers, they do NOT last very long without active maintenance. In addition to "facing the wrong way" if captured, in many cases a couple of good rain storms is all it takes to turn a defensive position/trench into a mild depression that you may miss if walking by. There are exceptions, like very rocky or firm soil or heavy root systems that retain structure, but in areas that are prone to "mud" with a high water table I suspect field fortifications decay rather rapidly.

Regards,
Feltan



ImperatorAugustus -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 4:40:49 PM)

Hence why Ive mentioned making forts based on tile boundaries, directions are already decided.

Holes definitely do not just fill themselves in to the point of useless quickly, especially if they have been reinforced in any way. I've dug a lot of holes myself. This might not be the case in Rasputisa though. They do however degrade, but can be brought up to effectiveness quickly. Hence why I mentioned a prepared status.



Karri -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 7:40:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ImperatorAugustus

Hence why Ive mentioned making forts based on tile boundaries, directions are already decided.



But that seems rather wrong, as that's not what the fortifications/earthworks really are. It's not a line of foxholes and trenches, rather it's fortified positions built around key points. What those keypoints are depend entirely on the situation and the units. Though I do think the way they are present currently isn't really making that much sense. You can have a brigade replaced by three rifle corps and supposedly they all employ the same fortifications...



ImperatorAugustus -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/15/2022 7:56:21 PM)

Thats also not what defensive networks are either.

Atypical strong points or true fortresses (like Sevastopol) may have the ability or be designed to withstand assaults from multiple directions in the face of encirclements. The go to tactics of WW2 were simply to just bypass strongpoints and encircle them. It is actually a net negative on a defenders ability to sustain a line if the defenses are not running in parallel. Even the logistic trenches of WW1 were dug so deep that they could not be used for crossing fire.

Broadly though field fortifications are a force multiplier. They achieve this by multiple means.

1) Funneling attackers into killing zones via obstacles and prepared line of sight.
2) Delaying attackers broadly with said obstacles.
3) Providing depth of field with preplanned fall back positions.
4) Prepared and reinforced logistical elements.
5) Creation of cover.
6) Pre registered artillery mapping.
Among other points

All of these work best and provide the least benefit to the attacker when it is presumed only a single broad attack direction. This is part of why actual fortresses require such great planning to build. Its not simple and often requires great reshaping.



Gunner Garidel -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/16/2022 5:08:28 AM)

quote:

...During Blau the extremely weakened Soviets attempted to create a defensive line...reports from 6th state that German troops in the region were making good use of theses defenses to actively repel the Soviet pocket reduction attacks...The Mius Line was 50km deep in Sept 43. Though a fair part was reused from 1941 (again a failure of the decay system)...There is also inconsistencies in the game design...Thus I propose the fortification system be changed in the following ways...


Respectfully, I believe your message title is far too harsh. While I'm sure improvements to the fortification rules can be made, which I won't get into because I've not played long enough to have a solid grasp as to what might be done (and I definitely will not try to discuss fortresses), I feel it is a significant over-reach to make a blanket statement condemning the fortification rules as a whole. Every game ever created has 'design flaws', however considering the magnitude, time period, and area involved, I feel it is impossible and impractical to expect 100% perfection. In addition, it's not as if this was the 'first shot' at creating this game -- after all, it is titled WITE 2, and I fully expect previous comments from WITE were taken into account in the design.

I've underlined a couple of things from your post to try and make a few points:

If the Soviets attempted to create a defensive line SW of Stalingrad, facing in a generally western direction, it will, for the most part, not be worth a penny against any Soviet attack from the E to SE. Yes, trenches can be used, depending on the direction faced, but any solid fortification is only good for sleeping because it's facing in the wrong direction, as has already been pointed out.

You also stated 6th reports it was putting the defenses to good use to repel attacks. What, however, does 'good use' mean? Was 6th able to use 100% of those defenses, 90%, 80%, and so on? If you're a grunt on the ground, any hole you can jump in is put to 'good use', but I would submit 6th used, as a whole, far less than your post would have us believe because the original direction of defense was not conducive to defending the opposite direction.



ImperatorAugustus -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/16/2022 5:34:40 AM)

In this case the Soviets were attacking from the same direction the Germans were months before. Stalingrad was surrounded after all.

As to exactly how effective it was in this case I do not know, I'm only paraphrasing the reports from 6th.

I'm aware it may come off harsh, however I only intend for this to be constructive criticism, as a borderline simulator game should represent the realities of war as best as it can, limitations being in time and money obviously.



Gunner Garidel -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/16/2022 2:09:59 PM)

I appreciate your reply. Thank you! [:)]



Feltan -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/16/2022 3:18:10 PM)

ImperatorAugustus, I also appreciate you bringing this subject up for discussion. However, I think your points are very much "book-learning" interpolated to what you think things must have been like in the USSR during this time period.

While I too wasn't there during this time period, I can definitively state that in real life most field fortifications and entrenchments are a rather haphazard affair to start with & only really improve over time if the threat warrants. All these notions of prepared positions with fallback positions and interlocking artillery fire etc. are textbook solutions that you may have seen in WWI and in a few WWII situations, but are not common. This isn't how life works at all. Most field works begin with a relatively low level sergeant telling a private to dig a hole over here, then another and then another. At some point linking them with trenches makes sense. Then an engineer group looks at what has already been dug and sees if they can add/improve on on it ... if you are lucky. Think of the US Paratroopers at Bastogne -- who were dug in with entrenching shovels and sand bags.

I think the game makes an error in calling certain units "Fortified Zones," implying something that isn't there. I think it would be a better representation to call them hastily entrenched (level 1) or deliberately entrenched (level 2). Levels 3 & 4 seem to imply some increased construction of field bunkers (log and sod), minefields and wire. I don't think concrete fortifications exist outside of the aforementioned city fortress counters.

Regards,
Feltan



ImperatorAugustus -> RE: Fortifications Are Very Wrong (2/16/2022 8:28:28 PM)

My point for standard entrenching was more about the permanence and directional focus.

Both Germany and Soviets attempted to create large interlocking defensive lines well behind the front, something that is not really viable in game without doing weird stuff.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375