Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Fortifications too much too fast

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Fortifications too much too fast Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/7/2011 7:47:02 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline
Yep I agree. Alot is my fault as I crushed the Soviets in my 42 tests. They (Pavel and Trey) then stacked the deck agianst me. I really think if the Germans did the OKH plan in 42 they may have broke the bears back...And yes I feel theres a balance problem in 42... Anyone bust the front open and drive south in Case Blue? I cant.

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Altaris)
Post #: 31
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 2:27:28 AM   
Scarz


Posts: 311
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Dallas Texas
Status: offline
Thanks heliodorus04, one of my favorite movie characters (Bridge Too Far).

I agree Altaris. The Germans are too powerful in 41, and 42. The Russians are too powerful when considering blizzard effects and current entrenchments. If the Russians got a boost in 41, to make it a little tougher on the Germans, the blizzard effects were reduced, and the Russians were made a lot better in 42, the game would follow a bit more historically.

(in reply to Altaris)
Post #: 32
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 4:45:47 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
In the game FITE the same issue was present but was mitigated by the using of resource points to build forts. As a Soviet player you could build some very potent forts but not have them everywhere. That led to a much more fluid game.

I think in this game field fortifications level 1-2 should be free and abundant but levels 3-5 should require the expenditure of some type of commodity. Since our only "money" we can spend in the game is APs that would suffice.

The level 1-2 forts would go away when their creator moved but level 3+ that required APS would stay for others to occupy.

This change would greatly impact the amount of planning that would be needed and add a different dimension and complexity to the game. No more just leaving a carpet of single units down that build up to level 4 forts to later be occupied by 3 units ect...

(in reply to Scarz)
Post #: 33
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 4:55:51 PM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline
Because historically the Russians did not construct fortifications in 1942 in the amount we may see in the game does not necessarily mean they did not have the capability to do it. If Comrade Stalin orders you to conduct the Kharkov offensive in the spring, he does not want to see you digging in to the rear.

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 34
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 5:22:35 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline
Level 1 and level 2 aren't that bad. Level 3 requires work, and level 4 and 5 make me ask myself, "why am I doing this?" I kinda like the suggestion Andy has above of level 5 only in urban areas. Heck maybe level 4 or 5 near cities then, the urban areas and adjacent hexes. Anything to stop the Trench warfare feel the game has, which is was around Leningrad for a long time, but not in southern Russia. I also understand this is a two edged sword, so when the 'Russian Steamroller' comes a'knockin' they will have an easier time too.

(in reply to Altaris)
Post #: 35
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 5:33:36 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Yep I agree. Alot is my fault as I crushed the Soviets in my 42 tests. They (Pavel and Trey) then stacked the deck agianst me. I really think if the Germans did the OKH plan in 42 they may have broke the bears back...And yes I feel theres a balance problem in 42... Anyone bust the front open and drive south in Case Blue? I cant.


No, 1st and 4th Panzer Armies get set up to the Moscow area to prevent the destruction of Army Group Center. I usually pull up at Riga and the Don River, moving further would mean I am trading trying to take Stalingrad (with my flanks still being vulnerable) for 1/3rd of my army north of Voronezh being destroyed.

It's really hard to simulate how far the Germans got as we use our troops much more efficiently than they did in 1941-1945. This is pretty normal though, for you grognards who played Fire in the East (GDW Games, the boardgame) we ran into similar issues I am seeing here. I am truly amazed at how far the Germans advanced in 1941-42 historically.

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 36
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 5:50:36 PM   
Scook_99

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scar23

I hate to jump into this discussion as it looks like its mostly for those playing the axis. I am the opponent IdahoNYer is playing in the campaign game with all the forts.

I agree that some of the fortifications seem to be a bit much. It might help if the game gave an explanation as to what the levels approximated, ie is level one simple fighting positions that can be dug in a night of hard digging, and is level 2 the same fighting positions with good overhead cover and some wire and mines and nicely drawn fire plans etc? I would think that in six months some pretty hefty positions could be dug, especially with lots of engineers.

