Do forts build too fast (particularly for Soviets)?

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Here is the entrenchment values and what they represent in game that I proposed to the testing team and has been generally accepted. Personally, I think that level 4 and level 5 entrenchments should only be allowable with an AP investment such as fortified regions/zones.

Level 0 - Hasty defenses. Individual foxholes and selection of dominant terrain. Crew served weapons behind limited cover. Some clearing of firing lanes. No engineer obstacles and hasty emplaced mines.

Level 1 - Company level strongpoints with full trenchline with communications ditches. Cleared firing lanes. Infantry disrupting engineer obstacles and some emplaced mines. Crew served weapons emplaced in weapons pits with some basic protection.

Level 2 - Trenches extended to neighboring companies and battalions. Secondary positions in place behind main line for depth. Crew served weapons in reinforced gun pits. Reinforcing of existing positions. Shelters dug-in to the trenches. Camoflagued. Vehicle pits.

Level 3 - Further reinforcing of gun pits and trench lines. Sophisticated anti-infantry obstacles, minefields, and anti-tank ditches.

Level 4 - adding significant concrete weapons emplacements and concrete anti-tank ditches and obstacles to existing field fortifications.

Level 5 - consistent concrete weapons and troop fortifications. Underground reinforced and inter-connecting tunnels and bunkers. Large caliber weapon systems in completely enclosed reinforced concrete bunkers.


Trey

Great post. Especially when you say level four or five forts should only be completable by fortified zone units. Isnt this the quick fix - that only fort zone units can contribute towards raising a hex to 4 or 5? That would entail an AP cost, a manpower comittment, and a significant investment of time to build this level of fort.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

If you want to talk stacking density, check out the siege of berlin in 1945.
> 500k russians attacked the center of berlin held by about 80k Germans.

If we assume 10k/division, that's 50 divisions attacking 8, and all inside the center of the city (the dense urban square).

For the overall siege (attacking all the in-game urban squares, the soviets had north of 1.5m.

I have to think the stacking density is a gameplay necessity rather than an attempt to model history accurately, since real-world troop densities varied hugely on the eastern front.

Well, it keeps the Russian stacks in a "can be overrun" status. It unfortunately also kills Russian counter-attack capabilities, which they placed a great emphasis on (and keeps the Russian player interested in summer of 1941). Is it a necessity? Better command and control simulation would help. This means alot of Russian can't move their full movement allowance, alot of units can't attack even if adjacent, poor defense coordination, etc. The key is to couple this with a reduction in German CV relative to Russian CV. It seems like a 4:1 to 6:1 ratio comparing units with comparable numbers and equipment would be more appropriate. I do not think German morale was a problem in 1941-1942, dispite the setbacks. Allowing their morale to so decline to reduce the CV ratio below 4:1 does not seem appropriate either.


In regard to frontages, the following link is very interesting. It shows the German battlion defense frontages were about half of their attack frontages (0.25 to 0.625 miles on attack, versus 0.5 to 1.25 miles on defense). Interestingly, a Russian division frontage was listed at 2.5 miles on attack and 31.25 to 75 miles on defense!
http://balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/i ... ntages.htm

The "Handbook on German Army Forces" lists the German infantry attack frontage at 2.5 to 3.125 miles, compared in defense of 3.75 to 6.25 miles. Along a 10 mile front, the weakest sector would be chosen for attack. If three Russian divisions were defending in the hex (3.3 miles each), a breakthrough is only required against one division. Diversionary attacks would be made against the other 2 divisions, but why attack all three! The key is one German division could break through one Russian division. Once a single division is forced back, the others will either have to retreat, counterattack, or risk being surrounded. If there is poor coordination in defense, retreat or being surrounded would be most likely. In a poorly coordinated attack, like the Russian Army would make early in the war, the three attacking divisions would attack all three defending positions. This tends to maximize casualties, since more defending troops are engaged. There is also more likely to be a poorly defended sector if the tactical capability of the troops is inferior (seasoned versus inexperienced). The Germans seized many bridges in 1941 intact.

In game terms this means the Russian CV should be higher than current, but wastefull (standard all of attacker versus all of defender combat simulated). However, German CV to the increased Russian CV will still result in breakthoughs. Since only a subset of the Russian divisions in the hex would be attacked, there would still be a high combat odds ratio in favor of the attacker. One attacking division would displace the defenders, but only one of the defending divisions would be mauled intially. The other divisions would suffer casualties based on their capability to do a timely retreat (probably getting somewhat mauled but still intact).

