Thoughts on Fortifications

[Baelfiin]

Yeah there are so many different things to do 8)

[GrumpyMel]

I'll try to post screenshots when I get a chance. It would be helpful to understand exactly what rules the AI has to face when compared to what rules a human opponent must face. Do the same movement rules apply to the AI that apply to a human player and do they suffer the same attrition/disruption and interdiction from moving through hex's that a human opponent would?

I realize the AI is dumb compared to a human opponent but I get the feeling that the AI is not having to follow all the same rules that a human player would.... simply due to the fact it seems able to shift it's strongest forces from one side of the line to the other in a single turn with no seeming loss of strength...over terrain that it doesn't seem like it should be able to accomplish that movement... and thus seems able to do things in this situation that a human opponent couldn't with the same resources devoted. Maybe I'm mistaken on that and it does have to follow the same rules? I definately don't want to pursue a strategy (like interdiction or hitting alternating sides of the line) that the AI can simply avoid suffering from because it doesn't have to follow the same rules.

Again partialy this is my fault for not the best strategy (hey, I'm still learning) but it seems like the Fort thing is just too strong. With the huge VP loss for Allied casualties...I'm not certain that it even makes sense to fight a war of attrition in Italy or do anything other then land somewhere, establish a 10 hex or so beachhead that can't be broken....and sit there for the rest of the game doing nothing and letting the landings in France and bombing Germany do all the work, VP wise. Sounds pretty gamey but that seems like it would be better from a pure VP perspective then taking the hit for casualties by trying to gain territory in Italy.

I assume a second landing in Italy to do an end run around a defensive line would be a solution... but it's not like you have an unlimited supply of Naval TF's..... do people not pull the ones in the Med. out for the invasion of France?

I still feel it's very counter-intuitive that Ground Striking the heck out of a hex doesn't budge the Fort level any. As a player, I'd consider that the obvious tactic to try to soften up/bust a Fortification BEFORE (or instead of) committing infantry for a full scale assault.

Edit: No matter how many times I hit it or with what...the AI seems to always be able to build up it's Fort levels to 3.10 after an attack, in the hex that was attacked.

[Numdydar]

Well the Allies tried that at Mount Cristo and all they did was make it a better defensive position [:@] So having airpower directly affect forts is not historical. Otherwise Normandy could have just been bombed to rubble and the Allies just walk ashore [:)]

Italy shows that there was a reason for Anzio as the RL commanders thought progress was too slow as well. So now you know how they felt too. A sign of a good game imho [:)]

[Baelfiin]

You must be hungry numdydar, thinking about monte cristo sandwich [:)]

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

...go around them

You'll never win assaulting head first into a fort line, it's best to flank them with another invasion.

Art of war 101, don't attack where your opponent is strong.

This is reason why Germans when they invaded France never attacked trough Maginot line they went trough Holland and Belgium and bypassed Maginot line.

[GrumpyMel]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

...go around them

You'll never win assaulting head first into a fort line, it's best to flank them with another invasion.

Art of war 101, don't attack where your opponent is strong.

This is reason why Germans when they invaded France never attacked trough Maginot line they went trough Holland and Belgium and bypassed Maginot line.

Except eventualy when they did decide to get around to attacking it... they got through it in 1 day with standard infantry attacks

"The Maginot Line was widely believed to be impregnable, and for all I know there may still be those who think that the fortifications could have resisted any attack. It may be of interest to point out that the Maginot defenses were breached in a few hours by a normal infantry attack, without any tank support whatsoever. The German infantry advanced under cover of a heavy air and artillery bombardment in which lavish use was made of smoke shell. They soon found that many of the French strongpoints were not proof against shells or bombs, and moreover, a large number of postions had not been sited for all around defense and were easy to attack from the blind side with grenades and flamethrowers. The Maginot Line lacked depth, and taken as a whole the position was far inferior to many defensive systems developed later in the war. In modern war it is in any case unsound to rely on static defense, but as far as the Maginot Line was concerned the fortifications had only a moderate local value."