Here is an example of what the Leningrad defenses were composed of that I pulled off the net.

"On June 27, 1941 the Council of deputies of the working people of Leningrad decided to mobilize thousands of people for the construction of fortifications. Several defences were built. One of the fortifications ran from the mouth of the Luga River to Chudovo, Gatchina, Uritsk, Pulkovo and then through the Neva River. The other defence passed through Petergof to Gatchina, Pulkovo, Kolpino and Koltushy. Another defense against the Finns was built in the northern suburbs of Leningrad. In all, 190 km of timber blockages, 635 km of wire entanglements, 700 km of anti-tank ditches, 5,000 earth-and-timber emplacements and ferro-concrete weapon emplacements and 25,000 km of open trenches were built by civilians. Even the gun of the cruiser Aurora was mounted on the Pulkovskiye Heights to the south of Leningrad. However, when Soviet troops of the North-Western Front in the end of June were defeated in the Baltic Soviet Republics, the Wehrmacht had forced its way to Ostrov and Pskov. On July 10 both cities were captured and the Germans reached Kunda and Kingisepp whereupon they advanced to Leningrad from Narva, the Luzhski region, and from the south-east and also to the north and south of the Lake Ilmen in order to isolate Leningrad from the east and to join the Finns at the eastern bank of Lake Ladoga."

All that was done in what two months? What would it look like in six months of uninterrupted digging?

However, the Russian troops are so brittle, too brittle in my opinion in 41 and 42, that without these entrenchments, its just too easy for the axis. Unless the supply can be restructured in 42 to prevent the Germans from having the ability to attack virtually everywhere and with HQ build up, and if the Russians are not beefed up a bit the Germans are too powerful in 42.

So I am not sure we are really arguing, or debating, what the fortifications should look like, or how quickly they should be built. What the debate is really about, is how tough the Russians should be in 42, and how can the game be structured to allow for historical gains by the Germans in 42. Of course this should be relative. Some games, where the Russians did extremely well in 41, and saved much of their army and factories, the Russians should be tougher come 42. In games where the Germans made big gains, Russian losses were exceedingly high, like in my game, the Germans should have an easier time of it in 42.

In the end, in my humble opinion, while we want the game to follow the historical possibilities, we shouldn't force it to follow the same path as in the history books. Could the Germans have been stopped in 42 short of Stalingrad? Maybe, but probably not. Likewise, could the Germans have launched attacks both in the south towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus and made an attack against Moscow? Maybe, but the supply situation would probably have prevented such an ambitious undertaking.

As far as the fun of the game, I think everyone would like to see a fluid 42. If that's the case, make the entrenchments lower, and harder to get, but bump the Russians strength, so its not a walk in the park for the Germans, and so that they will have to choose a focus rather than attack everywhere as in June 41.

Scar




I agree and slightly disagree with you. Putting into game terms: 1) Fortifications around Leningrad were indeed impressive, but not out in the middle of non-urban areas. I have been reading more accounts, and often, in 1941, Russian barricades consisted of their comrades they stacked up to hide behind (there's a visual for ya). In constrast, by the Russian Offensive in November, 1942, both sides (especially the Soviets) would blend into the terrain to be virtually impossible to find.

2) The Brittleness of the Russian Army. Varies area to area and at what point in time. The 1st 4 turns of the game, I don't mind seeing Russian formations having a chance to surrender, north of the Pripet Marshes. In the south, you would have to dislodge them from the get-go. The difference, unit morale and experience. It may seem a bit gamey, but there could be certain thresholds for units in terms of experience and morale where units are not so brittle. You could have the early success the Germans did achieve, followed by the stiffening resistance they did face.

This is such a tricky balancing act, and I am glad someone is trying to make it happen. Thank you.

(in reply to Scarz)
Post #: 37
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 7:47:44 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4455
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Someone made a suggestion, not sure where its posted, that level 4 & 5 forts should cost admin points to build up, I like the idea...Concreate is not cheap...One for level 4, two for level 5...