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: bednarre

Interestingly, a Russian division frontage was listed at 2.5 miles on attack and 31.25 to 75 miles on defense!
http://balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/i ... ntages.htm

That's a printing error I should think.It says 50-120 km, it should probably be 5-12 km.

[Great_Ajax]

I think the author may be referring to the original defensive deployments of Soviet units on the border at the launch of Barbarossa which are poor examples to use.

Trey

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: bednarre

Interestingly, a Russian division frontage was listed at 2.5 miles on attack and 31.25 to 75 miles on defense!
http://balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/i ... ntages.htm

That's a printing error I should think.It says 50-120 km, it should probably be 5-12 km.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I think the author may be referring to the original defensive deployments of Soviet units on the border at the launch of Barbarossa which are poor examples to use.

Trey

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: bednarre

Interestingly, a Russian division frontage was listed at 2.5 miles on attack and 31.25 to 75 miles on defense!
http://balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/i ... ntages.htm

That's a printing error I should think.It says 50-120 km, it should probably be 5-12 km.

Probably, equating to 3.125 to 7.5 miles. This does indeed give 3 Russian divisions per 10 mile hex, at least defending! Attacking would be more like 4 divisions. These are typically frontages, not the densest every employed. But in extreme cases, it was rumored the Russians lined up the artillery wheel to wheel.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I think the author may be referring to the original defensive deployments of Soviet units on the border at the launch of Barbarossa which are poor examples to use.

Were the Russians really spread that thinly at the start of Barbarossa?That's about 30 divisions for the entire border at a conservative estimate.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I think the author may be referring to the original defensive deployments of Soviet units on the border at the launch of Barbarossa which are poor examples to use.

Were the Russians really spread that thinly at the start of Barbarossa?That's about 30 divisions for the entire border at a conservative estimate.

Two things.

Stalin believed Hitler would follow what seemed to be his typical process to war. Make demands and threats. Wait a week or two. Attack. Stalin was depending on those one or two weeks to fully mobilize. I think it was wishful thinking on Stalin's part.

Stalin was extremely concerned about massing troops at the border. He feared the Germans would use it as an excuse to attack claiming they were only defending themselves from an impending Soviet attack. An often used phrase on the Soviet side was, "Do not provide a provocation".

Stalin was evidently living in la la land at the time and had his head buried in the sand.

[mmarquo]

"So i think as long as such epic battles can´t be done, your question is not really necessary"
 
Adnan,
 
My question was not necessary?  
Something must be getting lost in the translation...thanks for your reply anyway...
 
Marquo [&:]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"So i think as long as such epic battles can´t be done, your question is not really necessary"

Adnan,

My question was not necessary?  
Something must be getting lost in the translation...thanks for your reply anyway...

Marquo [&:]

hi, thank you for your replay...

i meant (sarcastically), that the game cannot reproduce the kind of "kesselschlacht" of history, so the important(!) defence multiplicator you described is not needed (cause no combat will really have the benefit of these nearly full destroyed cities wit all these rubbed buildings)

So, i agree 100% to your opinion - i am just frustrated that the game has so many "failures" that are harcoded (like allways 360 Degree-defence, easy to built 40-50miles deep Fortress-defence, the blizzard-bug (i call it this way), the "all russian troops are fully winterized"-megabug (but nobody is interested in correcting it, cause in the time before blizzard, the axis troops are on steroids.... and so on)

From my pov, biggest mistake is the "weekly" turn, day-for-day would be far better, cause in such combat could develop more realistic - so we could finetune many problems. Now we have for example the big problem that reducing the capability to build fortifications are true for the whole war - so no "winter-no-digging" is possible....

i hope i did not offend you - it was NOT my plan to do so. Because you are right about the improved defence (like stalingrad 42/43)

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: jules

In game terms there could be a difference between “entrenchment” of a unit which is lost after moving out of the hex and a “real fortification”. The fortification level could only be build by support units if a unit (e.g. fortified unit) stays in the hex and is fully entrenched (e.g level 2). Both Levels could be added for combat resolution: so if unit A moves into hex x,y with 2 forts it has to entrench itself to 2 to have a max of 4. Or if it reaches an entrenchemt of 2 this is lost if moved out and unit B moves in. ... just my thoughts…

If the "number" of level 3+ forts in the hex was tabulated, the fortifications could be gradually destroyed. Now an entire level in built up, and then an entire level is destroyed. Interestingly, this could be of great benefit to major urban centers as well, tracking how much of the city has been taken. Level 2 and 1 forts should not be tabulated if they model entrenchments and foxholes. Combining this with your idea, the Level 2- forts would dissapear in the hex when vacated, but the Level 3+ forts would remain (those not destroyed).