F.W. von Mellinthin -chief of staff -197th Infantry div

[GrumpyMel]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well the Allies tried that at Mount Cristo and all they did was make it a better defensive position [:@] So having airpower directly affect forts is not historical. Otherwise Normandy could have just been bombed to rubble and the Allies just walk ashore [:)]

Italy shows that there was a reason for Anzio as the RL commanders thought progress was too slow as well. So now you know how they felt too. A sign of a good game imho [:)]

I think Monte Cassino is a bit of an exception to the rule... I mean it was a medieval abby/fortress built on a perfect defensive hilltop. I could see the same for bombing/shelling urban centers not making them much easier to assault. That should be a natural feature of the terrain.

What we are talking about with Fort levels (at least as far as I can see the logic of how they are represented) is what a bunch of infantry guys...not even Engineers can accomplish in a matter of a couple weeks, in their spare time with shovels. That's digging some trenches, setting up some sandbagged positions, laying out some barbed wire, setting out some mines or tank-traps...maybe a quick concrete bunker or two.

You really want to tell me that a few sand bags and some concertina wire in a farmers field should be essentialy impervious to damage by concentrated bombing, artillery shelling and escalated assault by engineers and armored vehicles?

I get that maybe serious hill and mountanous terrain and urban terrain should naturaly be difficult to assault.....but these Forts that are doubling and tripling CV's are being created on every hex on the map simply by normal combat units occupying them and being created in a matter of DAYS, maybe a 2-3 weeks even while the unit is in active contact with the enemy. It's just absurd that they aren't sustaining significant damage from that....or that I have to commit a full scale frontal assault just to get my bombers to hit some sandbagged strong-points hard enough to do some damage.

I should be able to pulverize those improvised defenses from the air...or with artillery... and at most have to commit a probing attack to see if they have been weakened enough to throw a full scale assualt at them.... and they really should not be able to sustain those defensive fortifications indefinately in a single hex...if I'm sending every single plane in the Med. to bomb it.... if the hex is unassailable then it should be unassailable by simple virtue of it's terrain features...not because some riflemen with shovels spent a few days digging foxholes.

Edit: From a gameplay standpoint.... damage should be occuring during the Air Resolution Phase with Ground Strikes (and I really think it should be much more significant then it is, as a rule).... and then the player should be able to decide in the Land Phase... yeah, it looks weak enough that I really want to throw a full scale assault on it... or no, it's not been hammered enough yet that I want to throw troops into the meat grinder.... lets hammer it for another week or 2 and see if that weakens it.

[RedLancer]

Thought it might be worth posting the approximate fort level definitions that el hefe and I use in scenario design.

Level 1 - Hasty dug-in defensive positions with some earthen (just dirt) overhead cover. Heavy weapons are in basic defilade without overhead cover. Minimal camoflague. Can be accomplished within a week.

Level 2 - Continued position improvement with squad trenches and crew served weapons pits. Moderate camouflage. Additional week or two.

Level 3 - Connected trench networked system with both primary and alternate dug-in positions. Crew served positions in earthen bunkers with overhead cover. Additional week or two. More extensive camouflage. Typical WW1 or static eastern front positions.

Level 4 - Introduction of interlocking concrete field fortifications with elaborate defensive engineering works - tank traps, minefields, etc. Examples are the Panther Line and West Wall. Field units should not be able to build these on their own and require substantial engineering assets and planning. 3-6 months.

Level 5 - The only true "forts" in the game. Massive defensive works that take years to build. Examples are the Maginot Line and Sevastapol.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: NotOneStepBack

...go around them

You'll never win assaulting head first into a fort line, it's best to flank them with another invasion.

Art of war 101, don't attack where your opponent is strong.

This is reason why Germans when they invaded France never attacked trough Maginot line they went trough Holland and Belgium and bypassed Maginot line.