I think that might have been me. If you think Maginot Line / Atlantic Wall / Stalin Line, these were all big projects with top-level backing and required the diversion of huge resources from the economy. They weren't built by the troops on the front line or even by their combat engineering units.

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 38
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 9:02:30 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4


quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Someone made a suggestion, not sure where its posted, that level 4 & 5 forts should cost admin points to build up, I like the idea...Concreate is not cheap...One for level 4, two for level 5...


I think that might have been me. If you think Maginot Line / Atlantic Wall / Stalin Line, these were all big projects with top-level backing and required the diversion of huge resources from the economy. They weren't built by the troops on the front line or even by their combat engineering units.


The thing is level 4 and 5 forts aren't supposed to be those Maginot type fortifications. There was talk of making a level 6 fort just for Sevastopol that starts the game with that level of fortification, but it never happened. Regardless though, an ap cost does sound like a good idea for at least level 5.

_____________________________


(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 39
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/8/2011 9:59:58 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Food for thought from game manual for V for Victory (WitE of the 1990's - wow it's so many years from now):

quote:

Field Fortifications
There are two types of field fortifications that units may construct during the game. Both of them benefit defending units only; there is no advantage to attacking out of a hex that contains a field fortification. A unit that is "dug in" has foxholes, weapons pits, pre–registered targets, pre–planned fields of fire, and a generally planned, prepared and organized defense. A "fortification" represents all these things plus minefields, some barbed wire, the beginnings of a trench system, and a few simple log and earth bunkers.
Each field fortification appears on the map as the uppermost "unit" in its hex. (These are really just markers, not units.) The "size" of a field fortification is indicated by the number at the bottom of the marker, and that size is the number of companies that may gain full benefit from being in the same hex with it. Each battalion equals 3 companies for this purpose, so a size 9 field fortification can "contain" 9 companies (or 3 battalions), which is the stacking limit for most of the hexes on the map.
Field fortifications may be enlarged by having the same or other units build another one in the same hex. If more than one unit is constructing a field fortification in a hex at the same time, only one "building" marker is shown. Larger field fortifications have no additional effect except that more units may benefit from them.
Field fortifications may never move, and benefit only friendly units in the same hex with them. Once the field fortification is completed, the unit that built it is free to conduct other activities and/or move away, and other friendly units are free to move in and benefit from it. However, a field fortification is automatically removed from the map at the end of any turn that there are no friendly units in the same hex with it.
Most defensive positions are actually directional in nature; i.e., they face a particular direction and provide maximum benefit to the defender only if he is attacked from that direction. Each field fortification therefore represents a planned and prepared defensive line which, in reality, would have a significant effect only if attacked from the "front." Although they are realistic, directional combat effects are typically found only in tactical– level games, and would be a considerable added complication in an operational–level games such as the V for Victory™ series. We considered expanding the game system to include directionality and decided that, at this scale, it is not worth the trouble; very nearly the same result can be achieved in a much simpler way. V for Victory™ games assume that, when initially built, a field fortification faces the enemy, or at least the direction the enemy is most likely to approach from. As long as the position is continuously occupied, that directionality is preserved, and the probability that the field fortification will be beneficial remains high. However, if a position is ever captured or abandoned, its original directionality is presumed to be lost, and whatever remains of the field fortification is assumed to be facing the wrong way, or located in the wrong place within the hex, to be of much use to later occupants of the hex. This argument applies especially to captured positions.

