The Maginot is in. why isnt the Siegfried line?

[Komet-163]

The Maginot line proved to be a load of wasted concrete. however the Siegfried line delayed the final defeat of Germany by 6 months. (if the Allies had taken the Rhur in 1944 then Germany would have capitulated since sumthing like 65% of it's best war factories were in the Rhur valley if sum1 could correct me i'd appreciate it.)yet the maginot is in SC1 but the Siegfried isnt Should it be in SC2:Blitzkrieg?

[Grapeshot]

It is hard to say you will need the siegfried line. Say you are playing the Germans and the war is going well, why would you need the siegfried line? That and from what I have read engineers are able to fortify an area so you can create one yourself when your war plans crumble.

[JerseyJohn]

The Siegfried Line also existed in 1940 but it wasn't comparable to the Maginot Line. The Germans began working on them again after the Normandy landings. It was much more formidable in 1944-45 than it was in 1940.

If we had different grades of fortifications that can be made stronger, I'd start the Maginot hexes at maximum and the Siegfried at just above minimum.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

The trick, is we need Campaign specific conditions.

In 1944, the Siegfried line was most assuredly there. Yet it isn't in the Campaign in SC.

And I think this could be said of a few other spots on the map that became important later in the war, that need to be allowed into the game when designing Campaigns.

I am hoping the editor makes this all rather a moot problem though.

[pzgndr]

The Siegfried Line also existed in 1940 but it wasn't comparable to the Maginot Line.

Right. Places like the Maginot Line, Gibralter, Malta, and Sevastopol should start as fortresses. In SC2, players can use engineers to build additional fortifications like the Siegfried Line and others. The 1944 scenario could even have this in place by then.

I believe engineers should be extremely limited or else we'll have all sorts of tough fortification lines popping up all over the place which could seriously skew a game. Like maybe one for Germany and USSR only, with soft build limits allowing more for everyone at increased unit cost if they want/need them. We still need to experiment with engineer unit costs, build limits, delay times to construct fortifications, defense bonuses for fortifications, etc. How about some feedback from COS players? Did the engineers and fortifications in that game feel about right or not?

If we had different grades of fortifications that can be made stronger, I'd start the Maginot hexes at maximum and the Siegfried at just above minimum.

Probably won't see different grades of fortifications or fortresses. But, players do have the choice as to WHEN to garrison these tiles and this determines what entrenchment level the defenders have. That then determines how long a line may hold, ie different grades.

[Joachim]

The Maginot line was a huge amount of linked bunkers. Everything was deep underground - crew compartments, kitchens, hospitals. It sported gun turrets that could move up, fire and then move down again. Much more than the Siegfried line did ever achieve. Just imagine a series of cruisers and destroyers built inside mountains - and several parts had a river in front of it.

It is realy impressing. Except that a potential attacker knows that he has mostly static troops to cope with and thus most of the defenders are not available for counterattacks. Plus the attacker has a river as natural obstacle to protect his frontline and with a thin front, air recce and mobile reserves can concentrate most of its assets on a few selected breakthru areas - even if these were just a showcase as the real thing happened to the North of it).

Gruß

Joachim

[ev]

I very much like the idea of engineers constructing fortifications.

I am not fond of limmiting the number of units. Having to many fortifications could be a problem. But there are other ways of discouraging excesive fortification build ups:

First, you can make fort construction into a slow (several turn) process. An engineer unit may be required to stay in a single hex for several month before completing a fort.

Second, you could require expenditure of MPPs each time an engineer unit starts to construct a fort.

Third, you could make engineer units more expensive.

Fourth, you could require the engineer unit to have very high supply levels before allowing fort construction. Furthermore, you could slow down construction if the engineer unit is not at the highest supply level.

Fifth, you could require the engineer unit to be attached to an HQ during the construction. This would force you to sacrifice HQ units from the front in order to build fortifications. And, you could even increase the quality of the fortification, or the speed in which they are built, depending on the quality of the HQ.

[Edwin P.]

Ev, Excellent Ideas.

As for fortress properties, it should definately give a strong bonsus to Air Defense as the gravity bombs used in WWII were not accurate and troops in fortresses/pillboxes were well protected against air attacks.

[pzgndr]

Another factor to consider in all this is the new unit morale that Hubert is adding to SC2, similar to what was in Clash of Steel. Units will now have a chance to suppress strength hits and the idea is to tie this in with entrenchment levels. A potential strength hit will be translated to a morale hit with some chance of suppressing a hit. This will throw in an additional factor to the calculation of a unit’s morale, perhaps reducing its morale even if its strength is not. So a unit may survive some early hits but a rapid decrease in morale without relief will cause the unit to crack much quicker in later rounds of combat etc.

Bottom line is we need to see ALL of this stuff in action during some playtesting games to determine if the overall effect is right or not. The goal is obviously not to allow construction of extensive Maginot Lines all over the map. Nor to prevent construction of historical fortifications like the Siegfried Line and various defensive lines in Italy. Something reasonable in between will be fine.

Remember also that your very limited time and MPPs will usually be better spent pursuing more active objectives now rather than passive fortification lines to be used later. But hey, sometimes the ant wins and the grasshopper loses, yes?

[SeaMonkey]

Let's not forget that inclement weather conditions also hamper fortress construction.

[JerseyJohn]

pzgndr

"I believe engineers should be extremely limited or else we'll have all sorts of tough fortification lines popping up all over the place which could seriously skew a game."

Absolutely, the engineer and pioneer units in CoS fit that description perfectly; they were tyranical and unrealistic.

Probably there needs to be a distinction between pre-war fortifications such as the Maginot Line and those made after the war has begun, which would not be nearly as elaborate, no underground railway systems linking bunkers, that sort of thing.

[pzgndr]

they were tyranical and unrealistic.

That's my concern for SC2. There will in fact be a distinction between fixed fortresses and engineer-built fortifications. Fortresses currently get a max entrenchment up to 8. Fortifications will get something less, like 6. And the defensive modifiers may be slightly different also. Fear not though, engineers will not go about building Maginot Lines. :eek:

Players will always have flexibility with the new editor to set engineer builds to zero and not play with them if desired. One could also edit the map to add either fortresses or fortifications where desired, like the Siegfried Line could be in place in 1939. Lots of options.

[SeaMonkey]

Bill, I would like to see something like an additional entrenchment level for a tile from the use of engineering capabilities. Example: a regular city could advance to a level 5 entrenchment for occupying units with an engineer adjacent for say...6 months, clear terrain to 3, woods to 4, etc. Maybe a max enhancement level per hex of 2 for a years worth of engineering effort to an overall max of 8. Then only capital cities and fortifications would be elligible for entrenchment level 8. I was hoping for additional capabilities for the Engineering unit, like say allow a unit to operate to a tile adjacent to an engineering unit that is adjacent to a city to simulate the extension of a rail head. Of course the Egr. unit will have to be stationary for the time it takes to extend the RR 25 miles = tile distance and once it is gone ???

[With Clusters]

How about some sort of 'maintenance/upkeep' fee for fortifications? I have no idea at what rate these facilities might have deteriorated over time, but perhaps some kind of MPP expediature to keep them battle worthy would provide its own cap on the number of fortifications?