Forts in 42

[Peltonx]

There are a few things that can be done.

1. Make moving factorys something close to historical. turn 1 rail system is at 20%, turn 2 rail system is at 40%, turn 3 rail system is at 60%, turn 4 rail system is at 80% and 100% turn 5.
2. New VP system so poeple have a reason to fight during 42. I know this be a pain in the ass for devs, but in long run be worth it an allot more fun because the players would be fighting over meaningless citys every turn.
3. Fort lvl 2 should be max or for lvl 3 its 25 ap pts, lvl 4 50ap and lvl 5 100ap. The time is good alrdy for lvl 0-2 because its just dirt warks not cement. Any unit can build trenchs and duggouts in lees then 2 weeks.

Pelton

[kvolk]

One question I have is why does the fort levels need to be the same for each side which I think solves the whole "yea but the germans get massacred" later. Just wondering.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
With regard to the fort issue, I still believe that the most elegant solution to this problem is to restrict the ability to transition from level 2 > level 3 fort to those hexes that have a FZ, FR, City, or Urban terrain feature present in the hex. This would be the simplest to code.

Yes, this would be my prefered solution to the fort problem as well.It would also give FZs a real purpose in the game.Building level 4 and 5 forts should incur extra AP expenditure as well.

ORIGINAL: Mynok
FZs require something the Germans are extremely short of in the later war: manpower. They cannot keep their infantry at decent TOEs as it is. Making FZs the only way to build 3+ forts will make the German demise even faster. One German div even at 100% TOE in level 2 forts is dead meat in 43. Dead meat.

Surely the lack of German manpower in the later game could be easily solved by tweeking their manpower numbers up slightly to account for the extra FZs or possibly just lower the number of men needed per FZ.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
2. New VP system so poeple have a reason to fight during 42. I know this be a pain in the ass for devs, but in long run be worth it an allot more fun because the players would be fighting over meaningless citys every turn.

I think this would enhance the game greatly and not just in 42.For me this is probably the single most important thing that could be done to improve game play.In the game the importance of cities as transport hubs doesn't figure at all, awarding VP's for capturing cities would help to compensate for this.VP's will also tempt Soviet players to defend further forward in 41 and 42 leading to more realism and excitement for both players.(This may go part way to solving the 1942 problem as well because a lot more Soviets will probably get surrounded).VP's would also allow for sudden death victory conditions throughout the game, avoiding the need to waste hundreds of hours playing a game that is already won, (or lost).

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: timmyab
VP's would also allow for sudden death victory conditions throughout the game, avoiding the need to waste hundreds of hours playing a game that is already won.

Russia Besieged does this. the Germans have to have captured X VP Hexes by the end of 41, Y by the end of 42, Z by the end of 43. The 41 target is pretty low, the 42 number is pretty high (close to historical levels), and 43 is low. You don't do this, you lose.

In this game you change it to VP totals (technically the game has VPs in the GC already, but they are so abstracted that you don't even know they are there). Different cities should have different VP values more related to political value than anything else. Could even give some VPs for killed and captured troops (captured troops would be worth more as a source of intel and propaganda).

And while we're at it, find out what cities actually evacuated most of their industry in each year - those cities can evacuate their industry, and if they still have the majority of their industry and are in Soviet hands at the end of the year, the Soviets get a VP bonus. You can evacuate industry from other cities as well, but if you do it in a city that never did, or you are doing it before they historically did it, you lose VPs for it.

There is a similar mechanic in Normandy '44, if the Allies capture certain locations before the end of the game period, its done, they win. If the Allies lose more than a certain number of units, its done, they lose. Note that in neither case is the war over, its about the game. The idea is that you are the senior commander and if you screw it up, you are relieved of duty and the next guy will re-evaluate strategy.

Sometimes the VP requirements are put in solely for the case of the game. Normandy '44 originally didn't have auto-loss conditions for the Allies, but during playtesting they saw Allied players throwing British units at the defences around Caen over and over, with absolutely no regard for casualty levels. So they added a limit to how many units the British or Americans 9seperate value for each) could afford to lose before losing confidence in the commander, it was actually a high value that we never came close to in playing the game, but it was still something to keep in mind, and prevented ridiculous tactics.

