Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/1/2017 1:22:03 PM   
plund

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/1/2007
Status: offline 		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.
Post #: 1
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/1/2017 3:14:59 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline 		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


(in reply to plund)
Post #: 2
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/1/2017 4:05:41 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 3
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/1/2017 6:11:29 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 4
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/2/2017 10:12:11 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Just build level 9 forts in the 3x terrain and you will be fine.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 5
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/4/2017 12:06:18 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 6
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/4/2017 7:26:10 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi
All that being said I'd still prefer the 3x defensive terrain.

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

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 7
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/4/2017 9:03:46 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi
All that being said I'd still prefer the 3x defensive terrain.

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.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 8
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/4/2017 10:40:41 PM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline 		Terrain over forts anyday.

What happens when you put them together though?

Angry opponents, that's what.

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 9
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/6/2017 2:04:07 PM   
proflui

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 12/12/2014
From: Hong Kong, now in Toronto
Status: offline 		But the best terrain usually is not a base and units do not share support. Given that is terrain still better than fort?

(in reply to plund)
Post #: 10
RE: Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications - 1/6/2017 3:05:29 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to proflui)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Defensive terrain vs. Fortifications Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734