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Entrenchment build rates went up and down like proverbial yo-yos during testing. I think I would quit if I had to test another change!

The problem is that rates that might seem to fast in 1941 are too slow for the Axis in 1943, when they are desperate for any defensive modifier they can lay there hands on. The build rates have to work for the whole war.

How about a reference table of build rates within the system, set on a per year and per side basis?

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Entrenchment build rates went up and down like proverbial yo-yos during testing. I think I would quit if I had to test another change!

The problem is that rates that might seem to fast in 1941 are too slow for the Axis in 1943, when they are desperate for any defensive modifier they can lay there hands on. The build rates have to work for the whole war.

How about a reference table of build rates within the system, set on a per year and per side basis?

BigAnorak:

If both the Germans and Russians avoided building 1000 mile long bunker lines in the actual war, why are these modeled so critical in the game?

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: bednarre

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Entrenchment build rates went up and down like proverbial yo-yos during testing. I think I would quit if I had to test another change!

The problem is that rates that might seem to fast in 1941 are too slow for the Axis in 1943, when they are desperate for any defensive modifier they can lay there hands on. The build rates have to work for the whole war.

How about a reference table of build rates within the system, set on a per year and per side basis?

BigAnorak:

If both the Germans and Russians avoided building 1000 mile long bunker lines in the actual war, why are these modeled so critical in the game?

I think the answer is:

Because its an IGO/UGO system and its easy to mass 3:1 numbers on the attack.
Without entrenchements to give the defender an artificial boost, the game would quickly degenerate into a few turns of massive attacks (on each side), followed probably by the end of the war.

There's other ways to balance the system mind you (an inherent defender bonus, easier reserves, command limits on the attack, etc, but it looks like the current version of WITE is balanced around the defender being fortified.

[bednarre]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: bednarre

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4





How about a reference table of build rates within the system, set on a per year and per side basis?

BigAnorak:

If both the Germans and Russians avoided building 1000 mile long bunker lines in the actual war, why are these modeled so critical in the game?

I think the answer is:

Because its an IGO/UGO system and its easy to mass 3:1 numbers on the attack.
Without entrenchements to give the defender an artificial boost, the game would quickly degenerate into a few turns of massive attacks (on each side), followed probably by the end of the war.

There's other ways to balance the system mind you (an inherent defender bonus, easier reserves, command limits on the attack, etc, but it looks like the current version of WITE is balanced around the defender being fortified.

One thing I have noticed is that there is little difference between the attack CV and defense CV values. I would think an infantry division would have significantly higher defense CV, given that machine guns and artillery are much more effective on defense (against troops in the open and with higher density). Likewise, I would think the panzer divisions would have a somewhat higher attack CV (compared with defense CV), given their lack of infantry and the fact that tanks don't observe as well as infantry. The defenders do usually get the first shots in. What do you think about changing the relative CVs of the Germans and Russians, perhaps bringing them closer together? Russian losses in 1943 and 1944 were horrendous against Germans in just foxholes and trenches. Also, the Wehrmacht suffered grevious losses (compared with its replacement rates) in 1941, even though they make great breakthroughs.

[Altaris]

Reached turn 4 in my HtH test game vs myself with forts set to 35%. I'm mostly going historic route, with a few small modifications I wanted to test out (sending some of the motorized divisions from AGC to AGS mostly). I'm finding progress to be much more reasonable compared to history with these settings. Turn 4 corresponds to July 10th, the date Guderian crossed the Dnepr west of Smolensk. I didn't quite make it, but did get far enough into the land bridge to mount an attack next turn over the minor river hex-side (but I also had about 4 less motorized divisions in AGC, so this seems about right to me). This would never happen before with Soviets concentrating up lvl 2-3 forts throughout the land-bridge and behind the Dnepr by this time. I still doubt I'll take Smolensk next turn (July 17th, historical date Smolensk fell), probably the turn after.

