Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)?

[Altaris]

I don't have much experience as Soviets, but my best guess is that the forts are going up so quickly due to construction SU's. Perhaps it's too easy to build too many of these early on? I can see the argument for needing forts to go up faster later on (and I largely agree it should get easier later in the war due to techniques improving, etc). Maybe an increase in the AP cost to build construction SU's and/or a stronger limit on how many can be built early on?

[karonagames]

I don't have much experience as Soviets, but my best guess is that the forts are going up so quickly due to construction SU's.

I've never really had a problem with this ploy, as the CBs cost APs, and any APs spent on CBs can't be used to move top generals to key sectors of the front. As noted in another thread - Leaders are more important than entrenchments.

[Altaris]

All I'm saying is there's something very wrong if the Soviet player can move into a hex and have it built up to lvl 1 forts that turn, during mud, when movement and fortification levels are at their lowest.

Let's take a very generous hypotheticial situation:

1) Let's say that this 3-stack of units has a total of 21 construction points (no idea if this is correct, again don't play Soviets, just ballparking, but I would think that's consistent with what I've seen of '41 Rifle Divs)
2) It's mud, so that 21 gets multiplied by 0.33, that's roughly 7 net points.
3) Multiply this by 3 for it being a lvl 1 fort being constructed, back up to 21.
4) Let's assume he didn't use any of these to attack (I'm pretty sure he did, but can't recall for sure), but instead just moved with these units. It's mud, so even being generous, moving into an enemy hex that's in enemy ZOC should be at least 50%. So that means the net should be, at the very most, 10 points.
5) Now, I'm making the assumption that const. SU's get penalized by a 0.33 multiplier for mud... otherwise, I think that would be a bug. So assuming that offsets the x3 multiplier for lvl 1 forts, that means construction units are contributing, at the very least, 40 points to this one hex alone. That's a huge amount, 4x the amount given by the units themselves!

I don't know, something just feels off. I can definitely say I don't feel as though I was stopped by tactics, or by logistics, but by an insurmountable wall of lvl 3 forts stretching 5-6 hexes deep. And this was in late September, early October 1941. Simply killed any forward momentum, as moving more than 3-4 hexes deep in 1 turn was next to impossible.

Much has been made of Axis players' inexperience. What seems to be left off of this is the same inexperience on the Soviet side. As Soviets learn they can insta-build forts to lvl 3 in 3, maybe 4 turns, I think we'll start seeing uncrackable defenses well short of historical gains in 1941. I keep hearing alot about summer super Germans, but I can tell you they aren't able to knock down lvl 3 forts with any super ease.

[marty_01]

I recall reading a number of operational studies put together under the auspices of the US Army -- post war -- with the intent of getting a handle on Soviet Combat capabilities. Obviously it was of keen interest on the part of the US Army during the Cold War. Many of these are based upon extensive interviewing process with German soldiers and officers who had fought against the Red Army during WWII. Most of these had been published and republished a number of times over the years and can be found with only a small amount of elbow grease -- ala "Military Aspects of Russian Forests and Swamps" -- "Small unit Tactics on the Eastern Front" etc etc etc...

One of the stronger underlying hard knocks lessons learned by the German Army on the Eastern front was the importance of rapid counterattacks on Soviet Bridgeheads or key terrain features -- hills - defiles -- etc. this being a function of the reported rapidity with which Soviet Infantry was able to dig-in and fortify a position.

But that aside, there are large numbers of combat engineering manuals floating about for those inclined toward such research. The better field manuals typically detail time rates at which trench work, bunker construction, wire entanglement construction, minefield placement, laying field phone wires between fighting positions or between forward observer positions and supporting artillery can be constructed or established.

Forts – in my opinion -- also represent things other than improving a position via earthwork. It also represents the defender developing range cards, surveying the terrain around him and concentrating his combat power along most obvious routes of advance within a given defensive sector. Zeroing artillery or developing concentrations – or whatever the Soviet and/or German equivelent term might be for pre-registration of defensive artillery fires. All of these things are done routinely and rapidly as a matter of course (or should I say a matter of survival).

But in terms of earthwork, having looked at fair bit of this sort of information over the years, my personal opinion is that the current game engines entrenchment rates are fine. I'd actually suggest that if anything, the entrenchment rates are perhaps too slow and too variable for forts of say class-1 or class-2. But as I say there isn't really a reason to do a huge amount of guess work on the subject as there are already excellent engineering field manuals from both World War 1 and World War 2 that provide pretty solid time rates for excavation work -- wire entanglement work -- bunker construction -- minefield placement -- etc etc etc.