At the same time while this was done for game reasons, it still had a basis in reality as well. None of the Western Allies could afford to take high level of casualties indefinitely, and Monty would have been relieved if he had been seen throwing British troops away over and over at Caen (that is what the colonials like the Canadians were for). In WitE a mass retreat with no attempt to fight would have been politically unwise (neither Stalin nor Hitler was in any hurry to surrender land to the enemy), and extremely bad for the morale of the army "the Germans invade mother Russia and we are just supposed to run away?" and the people "The army is evacuating the industry!? Oh no! the Germans must be almost here! PANIC!" (which if the Germans is 30 klicks away is okay, but if they are still a month away, is problematic).

So the Germans would be required to have a certain number of VPs at certain periods (a broad level, but enough to have an idea if they are doing really badly or not), just as the Soviets are for the same reasons. If balanced correctly the Germans should have a real desire to push and not turtle in '41 and '42, and the Soviets should have a reason to try to hold onto land for the same periods*. In fact the VP requirements could be more frequent than once a year. Maybe set it so the Russians need to try to hang onto some land through the end of July, then give them the option to fall back a reasonable amount, but not too far, and no random industry evacuations.

Heck, for real fun, make it somewhat variable. You check your Event Report and at the top it says "you currently have 50 VPs, you must have 45 VPs at the beginning of the next turn or suffer auto-defeat" What!? I was going to evacuate several cities this turn! Grrrrrr!!!!

You could also do lesser effects than complete loss of the game, allowing for varying levels of VP effects. If you are at level A you simply win, if you are at B you get this bonus, if you are below C you suffer this penalty, if you are below D you lose (you suck!) Bonuses and penalties could be a small adjustment to national morale/ AP refresh value/ manpower recruitment levels, or short term bonuses like the supplies generated next turn is changed by 10%, or every unit gets a few points of morale added/ subtracted, or what not. Things that wouldn't be game breaking, but a nice little reward for doing a good job, or kick in the butt reminder that you are not doing well.


* There would still be some gamey "just hold on for one more turn!" and "Okay, everybody run away now!" but I think it would be a big improvement over the current model.

[Godisard]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

But level 3 and 4 is where you start to get complicated. There you start building serious walls, tank traps, dragon's teeth, digging in to the point you are digging trench works and bunkers not foxholes. Level 4 probably involves serious concrete work.

I think any professional military unit with enough manpower should be able to - with time - set up Level 2 entrenchments. But they should be below a certain fatigue level (its hard work), shouldn't be in Refit, and unit morale and experience should affect how quickly they work (it may already be affected by those, but if it isn't, it should).

Level 3 and 4 should require several things - an AP expenditure for each level (even one is something, there is some planning to be done there), supply for each level (they are using up 'stuff' to make these more involved entrenchments), and a construction unit to provide specialized heavier equipment that military units don't usually carry with them (I suppose a regular unit could still do it without a construction unit in their immediate HQ SU pool, or in the same hex, but it would be much slower as they make do without the proper tools). And they still can't be on refit, below a certain fatigue, and the speed is affected by morale and experience. Obviously an 'entrench' toggle (probably on the same button as Reserve and Refit) would be necessary for these higher ranking forts. Could even turn it on for the lower ranking forts to indicate they are digging more quickly - but a unit entrenching isn't going to recover fatigue, and in fact will probably build it up.

Did I mention that it's hard work? [;)]

You're absolutely right. Not every military unit should be able to build level 3 and above fortifications. It's specialized work that should be above the abilities of the attached engineer support units. Perhaps a seperate engineer/construction unit should be introduced into the game and only these units would be able to build level 3 and above fortifications. Both sides should have a limited number of these units so that you would not be able to build heavy fortifications all over the place. It would be historical as well. The Germans used Organization Todt units for heavy construction and the Russians had seperate sapper armies (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapper_army ).

[Encircled]

1)Specialised construction units called something like "Heavy Construction Battalions". If you haven't got one in your army or Corp, you don't build above level 2.

2)RR Construction brigades for the Russian can only do railways and not help in fort construction after November '41

3)A massive pain in the backside for the programmers, but make lvl 3 and lvl 4 take a chunk out of the Arm production of both the Axis and the Allies

4)Only allow fortifications of lvl 3/4 in cities, everywhere else has to be lvl 2

Not easy, as nerfing the fortifications in '41 kills the Russians, and nerfing them after '42 kills the Germans

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

1)Specialised construction units called something like "Heavy Construction Battalions". If you haven't got one in your army or Corp, you don't build above level 2.