Except eventualy when they did decide to get around to attacking it... they got through it in 1 day with standard infantry attacks

"The Maginot Line was widely believed to be impregnable, and for all I know there may still be those who think that the fortifications could have resisted any attack. It may be of interest to point out that the Maginot defenses were breached in a few hours by a normal infantry attack, without any tank support whatsoever. The German infantry advanced under cover of a heavy air and artillery bombardment in which lavish use was made of smoke shell. They soon found that many of the French strongpoints were not proof against shells or bombs, and moreover, a large number of postions had not been sited for all around defense and were easy to attack from the blind side with grenades and flamethrowers. The Maginot Line lacked depth, and taken as a whole the position was far inferior to many defensive systems developed later in the war. In modern war it is in any case unsound to rely on static defense, but as far as the Maginot Line was concerned the fortifications had only a moderate local value."

F.W. von Mellinthin -chief of staff -197th Infantry div

By the time the Maginot line was attacked the interval troops had been withdrawn. These were a key component of the defence, and without them the line is like a brick wall without any mortar...

The line was not impregnable (even with interval troops) in 1940, but progress would have been slow and expensive.... bit like the game really!

[cmunson]

Thought it might be worth posting the approximate fort level definitions that el hefe and I use in scenario design.
Level 1 - Hasty dug-in defensive positions with some earthen (just dirt) overhead cover. Heavy weapons are in basic defilade without overhead cover. Minimal camoflague. Can be accomplished within a week.
Level 2 - Continued position improvement with squad trenches and crew served weapons pits. Moderate camouflage. Additional week or two.
Level 3 - Connected trench networked system with both primary and alternate dug-in positions. Crew served positions in earthen bunkers with overhead cover. Additional week or two. More extensive camouflage. Typical WW1 or static eastern front positions.
Level 4 - Introduction of interlocking concrete field fortifications with elaborate defensive engineering works - tank traps, minefields, etc. Examples are the Panther Line and West Wall. Field units should not be able to build these on their own and require substantial engineering assets and planning. 3-6 months.
Level 5 - The only true "forts" in the game. Massive defensive works that take years to build. Examples are the Maginot Line and Sevastapol.

Red Lancer

John, I agree with your fort level definitions completely. Given that, might we not see more level 4 starting forts in the 43 Campaign, especially Siegfried Line (West Wall) and maybe some of the Atlantic Wall hexes in the Pas de Calais region?

[GrumpyMel]

Alright, so I did check the movement points listed in the manual and theoretically a human opponent could just barely have pulled off the move the computer made with the HG panzer division. 5 hex's over rough terrain and 2 over clear terrain in the mud on Italian roads.... so it's not a blatant cheat at least... which leaves me with some issues about unsatisfying design from a play perspective.......

- I still say fortifications are too impervious to damage, especialy air and heavy artillery. When you have something like a 4 strength unit on offense have over 150 CV on defense and only in a level 3 Fort that's crazy... it makes for a replay of WWI not WWII and sucks from a player enjoyment factor.

- You should be able to hit Forts from the air in the Air Execution phase (and frankly with Artillery bombardments too) in order to try to degrade them BEFORE committing to a full scale ground assault. That would be important from just a resource usage perspective but becomes CRITICAL due to the huge VP loss the Allies suffer for casualties. An allied commander should have some option to evaluate whether Artillery/Air has damaged the Forts to a reasonable degree before plunging all his forces head-long into a full scale frontal assault... right now the only way to even try to degrade Forts is 1 full scale assault after another with no player control about calling the infantry off if the Forts obviously haven't been softened up by bombardment.

- A unit shouldn't be able to expend it's full movement and enjoy the full benefits of the fortifications it's moving into. This would solve alot of the "warp from one side of the line to another" issue which is very unsatisfying from a play perspective. A unit that has just executed a full march and is just putting it's troops in place wouldn't enjoy the same benefits from one that has sat tight and adjusted it's troops for optimal benefit from the defenses. I realize we are dealing with week long turns and a U-go/I-go system but there have to be some gameplay compromises to compensate for the lack of granularity in that. It's not like, given the current rules an attacker could time his assault to take advantage of a changing out of the guard and units switching positions. There should be some benefit for a defender sitting tight and holding position as opposed to playing leap frog.

