ArmenianBoy Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Although I have not received my full version yet, I find it hard to believe the game does not allow building of fortifications? Throughout WWII many countries built significant fortifications with varying results. How hard would it be to add the functionality to build a fortification level for a given MMP cost? They could be treated almost like static units for technical reasons(not to get into the stacking issue). Higher levels should probably cost more than the initial level? Not having the West Wall or Sigfreid line seems a bit odd, only to mention a few. What do others think? PS: I'll have more comments once I start playing the full version. I do understand the game needs to be kept playable on the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welshwill Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Originally posted by ArmenianBoy: [QB]Although I have not received my full version yet, I find it hard to believe the game does not allow building of fortifications? Throughout WWII many countries built significant fortifications with varying results. How hard would it be to add the functionality to build a fortification level for a given MMP cost? They could be treated almost like static units for technical reasons(not to get into the stacking issue). Higher levels should probably cost more than the initial level? Not having the West Wall or Sigfreid line seems a bit odd, only to mention a few. What do others think? I agree, we should at least be able to construct fortified defences such as the West Wall (and the Mannerhiem line). It played a significant part in the Germans defence plans in the West. However I do feel that their should be a restriction on where they can be built, even in France. I would also like to see the opption of coastal artillery units in selected areas such as Cherbourg and Bergen. [ October 08, 2002, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Welshwill ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeres Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 good point....it would allow the Russians to dig in around Moscow...and the French to create fall back positions. Brittain could erect coastal defences....Realist and fun!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashblade Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 If the building of fortifications is to be allowed the whole fortification model has to be worked on. Because units don't retreat and you can't stack units for a large assaults taking out fortification is unrealisticly hard. You need several air fleets to lower the entrenchment and some experienced armies to kill the occupying forces, and even then their are no guarantees. If the occupying force has even one strength point left they can reinforce back up to full strength the next turn. A line of fortifcations along a river would be almost impossible to take. Leading to even more WW1 like (boring) trench warfare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welshwill Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Originally posted by Flashblade: If the building of fortifications is to be allowed the whole fortification model has to be worked on. Because units don't retreat and you can't stack units for a large assaults taking out fortification is unrealisticly hard. You need several air fleets to lower the entrenchment and some experienced armies to kill the occupying forces, and even then their are no guarantees. If the occupying force has even one strength point left they can reinforce back up to full strength the next turn. A line of fortifcations along a river would be almost impossible to take. Leading to even more WW1 like (boring) trench warfare...I think the idea is that the placement of fortifications will be selective and follow a historical context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daringly Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Fortifications were mostly useless in the mobile WWII. They are of minor benefit in the game, and are well balanced. How many fortifications were actually built in WWII? And in hindsight, would any have been built? Fortifications might be a cute feature, but not necessary for this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I disagree! here read This read about the mannerheim line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmenianBoy Posted October 9, 2002 Author Share Posted October 9, 2002 The building of fortifications could be limited to cities and maybe costal hexes. Also, the cost of these fortifications would be high as to reflect the material and men needed form extra support functions. Each major county would have a limited # of fortification they could build, with a possibility of more through research. Research could also effect the effectiveness of a fortification. It sounds like the effect needs to be lowered a bit for the starting base. -Just some thoughts. PS: you really need to have airbone units: - Uk 1 unit - USA 1 unit - Germany 1 unit - Russia 1 unit Major countries could gain more through research. As for the transport air fleets, they could be added as a unit to either drop airborne or supplies to isolataed units. A countries bomber tech could increase the possible range of the transport air fleet. Or just do air transportation the same way you do naval transportation. I don't like this as much, because I currently think the naval transport functionality is a bit bogus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sogard Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 The Soviets built extensive fortifications in WW II. They had an enormous effect on the way the campaign was fought (Kursk, for example, is a perfect example). The Soviets should be permitted to fortify a limited number of hexes even though the other countries probably should not be able to do so although the Atlantic Wall certainly stands as one of the larger engineering projects ever undertaken in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmenianBoy Posted October 9, 2002 Author Share Posted October 9, 2002 Germany also built extensive fortification in the east 'Hagen line' later in the war and planned on building more. The limited resources coupled with the priority of new defenses in the west, didn't permit this. But, Germany had the 'Tote' workforce capabale of building large fortifications as well. Also, let's not forget the fortifications that were built in N. Africa by Germany