Digging In
All units may dig in except those that are adjacent to an enemy unit, or those that are located in a located in a swamp, bunker, beach bunker, or fortress hex. It normally requires two turns to dig in. To begin, select the unit and press the letter "F" on the keyboard. (Or, you can open the Command Box for that unit, make sure the unit is assigned one of the three "defend" options, click on the "dig in" symbol, and then close the Command Box.) This causes a "digging in" marker to appear as the top unit in that hex on the map. To finish digging in, "dig in" orders must be assigned again on the next game–turn; as a convenience, the game automatically does that for you, so that once a unit begins to dig in, it continues to do so until you change its orders. If you assign orders other than "dig in" on the next turn, the process is either interrupted or canceled. If the unit moves out of the hex, the process is canceled, and the digging in marker is removed from the map. The process is merely interrupted (and may be completed on a later turn) if the unit is attacked by artillery/naval/air (with no enemy units adjacent), participates in combat as an attacker or defender without leaving the hex, if the unit remains inactive in order to recover from fatigue or disruption or to receive replacements, or if the unit is an artillery unit and conducts a fire mission. If an enemy unit moves adjacent to a unit in the process of digging in, the process is canceled and the "digging in" marker is removed from the map.
When dug in units are defending in a hex that contains a dug in marker large enough for all of them, it multiplies their defense strength by 1.5, their antitank strength by 1.25, increases their morale by 1, and halves the strength of incoming artillery/naval/air attacks. If the dug in marker is not large enough to contain all the units in the hex, it multiplies their defense strength by 1 + (0.5 x (marker size/stack size)), it reduces the strength of incoming artillery/naval/air attacks by a proportional fraction, and it has no effect on the antitank strength or the morale of the defending units.
The advantages of being dug in do not apply to units that are conducting probes, assaults, all–out assaults, or any type of movement.
In Velikiye Luki, during hard freeze and deep snow ground conditions, non–engineer units may dig in only in village and city hexes. Engineer units may still dig in when they are in clear terrain or forest hexes, but this takes twice as long as normal (i.e., four game–turns). Both engineer and non–engineer units may dig in when they are in lake hexes only during deep snow conditions (when the lake becomes clear terrain for all purposes).

Fortifications
Fortifications are constructed in the same manner as digging in, except that the first fortification marker in a hex may be built only by an engineer unit, and constructing the first fortification in a hex normally requires four turns. Like digging in, a fortification may not be built or enlarged in a bunker hex, or in a hex that is adjacent to an enemy unit. Unlike digging in, a fortification may be built or enlarged in a swamp hex, but this takes twice as long as normal (i.e., eight game–turns).
When units are defending in a hex that contains a fortification large enough for all of them, it multiplies their defense strength by 2, their antitank strength by 1.5, increases their morale by 2, and halves the strength of incoming artillery/naval/air attacks. If a fortification is not large enough to contain all the units in a hex, it multiplies their defense strength by 1 + (fortification size/stack size), their antitank strength by 1 + (0.5 x (fortification size/stack size)), it halves the strength of incoming artillery and air attacks, and it raises the morale of the defending units by 1.
Like being dug in, these advantages do not apply to units that are conducting probes, assaults, or any type of movement.
In Velikiye Luki, during hard freeze ground conditions, engineer units may still construct fortifications in all types of terrain except lakes, but this takes twice as long as normal (i.e., eight lake hexes during hard freeze conditions, they may be constructed on lake hexes during deep snow (when the lake becomes clear terrain for all purposes). This also requires eight game–turns.
Note that in Velikiye Luki, for the purpose of constructing field fortifications, construction battalions are engineer units.

Digging In and Fortifying in the Same Hex
A hex may not contain a completed dug in marker if it also contains a completed fortification, and vice versa. Both may be under construction at the same time (in which case the fortification is the one that appears), and either may be under construction in a hex that contains a completed one of the other (in which case whichever one is completed is the one that appears).
When a fortification is completed in a hex that already contains a completed dug in marker, the size of the newly–completed fortification is immediately increased by one–half of the size of the dug in marker (fractions rounded down), and the dug in marker is removed. For example, if a hex contains a completed dug in marker of size "3," and a building fortification of size "1," when the fortification is completed, it becomes size "2," and the dug in marker is removed.
Units may be assigned to dig in a hex that already contains a completed fortification. However, in this case the dug in marker never appears on the map; when the units are finished digging in, the already–complete fortification marker is enlarged instead. The amount that the fortification is enlarged by depends on the size of the unit that is digging in; a company–sized unit enlarges the size of the fortification by 1, and a battalion–sized unit enlarges the size of the fortification by 2. For example, if a hex contains a completed fortification marker of size 1, and a battalion–sized unit digs in the hex, when it is finished digging in, the fortification marker is enlarged from size 1 to size 3. This process may be repeated to enlarge the fortification to size 5, and so on.