2)RR Construction brigades for the Russian can only do railways and not help in fort construction after November '41

3)A massive pain in the backside for the programmers, but make lvl 3 and lvl 4 take a chunk out of the Arm production of both the Axis and the Allies

4)Only allow fortifications of lvl 3/4 in cities, everywhere else has to be lvl 2

Not easy, as nerfing the fortifications in '41 kills the Russians, and nerfing them after '42 kills the Germans

It needn't kill the Soviets if the German offensive is limited some other way. I don't think supply penalties are heavy enough for the Germans at the end of the 41 offensive.

[olivier34]

Interesting discussion about fort levels and morale issue. I have open up the 42 GC. Is the order of battle of this scenario enough accurate ? If yes, we should have seen some situation like that in some AARs by now. Or I never seen both players using the static mode as it is in this scenario. I have never seen such saliants in the front line and if we look at the forts levels of the soviets : Except around moscou and in the area of Leningrad, it's only the main line wich is fortified at level 3(stack of more than one unit)and in the south, only at level 1 or 2 ! And I repeat myself, both players have a large amount of units in static modes.
I suspect that to create a very strong fortification line, it should cost a lot of APs. To launch a major offensive, it should cost a lot of them too (we would not seen anymore the entire soviet front counter attacking during the blizzard) and isolated units in level three forts should be abble to resist from an encirclement more than a week.

[davetheroad]

Whatever is done should be as simple as possible.

Perhaps start with simple code that reduces level 3/4 forts to 2 at the end of the logistics phase.
Release it as a public beta and see what happens.
Do the germans now run riot in 1942?
Is the 42 game balance about right with level 2 and below?
Do the russians really need some 3/4 level forts?
After extensive testing code can be added to bring back the restricted ability to build high level forts.

Thinks, a unit in the middle of nowhere hundreds of miles from the front would not dig in anyway.
Whats the point? which direction are the enemy etc etc plus it is defeatist and might get someone shot.

thinks 2 - german manpower. Does the game feature all those Hiwis that helped the germans out?

[davetheroad]

ORIGINAL: olivier34

Interesting discussion about fort levels and morale issue. I have open up the 42 GC. Is the order of battle of this scenario enough accurate ? If yes, we should have seen some situation like that in some AARs by now. Or I never seen both players using the static mode as it is in this scenario. I have never seen such saliants in the front line and if we look at the forts levels of the soviets : Except around moscou and in the area of Leningrad, it's only the main line wich is fortified at level 3(stack of more than one unit)and in the south, only at level 1 or 2 ! And I repeat myself, both players have a large amount of units in static modes.
I suspect that to create a very strong fortification line, it should cost a lot of APs. To launch a major offensive, it should cost a lot of them too (we would not seen anymore the entire soviet front counter attacking during the blizzard) and isolated units in level three forts should be abble to resist from an encirclement more than a week.

I suspect the static units are there to stop players doing unhistorical things like attacking all along the front.

Stack of 3 units resisting for more than a week reminds me of Brest Litovsk in '41. The russian tank division should not be in the stack because it was not there on the morning of 22 june but was some miles east of Brest towards Kobryn. It was engaged and smashed by 2 panzer divisions, not by a infantry assault in the Brest 'fortress'.

[olivier34]

ok but we as players should have the need to put some part of the front in a static mode.

[squatter]

My suggestion would be:

1. Units build to level 1 and 2 as is the case now.

2. Only FZs and STATIC units can build to 3.

3. To build to 4, same as 2. above, but with added AP cost also.

4. Unoccupied forts reduce MUCH quicker.

5. Soviets lose 1-1 bonus after first blizzard, thus encouraging German adventurism in 42 and 43.

[Scook_99]

How about something like this:

1941-1942: Maximum fort level is 2, unless you are within 8 hexes (arbitrary value for now) of Leningrad and Moscow, and Soviet. 1943+, unlimited fort building. This of course, would require more 1st Blizzard balancing once this is implemented.

I am not a fan of putting this on AP points, unless there are changes to support unit assignment cost.