and Britain, naming Tobruk for Britan as an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Wagner Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Originally posted by sogard: The Soviets built extensive fortifications in WW II. They had an enormous effect on the way the campaign was fought (Kursk, for example, is a perfect example). The Soviets should be permitted to fortify a limited number of hexes even though the other countries probably should not be able to do so although the Atlantic Wall certainly stands as one of the larger engineering projects ever undertaken in Europe.The Kursk "fortifications" weren't along the lines of the Maginot or Siegfreid lines. They were an elaborate defensive line which consisted of a web of anti tanks guns, machine gun nests, tank traps and minefields. Perhaps an option where you can buy increased entrenchment levels for units to reflect these types of defensive fortifications can be implemented. I wouldn't want to see Maginot line type fortifications popping up willy-nilly. [ October 09, 2002, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: J Wagner ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmenianBoy Posted October 12, 2002 Author Share Posted October 12, 2002 We've had some feedback from members, but none from any of the design crew? I'm curious to hear their stand on building fortifications in SC. "..anybody......Bueller....anyone....Buller?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgaad Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Originally posted by ArmenianBoy: Germany also built extensive fortification in the east 'Hagen line' later in the war and planned on building more. The limited resources coupled with the priority of new defenses in the west, didn't permit this. But, Germany had the 'Tote' workforce capabale of building large fortifications as well. Also, let's not forget the fortifications that were built in N. Africa by Germany and Britain, naming Tobruk for Britan as an example.The Hagen Line was overrun in a matter of days when it was attacked. Tobruk's fortifications held initially, but once Rommel turned sufficient resources against them, they, too, were overrun in a matter of days, if not hours. The Maginot Line's fortifications, constructed at an enormous cost over years, were also overrun in a matter of days, once the Germans attacked them in June, 1940. Dealing with fortifications is simply a matter of directing sufficient resources to the area. The game handles the types of fortifications that were constructed during the war with the "entrenchment" factor. If you want a West Wall, place some units along the Rhine and start letting those units entrench. [ October 11, 2002, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmenianBoy Posted October 12, 2002 Author Share Posted October 12, 2002 The Hagen line was only overrun quickly as the Germans lost most of the troops in Kursk that were to man. A fortification doesn't do much good unless it is fully manned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeres Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Perhaps they should allow building forts on special "historical hexes". Alantic Wall, Stalingrad ( which would be great for play balance and realism)... perhaps Tobruk. For a HIGH cost. I agree with those of you who said allowing to much of it would make the game boring. But the historical hexes might make it more engaging. Perhaps it would make the allies consider an alternative landing sight. Or give the Russians a reason to defend Stalingrad instead of falling back south to protect the resources Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgaad Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Originally posted by Zeres: Perhaps they should allow building forts on special "historical hexes". Alantic Wall, Stalingrad ( which would be great for play balance and realism)... perhaps Tobruk. For a HIGH cost. I agree with those of you who said allowing to much of it would make the game boring. But the historical hexes might make it more engaging. Perhaps it would make the allies consider an alternative landing sight. Or give the Russians a reason to defend Stalingrad instead of falling back south to protect the resourcesThe "Atlantic Wall" was also pierced and effectively outflanked and overrun on the second day of the Normandy invasion. There is no use to adding the ability to construct fortifications which might have effects similar to the pre-existing Maginot Line. Units can already entrench, which at this scale does a good job of representing the increased defenses of fortifications constructed during the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 I dont think you shoukd be able to make frfots 'willy nilly' all over europe. I dont even think that you should be able to construct them during the game. However, the Mannerheim line should be included, but the defenses in Germany and Russia should not be added, they were defenses of the tactical variety, while the Maginot and mannerheim lines were strategic corner stones for their respectives countries. CvM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunedain Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Maybe fortifications ould cost loads, like 750mpp, and can only be built in areas connected by land to your capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeres Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Dgaad....Point taken with regards to the Atlanic wall ...But maybe Stalingrad should have a fort to add realism. As is most players retreat south to protect the resources and Stalingrad NEVER ( in my experience) plays a roll of any consequence in the game. If there was a fort, there would be a reason to defend it ( good place to slow Germans down) and that would give the city more relavence in the game. Just a nice touch... I agree that allowing forts, at what ever costs, willy-nilly would not add anything at all to game-play mechanics. It might as well be a WWI simulation at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 WW1 SIM? maybe we should add it then, it would open up a lot more player campaignsm which by the way, you guys arent making enough of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeres Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Hey. I'd try a WWI mod. Sounds very possible. I don't have much experience modding though none actually. i play it if someone builds it though!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts