An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/2/2009 8:52:16 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Gibralter. Sevastopol. Corregidor. The Maginot Line. Etc.

How do you go about representing these powerful fortresses? I have an idea. The idea came to me when reading about Bob Cross's "beached Yamato" for his Olympic 1945 scenario in the "How to Edit Equipment Using the BioEd" manual.

Anyway, there are many artillery equipments that I will never use (I'll never play any scenario earlier than 1930 or so, and never play a scenario later than 1950 or so). Therefore, I'm planning to use the BioEd to rename many of those 1800s artillery equipments to things like: MG Nest, AT Pillbox, Small Fort, Medium Fort, Large Fort, Ouvrage, etc. Then I plan to give these equipments DFs and AP ratings and AT ratings equivalent to what the equipment is intended to represent.

For example, an MG Nest might be something like: AT = 1, AP = 50 (27 for the HMG plus 23 for the infantry squad manning the nest), DF = 50 (an infantry squad plus an HMG team heavily protected).

So, this allows players to build "Fortified Zone units".

Here is an example of a sample (the combinations and permutations are limitless) company-size Fortified Zone unit: 5x MG Nest + 2x AT Pillbox + 1x Small Fort

The concept is that TOAW III does a poor job of modeling "permanent" fortifications. The current way the game works is that F means fortified and is basically as heavily defended as TOAW will allow. But clearly a fortress like Gibralter or Sevastopol goes way way way beyond the simple F level of fortifications. I see the F fortification as something basically any unit can do by itself in a few turns. But the Corregidor level of fortress takes months/years and lots of money and effort to construct. And a fortress like that should take an enormous effort to capture (if it is even possible to capture). Right now TOAW III lacks anything like the ability to model the Maginot Line. Hence my idea.

Even the heavy field fortifications at Kursk (which took months and lots of effort and money) are substantially heavier than anything TOAW III currently can model. But using my Fortified Zone unit approach, it should be possible to more accurately portray such fortifications.

And something like Gibralter? Well, I'm not sure about AT and AP ratings, but the DF for a place like Gibralter might be something on the order of 50-100 Yamato-class battleships (on the order of DF = 50,000 to 100,000). I'm not sure if TOAW III even accepts a DF greater than 9999, so Gibralter might have to be composed of 5-10 "Gibralter Fortresses".

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/3/2009 1:34:55 PM

Erik2

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

Interesting.
In addition to the possibility to create special force equipment I like the idea that a concquered fort does not mean the equipment may be used by the new occupant (unless the occupation triggers the deployment of a new friendly fort unit).

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 2

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/3/2009 2:58:23 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

Interesting.
In addition to the possibility to create special force equipment I like the idea that a concquered fort does not mean the equipment may be used by the new occupant (unless the occupation triggers the deployment of a new friendly fort unit).

I'm starting to actually get into the BioEd and mess around with some of the fortifications. I have several dozen equipment slots (using 1800s and 1980s/90s artillery and SP artillery equipment slots) to work with. I've been reading about the German flak towers. Wow. The Soviets hit them with everything they had when they attacked Berlin and they still couldn't knock them out (indeed, they didn't do much damage to them at all), and Allied aircraft avoided them if at all possible (due to their enormous AA firepower). This raises the possibility of giving some sort of armor rating to 3.5 meter steel reinforced concrete (which is what the flak towers were made out of). However, I don't know how (or even if) the game handles armor ratings for such things (for instance, the Yamato has no armor rating, only a big DF rating).

But if the game can handle armor ratings for fortifications, then things like Light MG Nest (armor=2), MG Nest (armor=3), Heavy MG Nest (armor=4), become possible (and what about those huge flak towers? armor=20? more?). Does anybody know if this will work?

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik2)

Post #: 3

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/3/2009 8:51:36 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

I'll point out that no 'fortress' in World War Two actually resisted attack.

Eben Emael fell, Brest-Litovsk fell, Sevastopol fell, Tarawa fell, Breslau fell, Berlin fell.

Etc. If you manage to make some unassailable beast, you'll be creating something that no longer existed by 1939-45.

The 'x8 if you're fortified' may lack something -- but I'm not sure it's all that inaccurate. At any rate, you may create something that in overall effect is less accurate than 'x8 if you're fortified.'

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/3/2009 8:52:24 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 4

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/3/2009 9:47:13 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'll point out that no 'fortress' in World War Two actually resisted attack.

Eben Emael fell, Brest-Litovsk fell, Sevastopol fell, Tarawa fell, Breslau fell, Berlin fell.

Etc. If you manage to make some unassailable beast, you'll be creating something that no longer existed by 1939-45.

The 'x8 if you're fortified' may lack something -- but I'm not sure it's all that inaccurate. At any rate, you may create something that in overall effect is less accurate than 'x8 if you're fortified.'

The Maginot Line surrendered but was not defeated. Same for Corregidor. What level of effort would it have taken the Germans to capture Gibralter? But those are some BIG Fortresses. But all of this squabbling is missing the point of this thread.

This thread is addressing fortifications in general. There is a entire heirarchy of defensive works that TOAW III does not address (or, if it attempts to address it, falls short). Namely, the F (x8) designation is something that any unit in the game can achieve on its own. However, to even build a reinforced (i.e., reinforced concrete) MG nest is totally beyond the resources (in terms of equipment needed as well as physical materials and cost) of most (all?) units shown in TOAW III. And that is at the lowest level of the defensive heirarchy I'm talking about.

You can come up with your own heirarchy, but mine goes something like this:
Level-1 Reinforced pillboxes, MG nests, artillery bunkers, etc. (i.e., the lowest level of defenses not capable of being built by the F classification (because units don't have the resources to do so)). [And I'm not talking about log structures/dugouts at this level (which are in fact handled by the current F level). No. I'm talking about Atlantic Wall, or Kursk, or Gustav Line types of reinforced concrete/steel structures in addition to a concentration of mines/dragon's teeth, etc. not available to units at the mere F level.]
Level-2 Small forts (containing more than 1 type of weapon system capable of coordinated action)
Level-3 Medium forts (stronger and larger than small forts)
Level-4 Large forts (stronger and larger than medium forts)
Level-5 Ouvrages (massive structures, like the German flak towers, containing hundreds/thousands of men and multiple integrated weapons systems, much like Bob Cross's "beached Yamato", and very hard to kill)

Now, a Fortified Zone would be an actual TOAW unit (like a panzer regiment, or a rifle company), but instead of squads and tanks it would be composed of MG Nests, small forts, etc., depending on the size of fortified zone you are dealing with (i.e., the difference between a company-sized strongpoint on a hilltop and a section of the Maginot Line). A fortress like Sevastopol would consist of a variety of such Fortified Zone units within the hex/hexes it occupies. Further, these fortifications don't take up much (if any) stacking since they literally become part of the terrain of the hex they are in (like the tunnels in Gibralter, or the caves/tunnels on Iwo Jima). Thus, they are very strong but don't cause the hex they occupy to 'Go Red' in terms of stacking (which would defeat the whole purpose of these defenses in the first place).

But, and this is the whole point of this thread, as TOAW exists today none of this heirarchy exists. And it should. Now, I realize that TOAW III did not have a superfluity of unit slots to make this happen, but since I only care about the WW2 era, then I can edit/modify dozens of equipment slots to make it happen.

And here is my basic question, once again: can such defenses be given armor ratings and will that work in the game? That is the question I really want to get an answer to.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 5

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/3/2009 9:55:34 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

And here is my basic question, once again: can such defenses be given armor ratings and will that work in the game? That is the question I really want to get an answer to.

Actually, before TOAW changed the rules for coastal guns, I went to a lot of trouble to make coastal batteries that could fire multiple times, and part of the trouble involved creating 'defense units' that could protect the guns.

This didn't involve armor, since I wasn't especially interested in creating very formidable defenders -- just something that wouldn't evaporate immediately if poked.

However, this does give me some insight into your problem. You may need to create less in the way of specialized equipment than you imagine. If you just use the 'fixed artillery' icon for the unit, it can't move no matter what you put in it. So you can put in Shermans or T-34's or whatever you feel best represents the defensive capabilities of the fortress in question. No modification of the weapon would be required at all.

But again -- no fortress in World War Two actually withstood attack. Equally to the point, prepared defenses often don't seem to have helped much: for example, the French had concrete bunkers at Sedan. I'd be leery of making whatever you make too strong.

As to exactly how whatever you make will work, you'll need to make a test scenario. There's no way around that.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/3/2009 10:00:54 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 6

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/4/2009 3:49:26 AM

Legun

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline

The idea is already inplemented in my scenario "Forgotten Battles - Cracow 1914" (on the disc) as well as in the next upcoming scenrio of the set "Suwalki 1914". I was intensively testing such possibilites, with some other ideas of fixed equipment - "barbed wire" f.e. Results of the test were surprising - fixed units (both - fixed equipement in standard units and standard equipment in fixed artillery units) aren't so unvulnerable as it could look like. They tend to evaporate without any losses when are exausted (readiness 33 and supply 1) and assaulted by aggressive forces supported by heavy artillery. That means that the best way to attack such unit is:
1) to make some spoiling "minimal losses" attacks until you have seen red health indicator
2) then make one massive "ignore losses" attack
I could send the test scenario or "Suwalki 1914" if you want to see the results.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 7

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/4/2009 5:02:56 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Legun,

Here is my question:
If I take the 2.5" RML (for example) and give it an Armor Rating of 2, will the game be able to handle that?

