Soviet Fortified Region Strategy

[wga8888]

I have played a few scenarios and now a few early campaign games, all vs people. Hard for me to judge how effective Soviet fortified regions are and how many should be built. Past forum posts speak by one of only building one next to Leningrad, that may be an extreme. Operation Typhoon starts with a string of forts in front of Moscow, while the Soviet army is largely isolated and destroyed on GT1. I would appreciate insight as to how many people build in 1941 campaign game play. I assume they are costly in both arms in addition to APs. However quality soviet units are the frontier army as the newly arriving units are largely shells, lacking TOE and morale to be placed at the front.

[Nix77]

I'd try to build FZs on the key hexes along the Moscow approach: Yelnya, Spas-Demyansk, Moskva-Lama landbridge, clear hex south of Rzhev, clear hex north of Vyazma, clear hex north of Kaluga, Moskva-Nara landbridge and clear hexes on the Volga north of Rzhev as the main candidates. If you have a strong enough unit helping the FZ to dig, you might have time to dig a 2+ fort, at least to hexes close to Moscow. Problem is that the FZs need to gain XP to get effective, and that's usually too slow against a good German. Yelnya for example might be a too early target for an FZ to be effective enough.

In other places, at least the Crimean isthmus might provide useful to be fortified, and also other key hexes south of Neva on the Leningrad approach, with the backdoor being priority one there as you mentioned.

[Stelteck]

Fortified zone have little fighting power, the best use i think is to built fortification in advance. With 1 to 3 sapper regiments attached, they built quite fast in town and key location.

It is also the only way to built level 4 fortifications in key cities and level 3 fortifications in open ground away from ennemis line.

They are also an expensive way to maintain fortifications without using combat units.

Disband it when the ennemy reach it to avoid loosing their surrender.

For combat, artillery attached to fortified zone are supposed to have a bonus, but attaching 3 artillery support to a zone is very expensive and i'am not sûre it is worth the price. Maybe some testing have to be done. Artillery support units are not so efficient and do not do so much damage whatsoever in normal situation. Even a +100% bonus would not really change a lot.

[wga8888]

Can I assume a good infantry unit in a fortified zone defends better than just a good infantry unit by itself?

[Stelteck]

Fortified zone do not provide combat bonus for others troops.

[wga8888]

It seems I was under the impression that FZ are fortifications, of improved defense as in west wall, etc. It seems their purpose is only to enhance the creation of fortification level, not serve as an actual fort?

[Stelteck]

A fortified zone in battle is like a giant artillery support unit. All the guns inside (anti tank, artillerie, etc..) do some damage in the combat phase, but as there is little infantry&tanks, the combat value (CV) in calculation of the final combat result of the fortified zone is quite low.

And you have also to consider that the fortified zone cannot retreat, so you will loose all these guns after one lost battle. It is not really cost effective.

Most player disband the fortified zone before it see battle, as soon as the fortification have the right level and can be manned by a proper combat unit.

[wga8888]

Just to clarify. I have a long established fort line, each hex manned by a 'good' infantry unit in terms of TOE & Morale (cv of about 7), fortification level now at 2. The enemy line is closing in. Should I be disbanding the forts?

[Stelteck]

If line is involved in combat, yes disband them. (Fortified zone can be disbanded even in contact with the ennemy).

Before the ennemy reach it, if you have 2/3 turns, you could also move your combat troops one hex forward to create quickly a new line of defense while the fortified zone maintain it in the rear.