In general, what I'm seeing is that a division close to a front HQ with labor squads can still get to lvl 1 forts in 1 turn... but only if they don't move first. Lvl 2 forts require either moving in more divisions to the hex to be fortified if you want to pull it off in a turn or two. I imagined lvl 3 forts have to be a very heavy undertaking in either divisions or time, which seems appropriate giving their effect.

So far, I'm liking the changes, think they feel very appropriate. Hard to tell at this point whether this setting is right or too much, I think a lot depends on how well the Soviets can build forts once we get closer in to Moscow.

Also, keep in mind that I'm playing with the advantage of knowing how the Soviet dispositions are laid out, so I'm probably doing just a tad better than I would otherwise.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Altaris

Reached turn 4 in my HtH test game vs myself with forts set to 35%.

Setting forts to 35% in a PBEM 1941 GC game would be suicide for the Russian player.

[Altaris]

It's not as extreme as you might think at 35%. Basically, forts tend to be 1 level lower than with vanilla settings. Lvl 1 forts still go up in 1 turn, provided the unit doesn't move and there's some help from construction SU's. Lvl 2's take a few turns for 1 division in a hex, but can still go from 1 to 2 in a turn with a big commitment (3 divisions in a hex). I just hit turn 5, and the Soviets already have lvl 2 forts behind most of the Dnepr, both in the center and the south. What this also tells me is that in vanilla, there should be zero problem getting to lvl 3 forts behind the Dnepr by the time the Germans can realistically get to it... which is a problem for mirroring reality, since this means they'll get bogged down well before crossing the Dnepr or reaching Smolensk in a PBEM GC.
 
Keep in mind I'm testing this via a PBEM against myself, and I'm being super aggressive with the Germans (since I know the Soviets weaknesses as I'm playing them too).
 
It requires a lot more careful planning on the Soviet part, as you really need to get units to the hexes you want to defend, and have them start building ASAP. It also makes the Soviet think twice before giving up those hard built lvl 2 forts.
 
It may end up being too much. What remains to be seen is how well the Soviets can regroup once the initial fortifications are breached. But my gut tells me it's still going to be fairly realistic. In AGS, they'll lose a lot of ground (this happened historically once the Dnepr was breached). In AGC, they'll be able to regroup fairly effectively in the woods/cities areas and slow down (but not flat out stop) a drive on Moscow.
 
Most importantly, they won't be able to build a wall of impenetrable lvl 3-4 forts in winter/early spring of 1942.

[Altaris]

Here's a little chart I put together showing build times in a hex at 1/2/3 division intervals, comparing the amount of time at 100%, 50%, and 35% fort level settings. I'm leaning now towards 50% probably being about right, 35% does seem to put the Soviets at a disadvantage. This assumes that each division has a construction rating of 38, which seems about standard.



As you can see, there is absolutely no problem at generic 100% settings throwing up level 2 forts from nothing within 2 turns. All you need is 2 divisions in the hex (and 1 could've only been there part of the 2nd turn). Within 4 turns, it's pretty simple to get up to lvl 3, which is going to cause the Axis some problems by fall.

[randallw]

Soviet RR construction brigades have 200 labor squads, worth a construction value of 40 ( for the whole unit ); if I remember the manual correctly as having 1 point of value worth 2% of a fort level, that's 80% of a level wherever one of these big boys is deployed.  Add that to a rifle division that's receiving the help, the lower fort level building does come quickly.

[Joel Billings]

These are the fort changes we have in test now working to put out a 1.04 beta 1 version:

4. Rule Changes to fort level construction rules:
(a) (Section 15.3.2.1) Decreased the fort build rates as follows:
Fort Level 0 3.0 (was 3.0, no change)
Fort Level 1 1.0 (was 1.0, no change)
Fort Level 2 0.25 (was 0.33)
Fort Level 3 0.05 (was 0.10)
Fort Level 4 0.01 (was 0.02)
(b) Construction values are reduced based on the supply level of the unit. In no event will they be reduced below 20% of normal due to supply level.
(c) Level 5 forts may continue to build up to 10% over level 5. This allows them to take some damage and still remain at Level 5.
(d) Artillery (especially Heavy Artillery) can cause small fort reductions during combat.
(e) Fort build rates for building forts greater than 3 can be divided by 2 if a leader admin check fails.


Also fixed this bug:

31. Fixed a bug preventing support units directly attached to combat units from helping in fort construction. Also fixed a bug that had allowed “inactive” support units to allow in fort construction.