_____________________________

(in reply to Legun)

Post #: 8

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/4/2009 1:35:15 PM

Legun

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Legun,

Here is my question:
If I take the 2.5" RML (for example) and give it an Armor Rating of 2, will the game be able to handle that?

I think, it will. I've tested many combinations of equipement parameters - f.e. fixed air transport equipment

and I've found it working.

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 9

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/4/2009 2:10:38 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

But again -- no fortress in World War Two actually withstood attack. Equally to the point, prepared defenses often don't seem to have helped much: for example, the French had concrete bunkers at Sedan. I'd be leery of making whatever you make too strong.

As to exactly how whatever you make will work, you'll need to make a test scenario. There's no way around that.

Just to use Sevastopol as an example. The heavy bombardment began on 21 May 1942 and the fortress finally fell on 4 July 1942 (the fortress had been surrounded since November, 1941). So, Sevastopol (which is probably a single hex at most game scales) withstood 6-7 weeks of extremely heavy bombardment (in addition to being surrounded) before finally being overcome. And even after the fortress proper was breached, defenders in caves fought on for some time afterwards, meaning that the fortress was not entirely secured by the Germans until some time after 4 July 1942.

So, even though you are correct in saying that prepared defenses are never invulnerable to attack, nevertheless the current F level of defenses are too weak to model fortresses like Sevastopol. Hence my efforts to address this issue.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 10

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/4/2009 8:00:21 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

But again -- no fortress in World War Two actually withstood attack. Equally to the point, prepared defenses often don't seem to have helped much: for example, the French had concrete bunkers at Sedan. I'd be leery of making whatever you make too strong.

As to exactly how whatever you make will work, you'll need to make a test scenario. There's no way around that.

Just to use Sevastopol as an example. The heavy bombardment began on 21 May 1942 and the fortress finally fell on 4 July 1942 (the fortress had been surrounded since November, 1941). So, Sevastopol (which is probably a single hex at most game scales) withstood 6-7 weeks of extremely heavy bombardment (in addition to being surrounded) before finally being overcome. And even after the fortress proper was breached, defenders in caves fought on for some time afterwards, meaning that the fortress was not entirely secured by the Germans until some time after 4 July 1942.

So, even though you are correct in saying that prepared defenses are never invulnerable to attack, nevertheless the current F level of defenses are too weak to model fortresses like Sevastopol. Hence my efforts to address this issue.

I'll grant that something more would be desirable. I'd just caution against making some impregnable monster. Note that the Russians were able to offer a similarly stubborn defense of Stalingrad -- which was not a prepared fortress but simply an urban ruin.

I also went and scanned the Wikipedia article on Sevastopol. For the final assault, the Germans seem to have mustered 200-250,000 German and Rumanian troops, if one allows for corps artillery and that sort of thing. The Russians had in excess of 100,000 defenders.

The odds weren't all that great -- and Russians always were good at defending a prepared position. Did the 'fortress' really make much difference to the outcome? It's not inconceivable that the Russians would have held out for six weeks even if Sevastopol had been an unfortified port.

Fortifications just weren't all that valuable in World War Two. They were there, and they had some effect, but it wasn't like in the Middle Ages or something, where 500 defenders could hold off an attacking horde of 30,000.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/4/2009 8:10:53 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 11

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/5/2009 2:11:03 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Colin,

All I can say is that your reading and interpretation of WW2 history is very different from mine.

Fortifications had an enormous impact on WW2 operations. Just to use an example from that thread where you are arguing with Curtis regarding the German invasion of the USSR, the Soviet defense of Brest Litovsk was far stouter and lasted far longer than the Germans anticipated. The fortifications there made a big difference. Far beyond what the F allows for in TOAW III currently.

You can poo poo heavy fortifications all you want to, but we should all be thankful that Gibralter was as heavily fortified as it was.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to design a "Siege of Sevastopol" scenario using the current rules as they exist today (with no modifications), then I'll be happy demonstrate the inability of the Soviets to hold out as long as they did historically. And it won't even be close.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 12

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/5/2009 3:13:00 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

All I can say is that your reading and interpretation of WW2 history is very different from mine.

Fortifications had an enormous impact on WW2 operations. Just to use an example from that thread where you are arguing with Curtis regarding the German invasion of the USSR, the Soviet defense of Brest Litovsk was far stouter and lasted far longer than the Germans anticipated. The fortifications there made a big difference. Far beyond what the F allows for in TOAW III currently.

You can poo poo heavy fortifications all you want to, but we should all be thankful that Gibralter was as heavily fortified as it was.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to design a "Siege of Sevastopol" scenario using the current rules as they exist today (with no modifications), then I'll be happy demonstrate the inability of the Soviets to hold out as long as they did historically. And it won't even be close.

I could make it impossible anyway. 'What -- why can't Worker's Militia battalions have 90% proficiency?'

Anyway, I don't think you've read what I've actually written. I haven't denied that some special equipment would be appropriate -- merely that I wouldn't get carried away and make some impregnable monster.

I'll repeat, no fort in World War Two actually withstood serious assault. Eben Emael, Brest-Litovsk, Corrigidor, Sevastopol -- they all fell. It's reasonable to suppose that Gibraltar would have fallen as well, if it had been assaulted. Why shouldn't it have fallen? What did it have that the others lacked?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 13

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/5/2009 5:23:32 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

I don't think a single flak tower was successfully assaulted by the Soviets. I think that they all remained in German hands until they surrendered at the end of the war.

But you are being obtuse. I think you just enjoy arguing for argument's sake. It is obvious that the F level of defense simply isn't strong enough to represent heavy fortifications. And I defy you to use the rules as written and have Sevestopol hold out for as long as it did historically. Prove it.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 14

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/5/2009 6:33:59 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I don't think a single flak tower was successfully assaulted by the Soviets. I think that they all remained in German hands until they surrendered at the end of the war.

Somehow, I think if the war had lasted another month, those flak towers would have surrendered.

quote:

But you are being obtuse. I think you just enjoy arguing for argument's sake. It is obvious that the F level of defense simply isn't strong enough to represent heavy fortifications.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. 'Anyway, I don't think you've read what I've actually written. I haven't denied that some special equipment would be appropriate -- merely that I wouldn't get carried away and make some impregnable monster.'

You say I'm being obtuse, and then you restate a thesis that I have (several times) pointed out that I am not disputing.

quote:

And I defy you to use the rules as written and have Sevestopol hold out for as long as it did historically. Prove it.

Well...as long as you pay me for my time. $20.00 an hour? Anyway, Daniel McBride did a scenario that covered the Crimea campaign. Inasmuch as he tends to a design concept that emphasizes achieving the historical result, I imagine his Sevastopol tends to 'hold out as long as it did historically, using the rules as written.'

So you may be able to save your money.

Look. My point is not that TOAW as it stands necessarily models Sevastopol or whatever just fine. My point is that if you create something that can't be taken at all, you haven't improved matters. X8 fortification may be too little, but pillboxes that enable 55th Infantry to stop Guderian at Sedan would be too much.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 3/5/2009 7:29:24 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 15

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/5/2009 8:42:06 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Look. My point is not that TOAW as it stands necessarily models Sevastopol or whatever just fine. My point is that if you create something that can't be taken at all, you haven't improved matters. X8 fortification may be too little, but pillboxes that enable 55th Infantry to stop Guderian at Sedan would be too much.

Fair enough. In point of fact, I agree with the above. Further, I also agree that some testing and calibrating is necessary.

That was supposed to be the direction I wanted to take this thread in the first place. Things like: can armor ratings be applied to artillery equipment and TOAW III handle that? Can artillery equipment be modified to have a high DF rating and have TOAW III handle that? Etc. It would help to have the answers to questions like that before testing+calibrating begins.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 16

RE: An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III - 3/5/2009 10:15:44 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Look. My point is not that TOAW as it stands necessarily models Sevastopol or whatever just fine. My point is that if you create something that can't be taken at all, you haven't improved matters. X8 fortification may be too little, but pillboxes that enable 55th Infantry to stop Guderian at Sedan would be too much.

Fair enough. In point of fact, I agree with the above. Further, I also agree that some testing and calibrating is necessary.

That was supposed to be the direction I wanted to take this thread in the first place. Things like: can armor ratings be applied to artillery equipment and TOAW III handle that? Can artillery equipment be modified to have a high DF rating and have TOAW III handle that? Etc. It would help to have the answers to questions like that before testing+calibrating begins.

Pretty much the answer to all your questions should be yes.

I've created all kinds of weird combinations in my time. They've all done something. There can be unanticipated effects, though -- so you'll definitely want to test anything you make.

And I'll repeat: if you use the 'fixed artillery' icon for your fortress, the unit can't go anywhere. That means you should be able to find what you need in the existing equipment. Want a pillbox with a machine gun? Stick a Matilda Mark I in the unit. Etc.

Later, you could make things more elegant by renaming and/or copying the equipment -- but for testing purposes, it might accelerate matters to just hunt through the existing equipment for the combinations you need. Alternatively, download one of the scenarios Jarek has mentioned and look at what he did. Then hot-seat it and see what the effects are.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 17

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> An Idea Regarding Representing Fortresses in TOAW III

Page: [1]