Please bear in mind that even though authors of that game consider V4V as operational game (as WitE authors say about their game) the scale there was 1km per hex, 4 hours per turn and units (counters) were of battalion and company level, so a division would consist of 10-15 counters (Soviet divisions were smaller, as one rifle regiment was one counter). So they made a full length game about Velikiye Luki, whereas in WitE it's just a micro-scenario :)

However there are interesting ideas here about fortifications. First of all, fortifications besides their level, have size. So it would take 4 turns per level x 15 levels = 60 turns for a company of engineers to build a maximum size of field fortifications in a city hex - that's 10 days - that's counted without fatigue - they would tire after a day or two and building would take event longer that that. And that would be only for an area 1km in diameter. Of course aided by 3 battalions of infantry they would complete the work much faster. Anyway, it was good to have size of fortifications - you wanted to have large fortification and fast - you had to put a lot of men with shovels there.

Second great idea was separating digging in from field fortifications that only engineer units could start. Regular units without engineer help could only dig in.

Third great idea was that preparing trenches requires no bullets whizzing over your back, so it's impossible to improve them once you are in contact with the enemy.

Fourth great idea was that there were 2 more "levels" of fortifications: bunker terrain and fortress terrain and they were not buildable which was ok, considering the length of scenarios in V4V - at most 3 months of time. They were much better than digging in and field fortifications but there were only so many as the designers allowed in proper places.

Fifth great idea was that fortifications disappeared after you left them - a good balance between details and simplicity - this represented that fortifications are directional in nature and once a fighting position was left, they would be of little use should a frontline reach that hex again.

Interesting are also those notes that say about difficulty of digging in in snow conditions - regular units could do that only in villages and cities.

WitE has of course different scale which changes many aspects, however some could be modeled. Size - this I think is represented by the fact that 3 units would dig faster than one having more "digging factors". Higher level fortifications should require more engineer elements involved otherwise they would be impossible to complete or very slow (so a unit with just a company of engineers should not expect to build higher levels of forts - for really high level you should attach some support engineer units). Building should be very slow when in contact with the enemy of course (it is, but is this really slow or just a little bit slower - I don't know). Units without engineers should be able to build only level 1 fortifications (dig in from V4V), units with engineers should be able to build level 2 (field fortification from V4V), levels 3-4 (bunkers from V4V) should be only possible with an AP cost and some high wait times, and not when in contact with enemy), level 5 should be restricted to pre-war really strong fortifications and not buildable. Once left a fortification should loose at least 1 full level per turn, except fortifications of level 5. Of course that's my interpretation of rules for V4V translated into WitE scale. Yours may vary, I just wanted to show how it was done in another good game, that had a bit different scale though.

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 40
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/9/2011 1:10:10 AM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4725
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: online
My idea was that level 4 and 5 fortifications could only be built where the player purchases and places fortified zones/regions.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4


quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Someone made a suggestion, not sure where its posted, that level 4 & 5 forts should cost admin points to build up, I like the idea...Concreate is not cheap...One for level 4, two for level 5...


I think that might have been me. If you think Maginot Line / Atlantic Wall / Stalin Line, these were all big projects with top-level backing and required the diversion of huge resources from the economy. They weren't built by the troops on the front line or even by their combat engineering units.


The thing is level 4 and 5 forts aren't supposed to be those Maginot type fortifications. There was talk of making a level 6 fort just for Sevastopol that starts the game with that level of fortification, but it never happened. Regardless though, an ap cost does sound like a good idea for at least level 5.