- Likewise a unit in full contact with the enemy and under repeated assault shouldn't have the same capacity to rebuild defenses that one sitting behind the lines and not needing to worry about getting fired upon would. It doesn't make sense and it's a horrible game-play mechanic. As an attacker, you need to at least be able to slowly degrade defensive positions over time...if you have the air power and artillery to continously pound them...yes, the defender should be able to fall back to a second line right behind the first..

- Finally the AI on "easy" or "normal" settings shouldn't be playing it's best game. It certainly shouldn't have the rapid and aggressive response to invasions that it seems to.... and it should
be making mistakes in how it redresses it's line or arranges counter-attacks on a not too infrequent basis for the player to take advantage of.... that's the whole point of difficulty settings.... to allow the player who wants an easier game to make some mistakes and recover from them... right now, it seems the only ways to do that are pretty gamey. I get that the AI on more difficult settings should present the best challenge it can..... and I get that you guys who have been playing beta for years and know the game engine inside and out....and have probably been playing the series for decades can beat the AI blind-folded... but I think you maybe forget that folks brand new to the game and the series want something they can play as a learning game to get familiar with the series and the engine a bit without banging their head into a brick wall. It's tough enough just getting used to how the interfaces and rules work (and I've been playing wargames for decades... Advanced Squad Leader anyone.... so it's not like I can't do the grognard thing) without having to choose between "really frustrating", "really, really frustrating" and "impossibly frustrating" for an AI opponent when they are actualy labeled "easy" and "normal"


P.S. If you still want me to post a save... let me know.

[LiquidSky]

Play the Breakout and Pursuit scenario. Just the first turn. Try different air doctrines, pump the divisions full of support units. You will be surprised at how easy it is to get through those level 2 and 3 forts with the proper application of force.

Fly maximum Recon on the hexes on and around where you are going to attack. You need to bomb the units you are going to attack. Interdict the hex and hexes behind you are going to attack. Air superiority over the hexes you are going to interdict and attack to prevent the enemy from doing same. Ground support air for the attack. 3 support units in every division that is attacking. Unit integrity: All units attacking part of the same Corp HQ or at least Army HQ. Fly Air Transports to make sure all your units have maximum supplies for next turn.

Make sure those bombing runs are at max missions per day, and every day. They will have time to rest when your troops are resting. Don't be afraid to bomb units with multiple missions.

Check that your Corp commander is decent on attacking with mech and/or infantry.

I look at a fixed position as a chance for my troops and air force to rest up so I can apply sudden overwhelming force.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Heavy artillery and engineers will reduce them, are they being committed in your ground battles?

Yes, on every single attack. I've got the entire Tactical Air Force on Ground Support
(and the entire 15th Air Force is assigned to Ground Strike the same hex in the Air Phase)
most divisions have a combat engineer attached ... the symbol shows in the attack box....
and Corps and Army HQ's have artillery units attached and are near the Front Line....
I generaly massively outnumber the amount of tubes the enemy has committed to a fight.

I do tend to budge the Fort Levels a little but with such full scale assault...but it's like .02 or .04 on each attack....maybe if I get really lucky I'll move it .4 or something like that but the enemy rebuilds it something like .5 on each turn....and if it does get weakened, they instantly warp in the HG and another heavy unit (I think an SS PzGr division) from 1 spot in the line to another... no matter how far away they are... so the weakened spot becomes kinda unassailable...I face something like a 200+ defensive
CV in that hex the next turn. That's completely unrealistic.... (and unsatisfying gameplay) no way a defender should be able to maintain fort levels in a hex that is subject to repeated heavy bombing and artillery strikes..... Heck, you should be able to knock out Fort levels just from repeated bombing alone....without even committing a ground attack.... and certainly as a prelude to a ground attack.

Your problem is 15.3.2.6

Chances are your combat odds are horrible, les then 1 to 2 odds or worse.

I am not having issues dropping fort levels.

Also leaders are the key to ground combat. You can have more planes, tanks, men ect ect and still loss because of poor leadership rolls.

This is a very much over looked part of WitW along with unit morale.

[Baelfiin]

Pelton speaks truth. Would like to see some of your combat reports maybe see what is happening, loadouts on your bombers etc. Im not having any problems clearing forts one hex at a time in Italy, but it takes an all out effort. Disruptions are the key sometimes, and it may take more than one attack in a turn to clear a particularly nasty hex, especially if its defended by high morale troops.