It "feels" wrong should actually be substituted with: "these are entrenchment rates from the following source\sources". Based upon this research and this information my conclusion is that in-game rates of entrenchment are: A) "too slow" B) "just right" or C) "too fast". At least that's my opinion on how a person would approach this sort of question. Research -- than present the facts and the sources, than let the designers mull over the information and make their own decision on the subject.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Altaris

All I'm saying is there's something very wrong if the Soviet player can move into a hex and have it built up to lvl 1 forts that turn, during mud, when movement and fortification levels are at their lowest.

Let's take a very generous hypotheticial situation:

1) Let's say that this 3-stack of units has a total of 21 construction points (no idea if this is correct, again don't play Soviets, just ballparking, but I would think that's consistent with what I've seen of '41 Rifle Divs)

A "normal" rifle division in 1941 displays a "construction points" value of around 20-30. I don't know it this is the value you are using in your calculations, but it seems as if a stack of 3 units could have around 70-80 of those points.

[Altaris]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: Altaris

All I'm saying is there's something very wrong if the Soviet player can move into a hex and have it built up to lvl 1 forts that turn, during mud, when movement and fortification levels are at their lowest.

Let's take a very generous hypotheticial situation:

1) Let's say that this 3-stack of units has a total of 21 construction points (no idea if this is correct, again don't play Soviets, just ballparking, but I would think that's consistent with what I've seen of '41 Rifle Divs)

A "normal" rifle division in 1941 displays a "construction points" value of around 20-30. I don't know it this is the value you are using in your calculations, but it seems as if a stack of 3 units could have around 70-80 of those points.

Well, that would help explain it. That also seems way too much, considering that it only takes about 16 points to get to lvl 1 forts, 50 to get lvl 2, 150 to get to lvl 3. That means that even without assistance of SU's, the construction value is more than enough to entrench to lvl 3 in about 4 turns, if there's 3 rifle divs stacked in a hex.

I just don't see how the Axis are going to reasonably advance once the Soviet players get the knack for super-building forts. BTW, that's the counter for "German supermen" in summer. Once those forts get to lvl 3, it's much more an even playing field.

[alfonso]

Altaris,

however, I don't know if the value reflected in the unit information display is subsequently modified by fatigue and experience, or it is already "corrected" by those factors. In any case, for comparison purposes, a construction brigade has about 40 construction points. But yes, 3 Rifle Divisions have a nice potential to dig, you are right in that point. In the other side, you can consider that, with so many hexes to defend, it might not be as usual as you imagine to place 3 Divisions in the same hex.

You have also to take into account that the civil population helps in the digging works (perhaps that is what you saw), but only at full capacity when there are enemies around, well, there are a lot of factors at work. And if the enemy is more than 25 hexes away, forts higher than 2 cannot be built. So if it takes months to upgrade to 3 and then to 4, then it could perfectly be that there is not enough time to fully fortify...

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

think this problem impacts on several factors in the game, modifiers that work in 1941 are not appropriate for later in the war and vice-versa. Complicated, but could modifiers vary for each side and each period of the war, or recommended setting be given for manual setting ?

Why would spades become more effective or less effective dependant an the date? Maybe experience levels could be a factor - untrained squaddies don't dig as efficiently as trained squaddies?

I don't see this mechanic being any less self-balancing than many of the other game functions. If the Sovs use diggers in the rear, they can't be in the front lines as well.

I do think empty entrenchments should deteriorate quicker, and I think a minimum construction value should be required to maintain them if they are lvl 3+. I also think that in Mud (and possibly blizzard) they should not increase, and again have a minimum construction level to maintain them or they have a chance to decrease.

Preparing fortifications is principally about, organisation, transport, materials, communication systems , etc., no use digging unless there is a plan behind it, if it were only spades I would agree, but higher levels of fortification need a lot more than spades. [:)]

[Altaris]

Just as follow up, got the next turn back, and indeed forts had gone up to lvl 2 from lvl 1 in just 1 turn.

This is around Vyzama, so I think it's out of range of any major urban area lending aid, I'd have to check the rules again on that.

This confirms that it's quite possible with 3 divisions in a hex to go from lvl 2 to lvl 3 in one turn (since the 0.33 mud multiplier basically makes lvl 1 -> 2 the same as 2 -> 3 in clear weather).

I'm majorly, majorly disappointed in this. Mud is the absolute worst time to build forts by modifiers, and yet here they've gone up to lvl 2 in just 2 turns. This would confirm, IMO, that the construction rates are way too fast. With a really solid build plan, Soviets are going to wreck complete havoc on German players with some experience behind them.

[Zort]

As I get ready for my summer offensive in 42 against my human opponent I noticed that he has units 3 or 4 deep across the entire line.  I am suspecting that these guys are all digging in.  When I inspect the 42 GC I don't see that the russians really did that.  Then I look at the game scale, 10 miles per hex and I think there is an issue with unit size and hex size when it comes to building fortifications.  I have a recommended tempering of fort building (not to include speed).

