Fortifications

[Rhetor]

And the final thread from me:

Some more sophisticated simulation of fortifications should be introduced. For example, in WWI scenarios it would be really nice to have forts, which could be destroyed using "Big Bertas", or 305mm Skodas.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

And the final thread from me:

Some more sophisticated simulation of fortifications should be introduced. For example, in WWI scenarios it would be really nice to have forts, which could be destroyed using "Big Bertas", or 305mm Skodas.

Perhaps. On the one hand, currently in TOAW 100% entrenchment is the maximum, and that can be achieved in a fairly short space of time by combat engineers. Certainly there has been call for support for more impressive fortifications in TOAW in the past.

On the other hand, fortifications are consistently shown in 20th century warfare not to live up to expectations. Fortified hexes give advantages which are not available simply by digging in a unit until it gets that little 'F'. Heavy artillery like the guns you mention do work to 'dig out' fortified defenders. Finally, if you want really formidable fortifications, you can back them up with minor escarpments, or add special fortress units.

[Curtis Lemay]

We could use a way to simulate the Japanese cave defenses they had on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The Maginot-Line type terrain doesn't quite match them.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

We could use a way to simulate the Japanese cave defenses they had on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The Maginot-Line type terrain doesn't quite match them.

Were these cave systems proof against artillery? You could have a terrain type which protects specifically against indirect fire.

[sol_invictus]

Yes, the Japanese cave systems were proof against artillery and plane delivered bombs. Only way to reduce them was with flamethrowers and sachel charges. Very nasty business.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Yes, the Japanese cave systems were proof against artillery and plane delivered bombs. Only way to reduce them was with flamethrowers and sachel charges. Very nasty business.

There you go then. Just make units in such hexes suffer only a fraction of the damage from any long-range equipment.

Minor point as it's an equipment issue (and we can already do this with the BioEd), but I reckon flamethrowers ought to be seperated out from the engineer squad. This allows the designer both to put in extra flamethrowers, and to represent non-combat engineers more easily.

[Rhetor]

Well, forts of varius types added to the unit pool would really ease the work for the WW I scenario designers. Such forts should be almost impregnable for infantry, and fragile when fired on by heavy pieces.

Then in a WW I scenario we would have it realistic. People who wish to capture fortifications using only infantry would mostly fail with heavy losses (as did the Germans in their initial assaults on Liege and the Russians on Przemysl), while using heavy pieces the forts would be knocked out pretty soon.

I don't like fortifications which cannot be destroyed - as is the case with all the features added with the map editor.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

I don't like fortifications which cannot be destroyed - as is the case with all the features added with the map editor.

Thing is, one generally only breaches a fortification rather than destroying it, and the damage can be fairly easily rebuilt. A lot of European fortresses have been taken repeatedly- but they're still there. Przemysl was still a valuable defensive position in 1939.

[Rhetor]

Thing is, one generally only breaches a fortification rather than destroying it, and the damage can be fairly easily rebuilt. A lot of European fortresses have been taken repeatedly- but they're still there. Przemysl was still a valuable defensive position in 1939.

The field fortification percentage, which remains on the map, fulfills that in my opinion. And it excludes the not very realistic issue that the fortified hex border gives all the same bonuses immediately after capture.

Przemysl, after its forts had been destroyed by the Austro-Hungarians prior to the surrender in March 1915, was captured by the German/Austrian troops easily, mostly without resorting to the heaviest artillery. It was still a valuable defensive position, but much less valuable than it had been as a fortress.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Rhetor

I don't like fortifications which cannot be destroyed - as is the case with all the features added with the map editor.

Thing is, one generally only breaches a fortification rather than destroying it, and the damage can be fairly easily rebuilt. A lot of European fortresses have been taken repeatedly- but they're still there. Przemysl was still a valuable defensive position in 1939.

This is why extensive permanent fortifications are best represented by a combination of the fortified hex feature, with an appropriately designed fortress unit.

[Panzer War]

One of the problems with forts in my opinion is that there supply percentage can go no higher than any other unit. Would it be possible to set up the fort units so they can have a supply greater than 150%? Say 400% - 900%, (just a rough guess) think it will give them increased ability to withstand sieges.