[Peltonx]

Son you simply lake the skills.

I could post 20+ pictures but I am fighting 5 game WitW and 2 WitE so I am kinda busy, but I post 4 just because I like showing off my skills.

[Peltonx]

2

[Peltonx]

3

[Peltonx]

ect ect 20+ more but back to fighting.

That's all from 1 game, so dropping forts is easy IF you do it right.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6On497 ... 8&index=64

[HMSWarspite]

We also need to consider historical experience on attacking fortifications. WW1 (and WW2) showed that artillery is remarkably bad at attacking dug in enemy. You need huge amounts to do things, the majority of the effects are morale/fatigue rather than death and destruction. The only real way to neutralise fortifications is to make small (in game hex terms) advances to deprive the defender of the ground that is fortified, which is best done with tactical (observed) shoots in support of immediate attacks. There are almost no cases of the entrenchment or bunker being destroyed in quantity. . Thus the lack of Ww1 style preparatory bombardments is not at issue. They achieved little.

On the second issue, taking over fortifications, I do not see an issue here. Light (level 1) don't take long to create anyway. Heavier ones will still be there, and assuming they were competently designed to begin with, will be optimised for terrain. Tidyingup a trench is much faster than digging from scratch. The lack of familiarity with terrain is easily fixed by use of advanced parties... 1 man per company for a day hand over and most info is preserved.

[GrumpyMel]

Pelton,

- Yes my problem is that my combat odds are horrible. No way with stacking limitations I can pack enough troops into 2 or even 3 hex's to get better then 1 to 1 odds against units who have CV's of over 200.

- Yes, I have lousy skills at WitW, I'm SUPPOSED to have lousy skills, it's my first game ever in the WitW/WitE series. I'm not embarrassed by that. That's what playing an EASY level game against the AI is supposed to be about...learning to play the system. Essentially you are telling someone that the first time they pick up a golf club they are going to end up way above par... no kidding. It doesn't, however, disqualify me from making comments about how the game plays... particulary if the Developers are ever interested in getting someone NEW to their series to play their games and buy their products... a fresh perspective from a new player can be informative in that regards.... and it's not like I'm brand new to wargames...I've played a ton, even designed some popular scenario's... just not ever played THIS one.

- I'll note, however, that all your pic's involve you as the Axis player counter-attacking an Allied player that has landed a beachhead in clear terrain, WAY up the Italian coast. Kind of apples and oranges to my situation.


HMSWarspite,

- I'm going to respectfully disagree with your conclusions. I can offer tons of examples but the best example is that WWII didn't end in a stale-mate. We did beat our way up the Italian Peninsula, slowly but we did. We did breach the Atlantic Wall. We did break the Axis defenses in Cobra, we did breach the Siegfried Line, we did cross the Rhine, etc. The Allies (and frankly the Axis too) didn't put a ton of resources into artillery support and air-power (and armor) because a simple trench line was impervious to them and could defeat them. They did it because sufficient air and artillery concentration could blast away pretty much any fixed defenses.... certainly ones that could be constructed in only a couple weeks.... and allow assaults against them to work. If you are trying to tell me that it couldn't and didn't happen....then I'm not quite sure what to say.

Edit: And as to the lack of preparatory bombardments in WWII, I'll simply provide the following citation describing the bombardment proceeding the COBRA offensive....

"Cobra got underway at 09:38 on 25 July, when around 600 Allied fighter-bombers attacked strongpoints and enemy artillery along a 300 yd (270 m)-wide strip of ground located in the St. Lô area.[76] For the next hour, 1,800 heavy bombers of the U.S. Eighth Air Force saturated a 6,000 yd × 2,200 yd (5,500 m × 2,000 m) area on the Saint-Lô–Periers road, succeeded by a third and final wave of medium bombers.[77] Approximately 3,000 U.S. aircraft had carpet-bombed a narrow section of the front, with the Panzer-Lehr-Division taking the brunt of the attack...."