1.  Brigades/regts not be allowed to build fortifications.  They are just too small a unit to build 10 miles of fortifications and don't have the assets to do so.
2.  Divs/ Sov corps: can only build to level 2 forts without attaching eng/construction SUs.
3.  Divs/ Sov corps: with attached eng/const SUs can build lvl 3 forts.
4.  Level 4 forts can only be built within 2 hexes of a city/urban hex by divs/corps.

I think this might mitigate some of the summer of 42 multi hex lvl 3-4 forts.  I know the game mechanics allow this but when you think of 10 miles of fortification per hex 3 or 4 hexes deep for 120+ hexes that is a staggering amount.  Not sure what everyone else thinks but something like this and/or lengthening the time to build them outside the area of a city/urban area would help.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Altaris

Just as follow up, got the next turn back, and indeed forts had gone up to lvl 2 from lvl 1 in just 1 turn.

This is around Vyzama, so I think it's out of range of any major urban area lending aid, I'd have to check the rules again on that.

This confirms that it's quite possible with 3 divisions in a hex to go from lvl 2 to lvl 3 in one turn (since the 0.33 mud multiplier basically makes lvl 1 -> 2 the same as 2 -> 3 in clear weather).

I'm majorly, majorly disappointed in this. Mud is the absolute worst time to build forts by modifiers, and yet here they've gone up to lvl 2 in just 2 turns. This would confirm, IMO, that the construction rates are way too fast. With a really solid build plan, Soviets are going to wreck complete havoc on German players with some experience behind them.

Do you think the super-forts will be able to stop Oleg's German summer41 Supermen?

[Zort]

I love Oleg's German supermen, I haven't found them yet as the german so I wish he would send me some.

[hfarrish]

As Zort's human opponent, I am actually ok with these changes. The only thing is that you can't attach engineers to divisions as the Soviets and you don't have corps, so I think it would have to be limited to HQs that don't have construction battalions or engineers. Also in favor of not having brigades fortify (except maybe in cities where they can threaten the locals with a bullet in the back if they don't haul their shovel out to the field).

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: Altaris

All I'm saying is there's something very wrong if the Soviet player can move into a hex and have it built up to lvl 1 forts that turn, during mud, when movement and fortification levels are at their lowest.

Let's take a very generous hypotheticial situation:

1) Let's say that this 3-stack of units has a total of 21 construction points (no idea if this is correct, again don't play Soviets, just ballparking, but I would think that's consistent with what I've seen of '41 Rifle Divs)

A "normal" rifle division in 1941 displays a "construction points" value of around 20-30. I don't know it this is the value you are using in your calculations, but it seems as if a stack of 3 units could have around 70-80 of those points.

Makes me ponder if maybe the issue might be the 'aggregation' of constructions points. 70-80 would build forts fast but lets think about keeping it on a unit basis. Rather than 70-80 building for the entire hex, each unit should be building for itself and only when ALL units in the hex reach a fort level does the hex fort level rise. Would this not be more realistic? Curious as to other's thoughts.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: Altaris

All I'm saying is there's something very wrong if the Soviet player can move into a hex and have it built up to lvl 1 forts that turn, during mud, when movement and fortification levels are at their lowest.

Let's take a very generous hypotheticial situation:

1) Let's say that this 3-stack of units has a total of 21 construction points (no idea if this is correct, again don't play Soviets, just ballparking, but I would think that's consistent with what I've seen of '41 Rifle Divs)

A "normal" rifle division in 1941 displays a "construction points" value of around 20-30. I don't know it this is the value you are using in your calculations, but it seems as if a stack of 3 units could have around 70-80 of those points.

Makes me ponder if maybe the issue might be the 'aggregation' of constructions points. 70-80 would build forts fast but lets think about keeping it on a unit basis. Rather than 70-80 building for the entire hex, each unit should be building for itself and only when ALL units in the hex reach a fort level does the hex fort level rise. Would this not be more realistic? Curious as to other's thoughts.

I was actually thinking something similar Mynok.

If you have 3 divisions in the hex you need to build 3X as large a fortification infrastructure to protect them. If that's the case, then the fortification rate should probably scale with something like construction points/men in hex.

I suppose the other thing to think about is there's a difference between fortification strength and fortification size.

I could, for example, have a really well dug in regimental size position (fort level 4), but park 3 divisions in the hex in which case most of my forces wouldn't be in fortifications at all. That'd probably be the best model from a reaslism standpoint, but I suspect it'd be difficult to model in game.

[Mynok]

I don't think unit-based tracking would be too hard if designed in from the beginning, but it may very well be so at this point, requiring significant changes to data structures and code.

Plus there's the issue of changes in control to consider. What is lost when the units in forts are retreated? How much is still there if they move back, per the scenario specified originally?

