Baron Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Does anyone else have an issue with the way fortresses are handled? The enemy captures your fortress and they immediately get the benefit of the fortresses defenses! I may be wrong but it seems to me that the defenses of the fortress would have been destroyed for it to have been captured in the first place. This happens to cities and ports why doesn't it happen to the fortresses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I could be wrong and I suspect Bill will correct me if so, but I believe that in many cases the Fortresses were quickly overrun (when they were finally captured) and then immediately used by the enemy, i.e. to prepare for any counter attacks. I remember reading that this happened especially in the trenches/fortifications as various strong points were captured and then recaptured in a matter of days changing hands many times over a short period of time. As a result I suspect that this is what is being modeled in game but as mentioned I'm sure Bill will either agree or disagree with this assessment when he has some more time to go over the threads here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Hi Baron The strength value of the Fortress should immediately decrease to zero when it's captured, but the captor will entrench up to a certain amount automatically. Is it the automatic entrenchment that is the issue? Whether or not this is right or wrong is a good question, but generally I think that a Fortress that has been fought over and badly damaged is still a good place to defend. Therefore it generally should be fairly difficult to oust the captors, but not as hard as it will become over subsequent turns as they entrench to their maximum. Please let me know your thoughts, and whether this makes sense or there's an issue I've missed. Thanks! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. Fortresses are more than trenches. They are connected fortifications designed to control with interlocking fields of fire a certain piece of real estate. If a side lost control of a fortress in WW1 or WW2 it was generally because said fortress was destroyed (the only exception to this that comes to mind is Ft. Eban Emanuel in Belgium in 1940) or bypassed. On the other hand look at pictures (before and after) of Verdun, Stalingrad,Berlin, Sevastopol, Manila after they had been declared "fortresses" and then lost in combat. I can see no rational reason that a city and port would fall to a zero level and a fortress doesn't, instead it gives the new occupier immediate benefits even if it had just fallen. That kind of makes the back and forth taking of entrenchments darn near impossible in game terms. I can see where being in a trench would give you benefits as you are below ground level but these fortresses and cites were for all intents and purposes leveled. No more registered arty, no more interlocking fields of fire, no more communications between strong points, no more ready stocks of ammo and supplies. It is these functions that I just mentioned that make a fortress a fortress not just a series of trenches. A new occupier of a destroyed fortress would have none of those benefits. If a fortress had just been taken by destroying an enemy unit then I see no reason why the new occupier would get the benefits of the destroyed fortifications and infrastructure. Now if a fortress is occupied without a fight I would not have an issue with the occupier getting the benefits but not after it has just been leveled and a Corps size unit defending it annihilated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 Bill you replied while I was typing. In a recent game the French lost Verdun on the CP turn and on my next turn the Germans were already at entrenchment level 4. I've seen it on the Austrian front also. Maybe it is just a glitch? Thanks for the quick replies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkman Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I'm no historian but I know that the Germans did capture and use 2 forts near Verdun, I only know this because I live about an hours drive away and have visited the battlefield quite often. Although severly damaged they were still useful after conquest, and re-conquest. They are still intact today, so I would say they are not easily completly destroyed. There are many fortresses near Verdun, abandoned and overgrown in the forest, most untouched by time, I did some hiking in that area about 10 years ago and found 3 or 4 of them, there must be many more, a very fascinating area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlape3 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 I'd have to agree with Sharkman. While I've never been to Verdun I have seen the Normandie beaches and the fortifications there are still formidable despite war damage and 60 plus years of neglect. There is also the example of Monte Casino which was not used as a German strong point until AFTER it was leveled by Allied bombing. The same can be said of Stalingrad or Berlin where the creation of rubble afforded their defenders with some level of protection while hampering enemy attempts to dig them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 Some fortifications might have survived but they would be facing the wrong way to defend against an enemy attacking from their former rear. I'll scan some pictures of the Forts at Verdun (before and after) and post next week when I get back to work. None of this addresses why cities and ports go to zero and forts don't however. As wlape3 pointed out it would make more sense for a city that has been leveled to have some defensive value but not fortifications that have been devastated by combat and are facing the WRONG way to help the new occupier. Once you see the aerial photographs of Verdun before and after I think you'll get a better idea of what I'm trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 None of this addresses why cities and ports go to zero and forts don't however. Hi Baron Fortresses should definitely be going to zero, but if you have a saved turn where this hasn't happened please forward it to me Or if it is repeatable and you don't have a saved turn let me know the details (i.e. which Fortress and which campaign) and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks Bill Email: bill.runacre@furysoftware.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts