Fortress Garrisons

[FM WarB]

All major belligerants had fortress garrisons. These were not included in the mobile armies' corps strengths. In the game, unless you have a mobile corps on a fortress, the enemy can waltz right in. Fortress garrisons usually consisted of second or third line static troops of varying strengths, with varying amounts of fortress artillery.
I'd like to see some provision for fortress garrisons which are static and do not count against stacking limits. A fortress should not be considered "empty" just because there is no mobile "corps" in the hex.

[OrvalB]

First of all, in game time frames etc., on the few occasions when armies did come upon manned fortresses, they did indeed pretty much waltz right in.

But more importantly, pretty early on it was concluded that fortresses were useless, and many were abandoned. Even when they should not have been, cf Ft. Douaumont. After 1914, there were not meaningfully garrisoned fortresses.

[FM WarB]

It took a siege train for the Germans to capture Liege and its fortress garrison in 1914. Moving artillery out of Ft Doumont and leaving a weak garrison proved to be a bad move for the French in 1916 and they needed alot of effort to retake it.
Both the Russians and the Austrians continued to meaningfully garrison fortresses after 1914.
Which fortresses were waltzed into during WWI? In any case, the forces holding them were mostly, if not all static type troops, which are not represented in the game.

[OrvalB]

Well, at the end of the day, a game has to account for things that actually happened, or plausibly could have happened. I don't know of a single instance where static garrison type troops, on their own, imposed a significant delay or disruption, in GoA terms, on anybody, after 1914. It is conceivable that their naked un-supported presence did deter attacks in certain directions, though I can't think of any.

Such troops would count as part of fortifications, which when supported by field armies, did indeed have major effects. Remember that those GoA hexes are in fact Really Really big.

[boogada]

Isn't this already in the game, kinda? I mean you need to spent an activation point to enter a hex and you need an infantry corps to take over a city or fortress. 

[Kaliber]

I agree with Boogada and OrvalB on this issue. the activation point spent for entering a city (whether fortified or not) is an acceptable abstraction at our scale. Moreover, in game terms, I feel it's already difficult enough taking cities as it is. Adding intrinsic factors in fortresses would make things to difficult for the attacker.

Another point regarding forts: has someone else noticed how the defender tends to take all the casualties while inside them during the opening turns? (ie. before there are trenches). I remember in one particular opening turn the russians attacked the two AH forts and the AH the italian fort in Mantua. Every time, the attacker suffered zero casualties, whereas the defender bled (but held the fort). All three forts were reasonably garrisoned (2 corps or more). Any thoughts or comments about this?

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: Kaliber
Another point regarding forts: has someone else noticed how the defender tends to take all the casualties while inside them during the opening turns? (ie. before there are trenches). I remember in one particular opening turn the russians attacked the two AH forts and the AH the italian fort in Mantua. Every time, the attacker suffered zero casualties, whereas the defender bled (but held the fort). All three forts were reasonably garrisoned (2 corps or more). Any thoughts or comments about this?

I have never experienced that?

[boogada]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: Kaliber
Another point regarding forts: has someone else noticed how the defender tends to take all the casualties while inside them during the opening turns? (ie. before there are trenches). I remember in one particular opening turn the russians attacked the two AH forts and the AH the italian fort in Mantua. Every time, the attacker suffered zero casualties, whereas the defender bled (but held the fort). All three forts were reasonably garrisoned (2 corps or more). Any thoughts or comments about this?

I have never experienced that?

Me neither. Only if you attack with much greater numbers then the defender you might not loose troops. Ive seen that once or twice. But usually attacking a fort is a bloody thing to do.

[Kaliber]

ORIGINAL: boogada

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: Kaliber
Another point regarding forts: has someone else noticed how the defender tends to take all the casualties while inside them during the opening turns? (ie. before there are trenches). I remember in one particular opening turn the russians attacked the two AH forts and the AH the italian fort in Mantua. Every time, the attacker suffered zero casualties, whereas the defender bled (but held the fort). All three forts were reasonably garrisoned (2 corps or more). Any thoughts or comments about this?

I have never experienced that?

Me neither. Only if you attack with much greater numbers then the defender you might not loose troops. Ive seen that once or twice. But usually attacking a fort is a bloody thing to do.

It was in our game, though. The turn I attacked Mantua, you lauched an attack on the two AH forts in Galicia. All three forts were garrisoned with two corps. The attackers didn't lose a single strenght point in any of the attacks. Luck, I guess.

[hjaco]

Or very low readiness on behalf of your troops perhaps [;)]

[Kaliber]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

Or very low readiness on behalf of your troops perhaps [;)]

No, they were all fresh. I just thought it was weird.

[boogada]

ORIGINAL: Kaliber
It was in our game, though. The turn I attacked Mantua, you lauched an attack on the two AH forts in Galicia. All three forts were garrisoned with two corps. The attackers didn't lose a single strenght point in any of the attacks. Luck, I guess.

I'm pretty sure I attacked with 4 corps and maybe additional artillery. Any battle in the open field I should have won.