_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Sabre21)
Post #: 41
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/9/2011 5:05:37 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe:

The thing is level 4 and 5 forts aren't supposed to be those Maginot type fortifications. There was talk of making a level 6 fort just for Sevastopol that starts the game with that level of fortification, but it never happened. Regardless though, an ap cost does sound like a good idea for at least level 5.


I like the idea that Level 4 forts can only be constructed on a hex containing a Fortification unit\Fortified Zones. That might actually give this unit class a raison d'être.

I might actually extend the argument to both Level 3 and Level 4 forts and that level 5 forts are impossible to build. Make Sevastapol and Kronstadt level 5 forts. But I would also temper this with a lower early 1941 cost associated with the Russians building these things. I think it costs them 8 or 10 APs for the Russians to build fortification units until something like November of 1941. If it were required to have a fortification unit in a hex in order to go to Level 3 and level 4 fort, than it might be warranted to reduce the cost of constructing a fortification unit back to 4-APs for the Russians for pre-November 1941 turns.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 42
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/9/2011 5:09:20 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline
I just started another PBEM about two weeks ago – my second as the Reds. It’s all been played under the v1.04 plus each of the successive v1.04 patches.

I am definitely seeing a slow down in my Red infantry’s entrenching speed. Which is tough in 1941 as it’s such a crucial element to your defensive scheme for first 17-turns.

The problem is once the fronts stabilize in any location for 2 or 3 turns, than you start seeing multiple layers of level 2 and 3 forts. Give the Russians 4 or 6 turns of uninterrupted digging and the level 4 forts are in depth. These are a pretty tough nuts to crack for the Axis player when he is also at the end of his supply tether and most of his units have been heavily attrited from combat and marching for 13 or 14 turns.

In terms of Game play, entrenching\forts is -- IMHO -- a very delicate thing to tweak as it’s such a critical balancing element. The rate\speed of entrenching is very important for the Russians in 1941. Conversely, if the 1941 Germans have to let off on the pressure for a couple turns in a particular sector they’ll be faced with a real challenge if or when they have to make a push in this sector again.

What do the fortifications at Sevastopol, Brest Litovsk, Kronstadt, represent within the current Fort System Rules? In reality, these were built over the course of years and required huge amounts of concrete or masonry, and steel. Work backwards from there? Is a string of foxholes and weapons pits a level 0 positional improvement? Level 1 -- Interconnection of Foxholes and weapons pits with communications trenches – laying communication wire between positions – pre-registration of defensive artillery fires? Level-2 more trenching --- dugouts\overhead protection – barbedwire entanglements minefields? What’s level-3 – still more digging -- deeper dugouts? What level of forts would something like the Hindenburg line represent – or the Siegfried Line? How long did it take to construct the Hindenburg Line – how long did it take to build the Siegfried Line?

< Message edited by marty_01 -- 5/9/2011 5:18:44 PM >

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 43
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/9/2011 5:24:53 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Food for thought from game manual for V for Victory (WitE of the 1990's - wow it's so many years from now):

quote:

Field Fortifications
There are two types of field fortifications ...


Great game system and very rational approach to field works and preparation there-of.

< Message edited by marty_01 -- 5/9/2011 5:26:19 PM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 44
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/9/2011 6:05:10 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

...The problem is how quickly 1 Soviet division can dig to a level 3 fort, and the fact that forts are interchangeable in terms of the omni-directional defensive bonus and the fact that a level 3 fort offers the same protection to several divisions even when only 1 division builds it.  Because they do not scale, its advantageous for the Soviet to do linear defenses in depth and when you need to switch from linear to hedgehog (primary example of this need is Leningrad's area) the Soviet has a plethora of level 2 and level 3 forts to choose from in which to place stacked defenses. 


Agree completely regarding the issue with omni-directional aspect of fortifications. I'd extrpolate this to the omni-directional aspect of combat units in general. Application of maximum combat power is highly directional -- even in 1941 -- even in 2011.

There is zero sense for a combat unit flanks or rear areas. Within this game system and games of similar ilk, all units apply maximum combat power regardless of the direction from which an attack might come. Why not break this omnipresent theme in wargames of omni-directional and equal combat power. Give indivdual combat units a front and flank aspect -- unit facing. Do the same for entrenchments. Entrechments occur along hexsides rather than the hex as a whole.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 45
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/9/2011 9:45:14 PM   
philturco

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline
I think you have a good point. Reading about how things were in42-43 the Germans were able to crack any line at just about any point of their choosing. The problem was follow through...they simply didn't have the reserves to match the Russians once the Ruskies identified the danger spots. This was the argument used at kursk. It was believed a skillful German attack would be able to cope with the prepared defense. This is the same problem in the other eastern front monster FITE. Russia builds 1000's of miles of Maginot line like defenses in a couple of weeks under a sky with absolute Luftwaffe air superiority.

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 46
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/10/2011 1:30:56 AM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline
Damn. theres just to many smart people playing this game. It is a good club. We have tried and tried to get this right. I dont have an answer thats a Gary, Joel or Pavel question. I will say I really like how smart you all are. I get weary going out the door each day and have to talk to whats out there...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to philturco)
Post #: 47
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/12/2011 5:16:40 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
In spite of a large degree of apparent overlap, surely within the five levels of fort, do we not have, in fact, two fundamentally different things best treated differently and somewhat seperately?

Not knowing precisely what each is supposed to represent, what about treating level 1-3 forts differently and independently from levels 4-5? So, fort level 3 becomes the highest to which a fort will grow without a player's deliberate intervention. A level 4-5 fort location, then, needs to be designated well in advance (ball park six months?) and arms points expended to do so.

Why? Such forts as I suppose these represent weren't an organic progression from lower level entrenchments. They used reinforced concrete, large calibre ordnance and consumed other industrial products. Such installations as these represent required designing and planning, apart from their labour and construction time, and that of the humble earthworks around and connecting them.

What I'm suggesting is that these two fort types exist independently of each other, build and degrade at different rates, but to function at their best co-exist in a hex. Concrete bunkers aren't much use without interconnecting trenches and anti-tank ditches etc.

With regard to fort degrading, littering the map with low level entrenchments seems a trifle unrealistic. If a front shifted forward and back, what's the chance of a side reoccupying foxholes it, and not necessarily the same unit, had abandoned previously on a map this scale? Surely they would dig new ones.

To effect this, I'd suggest that any level 1 forts be removed from the map if they end a turn unoccupied. Level 2 and 3 should also degrade much quicker. Level 4-5 would degrade much more slowly. Geez, anyone been around former Nazi occupied Europe, and I don't just mean the Atlantic Wall? They're still there! But the level 1-3 earthworks in a level 4-5 fort hex should still degrade at the normal rate.

So in this scheme of things in stead of level 1-5 fort, it would perhaps be better to speak of level 1-3 entrenchment and level 1-2 fort.

< Message edited by Mehring -- 5/12/2011 5:23:22 PM >


_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to Altaris)
Post #: 48
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 5/12/2011 6:01:23 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 1491
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Very good idea. Let level 4 and 5 be up to the player and make them a little expensive.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 49
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 7/9/2011 6:18:11 PM   
Shupov


Posts: 286
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: United States
Status: offline
Does the construction value used for fortification take into account unit fatigue?  Are Fortifications built after movement and combat?  It seems to me if a unit has 50% fatigue it should have its construction value cut in half.

_____________________________

STALINADE

The real RED soda!

(in reply to Altaris)
Post #: 50
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 7/9/2011 9:04:52 PM   
sveint


Posts: 3471
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline
I think forts are fine and that if anything the game favors the Axis. The OP is complaining that a frontal assault on Moscow in 1942 is difficult...

(in reply to Altaris)
Post #: 51
RE: Fortifications too much too fast - 7/10/2011 2:45:24 AM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
I certainly think as more games reach the latter war years, and as blizzard rules have been adjusted to give more value to forts, you've seen this gripe decline - Soviets can survive without quick forts, the Germans from the blizzard on absolutely cannot.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 52
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Fortifications too much too fast Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.227