Slitherine

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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…