Perhaps the easiest way to handle this is multiply construction costs by the number of units? Sure, one could enhance a units build rate with sappers and construction units and get it up to high level forts quickly. But it will still be just one unit. Of course, one must then define how additional units moving into the hex would alter the fort ratio, but I think that could be done without massive changes.

[VictorCharlie]

Yes I agree there is something wrong with entrenchments and build rates.

In my 41-45 campaigns I started my 1942 (axis) offensive in May to find a sea (well 4-5 hexes deep) of level 4 and 3 defences. Yes it felt like I was playing Kursk with advances of 1 to 2 hexes the norm only to find more 2 to 3 level entrenchments spring up behind the lines as I went.

Now if you open the Operation Blue scenario, which I assume is based on historical research as to what the situation was like then on the ground, you find a front line of Lvl 1 and 2 entrenchments with units in the rear not entrenched at all.

I know I didn’t retreat much in my campaign so front line did not change as much as historically but still something is not working right.

I think the AI not being limited to the amount of APs (adimin points) it has allows it to build too many units to make these Maginot lines.

Yes some limit on 3 to 4 level needs be brought in as well.
Suggestions such as Zorts make sense.

Even using APs to construct lvl 3 and 4 to represent the real commitment of resources to build these type of defences.
Maybe even bringing in more levels (higher) to represent heavily entrenched locations. Kursk, Sevastopol and such.

[Caranorn]

Just a few notes. As stated by a few others, I have no problem with level 1 and 2 fortifications appearing fast (one per turn for a reasonably good shaped division). Anything beyond that I think should require engineer capacities beyond the division's organic capacity. Simply because those higher fortification levels should mean more than a trench and foxhole system with minefields and preplanned fire lanes. No levels 3 and above should include some semi-permanent obstacles, use of preexisting structures as bunkers or even construction of log (not just a machine gun nest) or concrete bunkers etc. A lot of planning and building material, not just manual labour that can be whipped together rapidly. On the other hand, lower level fortifications as they are by nature temporary and purpouse built, should decay faster if unoccupied, while level 3 and higher fortifications should last longer (concrete blockhouses, dug in phone cables, well planned minefields, emplaced guns and machine guns (think Westwall or Atlantic Wall) multi direction defense etc.). Maybe bonuses to construction of fortifications in cities, urban (probably not town as they'd be too small to provide more than a strong anchor point) rough and mountain terrain (all have restricted avenues of advance than can be narrowed even further and possibilities for well prepared positions as well as abundant building material), on the other hand slower building of fortifications in swamp (defense in swamp should be naturally improved, but fortifying should be tougher as even the seemingly stable ground doesn't permit much digging unless you wish to sit there all day with wet feet)...

In general I've been a bit astonished at how fast units dig in in the game. While a turn indeed represents a week, I don't see how hastily fleeing soviet troops could first travel over a hundred miles on foot and then spend a few hours digging to end up in level 1 fortifications the following turn when the german armour tries to pursue. But that's about the only problem I have, that it tends to be a bit too fast (I haven't played any scenarios where the germans have to dig in quickly or where the germans lose massive ground and manage to dig in, so I'll just assume the problem exists for both sides)...

[Altaris]

Been doing some further research and thinking on this. I reread the manual regarding population assisting fort building, I had thought that was only for light and heavy urban, but it is indeed for cities and towns as well. So that does play a factor in why they've gone up so fast.

It would be nice to see more limitations on how quickly forts can go up though. Right now, there's a hard limit of 50 net points (basically one full level) that a fort can go up to. I think it might be better if it was 50/next fort level. So 50 net points for lvl 1, 25 net points for lvl 2, 17.666 for lvl 3, 12.5 for lvl 4, 10 for lvl 5. In that way it would still be easy to get lvl 1 forts up with concentrated effort (that makes sense), and lvl 2 could build up fairly easily in 3 turns (that's reasonable too). It would be a bare minimum of 6 turns to go up from lvl 0 to lvl 3, 10 turns from 0 to 4, and 20 turns from 0 to 5. These gross amounts should be adjusted even further for mud and blizzard, to account for how difficult it is to build forts in this weather. From what I'm seeing with mud turns still having very high construction rates, there's no wonder why players are seeing the Soviets with an unending wave of lvl 3-4 forts after digging in through 2 mud seasons and the blizzard. It's still an issue even in the clear weather, but at least in clear it's possible to derail Soviet efforts to build up a hex and avoid the wave fort effect. That's not feasible in mud or blizzard, so all that free time gets converted into a crapload of spades.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Altaris
I think it might be better if it was 50/next fort level. So 50 net points for lvl 1, 25 net points for lvl 2, 17.666 for lvl 3, 12.5 for lvl 4, 10 for lvl 5.

Not sure I understand you.Wouldn't this make it easier to build forts?