[Q-Ball]

You have to allow the Soviets to get to lvl 3 in certain places, like around Moscow or Leningrad, where it was certainly historical. Requiring FZ would prohibit this, because they are too expensive for the Reds to buy in 1941, and really too expensive for most of the war.

Note that AP buys are basically Red Army penalties only, because after the first few weeks, the Germans should have plenty of APs to burn. At least I do. The Red Army, on the other hand, is always using APs; it's a limited resource for the Reds.

[lastdingo]

Ready-refit-train-unready  these are the four states afaik. Add a fifth "fortifying" and require this for the production of higher than fort 2 (+ 50%, so fort 2 doesn't get reduced to fort 1 too easily).
It should entail a penalty in case the formation is under attack during its work (maybe -1/3 morale).

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

You have to allow the Soviets to get to lvl 3 in certain places, like around Moscow or Leningrad, where it was certainly historical. Requiring FZ would prohibit this, because they are too expensive for the Reds to buy in 1941, and really too expensive for most of the war.

Note that AP buys are basically Red Army penalties only, because after the first few weeks, the Germans should have plenty of APs to burn. At least I do. The Red Army, on the other hand, is always using APs; it's a limited resource for the Reds.

Someone suggested above to allow level 3 within a number of hexes of cities. That would solve that problem.

FWIW I am out of APs in november 42 as the Axis, so it is not a Soviet only problem, though it is certainly more manageble as the Axis.

[Scook_99]

That is what I am saying above, if you are within so many hexes of Leningrad or Moscow, there is no limit to fortification level at any time, just the rest of the map. I pick just those cities, as Russia fought tooth and nail for them. Probably can add in Kiev, but that would be about it. Then it won't be tied to AP points, I see doing that as a nightmare for the designers. Once 1943 rolls around the limitation rules are lifted. Kinda gamey? Yes. I don't care though, I want something of a quick and dirty fix for play balance, history be damned.

[kvolk]

I know this has been mentioned before but seperate build times solve alot of problems with forts. Then play balance can be tweaked by side. It already is a given both sides have unique operational qualities this would just be more of the same. Not sure technically how much a burden this is for coding but the one size fits all system right now seems to not be the solution.

[Klydon]

So I decided to do some testing on fort building and pay very close attention to what exactly happens.

First, this was a simulated campaign game. I don't have time to play both sides in a regular campaign. Essentially, the Germans passed their first turn, the Russians put themselves into semi neat gatherings on their turn and the Germans surrounded and destroyed a lot of Russians on turn 2 and 3. 2nd Panzer was my test group to advance since it matters if enemy units are close or not. I pushed all combat units out of the Moscow area as quickly as they came in as they would be headed to the "front".

Fast forward to the end of turn 12 when the Russians get some tank brigades. Reminder that tank brigades are basically 1-3 construction value each. I have a test army down by Tula that will be in charge of the first wave of diggers that show up. That HQ has 3 RR brigades and 3 sapper regiments. Stavka is in Moscow and has a pile of sapper regiments called up from a previous turn. The wave of brigades in front of Moscow stay attached to Moscow. As you can see, only two spots where the tank brigades are have had any activity in terms of fortifications.

Germans pass and we get to turn 13. If there is a number next to the tank brigade, that represents where the current fort is in terms of progress (same as putting your cursor over it). Any tank brigade that has a 1 fort level and "0" next to it maxed out digging that turn since you can only gain max 1 level a turn. Some more tank brigades are brought in to start digging.

Turn 14, I bring in another wave of tank brigades and another HQ. The guys in pink belong to the HQ in the box and the guys in red belong to the HQ there. The rest of the tank brigades you see belong to Stavka. Stavka moves out of Moscow to the west a bit and is sitting under 1 of the tank brigades so it can be within 5 of as many tank brigades as possible.

Turn 15, I move a couple of units of PG2 to be within 10 of the line. Turn 16 and 17 are just noting the changes in fortification values.

Now, I could have brought in more tank brigades. At the start of turn 17, the Russians have 86 of them. To a point, that really doesn't matter. I could be using border regiments and still do the same thing. Same goes for depleted whatever you care to mention. Just as long as there is a unit in a hex, there is going to most likely be a big fort in it in nothing flat, regardless of its construction value.

*EDIT* Map was too small to see, so I broke up the original into thirds.

[Klydon]

Next two turns: