Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I would agree on Sevastopol, but not on Moscow or Stalingrad for sure. Leningrad, a case could be made, but not nearly like Sevastopol. 

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

I understand how fort level works. But, I'm going to lobby for a special new terrain of fortress. During WWII it is arguable that Sevastopol was the toughest fortress in the world at that time. It's history of being a fortress goes way back on the timeline. So when in my game against the AI I brushed aside the defenders and took the prize city with little difficultly. When in reality this was a tough nut to crack. Manstein tried, although w/less than adequate resources, and failed in late 41.Even when Manstein's 11th Army (plus some Romania units) finally too it in June 42, the loses were high and it was not an easy operation.

So I'd like to lobby for some fortress terrain, that starts in Leningrad. With the possibility for the Sov player to make a few other key cities fortresses as well: Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad. But with some cost to resources and men, ??, and time.

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

I understand how fort level works. But, I'm going to lobby for a special new terrain of fortress. During WWII it is arguable that Sevastopol was the toughest fortress in the world at that time. It's history of being a fortress goes way back on the timeline. So when in my game against the AI I brushed aside the defenders and took the prize city with little difficultly. When in reality this was a tough nut to crack. Manstein tried, although w/less than adequate resources, and failed in late 41.Even when Manstein's 11th Army (plus some Romania units) finally too it in June 42, the loses were high and it was not an easy operation.

So I'd like to lobby for some fortress terrain, that starts in Leningrad. With the possibility for the Sov player to make a few other key cities fortresses as well: Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad. But with some cost to resources and men, ??, and time.

ORIGINAL: Davekhps

I hope that new players realize that all it takes is units and time to make fortresses that size. (Nigh impregnable fortress, at that-- all those folks lobbying for Level 4-5 fortresses should appreciate just how hard it is to take those down).

Seriously- play the GC or Road to Leningrad and watch how high the Soviets fortify the areas around the city and the Volkhov Front in only a handful of turns just by deploying three-unit stacks (not to mention the urban population bonus for digging in near cities). It's quite significant.

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

I understand how fort level works. But, I'm going to lobby for a special new terrain of fortress. During WWII it is arguable that Sevastopol was the toughest fortress in the world at that time. It's history of being a fortress goes way back on the timeline. So when in my game against the AI I brushed aside the defenders and took the prize city with little difficultly. When in reality this was a tough nut to crack. Manstein tried, although w/less than adequate resources, and failed in late 41.Even when Manstein's 11th Army (plus some Romania units) finally too it in June 42, the loses were high and it was not an easy operation.

So I'd like to lobby for some fortress terrain, that starts in Leningrad. With the possibility for the Sov player to make a few other key cities fortresses as well: Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad. But with some cost to resources and men, ??, and time.

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

I think I agree that certain locations should have a defensive value above the level that any units can "dig in". Sevastopol is the most obvious example as it was a fortified city developed over many decades. Other locations are more difficult to identify although Kronstadt might qualify. The problem might be with certain cities that held out in extraordinary circumstances. Stalingrad might top the list but playing the 1941 scenarios I have found Brest-Litovsk falls very easily whilst in game terms its garrison actually held out until turn 3/4 although the small part of the city still held could be argued to not influence activity in surrounding hexes.

Difficult one to judge.

ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Stalingrad was not a fortified city. Sevastopol was a fortified city and AFAIK it was not captured in the Crimean war either. Correct me if I am wrong.

ORIGINAL: jhak

I think the current forts make them allready darn hard to dislodge.. i havent been able to take leningrad because of the enemy having lvl4 forts on every *#¤ hex there.. and even if you do succeed your losses are huge. The russians allready seem to dig in way too fast.. in a few weeks theyll have lvl 2-3 forts all over the front.

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

ORIGINAL: jhak

I think the current forts make them allready darn hard to dislodge.. i havent been able to take leningrad because of the enemy having lvl4 forts on every *#¤ hex there.. and even if you do succeed your losses are huge. The russians allready seem to dig in way too fast.. in a few weeks theyll have lvl 2-3 forts all over the front.

One must apply a lot of pioneer and hvy artillery units to succeed in Leningrad and frankly I don't think one has suffiecient time to conquer Leningrad before the onset of winter.

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Stalingrad was not a fortified city. Sevastopol was a fortified city and AFAIK it was not captured in the Crimean war either. Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, you're wrong, Sevastopol fell on 9th Sept. 1855, but should have been taken the previous year, but for the prevarication of the Allied Commanders. [:)]