Matrix Games Forums

I finally tracked progress of fortifications with the forts attached at various levels. 4A in this case is up to a CUP of 37 and it still performs much better than leaving the fort attached to an Army Group or OKH. My conclusion is attaching the fort at the Army, even if the Army is overloaded, is a real benefit to progress.

ORIGINAL: rmonical

I finally tracked progress of fortifications with the forts attached at various levels. 4A in this case is up to a CUP of 37 and it still performs much better than leaving the fort attached to an Army Group or OKH. My conclusion is attaching the fort at the Army, even if the Army is overloaded, is a real benefit to progress.

Did the army have construction assets attached to it?

is it because of better rolls or getting more supply?

I ran a little experiment as well, including one fort attached to an army with no construction assets, and another set attached to an army that had construction assets, and a fort attached to Stavka. The army with the construction assets built fastest, but the army built faster than Stavka.

I ran this in the background using the 1941 campaign game, the only thing I moved was a few army HQs. By T12, when I stopped, the AI had still not taken Moscow, in spite of the fact that the Red Army had not moved a single unit.

is it because of better rolls or getting more supply?

Both I think.

I need to run my own tests to be more quantitative, but one of the things I noticed is that Red Army 'Fortified Regions' grow pretty fast near large cities due to additional labor teams (15.3.2.3. Civilian Population Labor Assist to Fort Level Construction)

Forts cost APs and ARM points, but it is a good idea to put some here:

- the Leningrad 'backdoor', 83,16

- Sviritsa (90,12), East of the Volkhov estuary on Lake Ladoga (the last port that keeps Leningrad supplied)

- one in Moscow itself 106,45

- 2-4 BEHIND Moscow, along river bends to protect the rail lines supplying the city from being cut off: 109,47 111,43 109,44

Fortified Regions help a lot to bring the fortification level to 3 or given enough time, to level 4. I then disband the forts and put some good infantry there.

Did they all have the same/similar supply (distance to rail net), terrain, and distance to HQ?

ORIGINAL: Schmart

Did they all have the same/similar supply (distance to rail net), terrain, and distance to HQ?

Obviously not. My point is attaching a fort to a nearby overloaded army HQ is better than attaching it to high command. The leader checks for supply should not be range dependent - not well documented.

ORIGINAL: rmonical

ORIGINAL: Schmart

Did they all have the same/similar supply (distance to rail net), terrain, and distance to HQ?

Obviously not. My point is attaching a fort to a nearby overloaded army HQ is better than attaching it to high command. The leader checks for supply should not be range dependent - not well documented.

Terrain matters a great deal at a units construction tempo leased it does in the later code. Also there are rolls involved so u wont necesarrily see the same increase with the exact same units in the exact same conditions, in different turns. It can actually vary quite a bit gain at leased in later code.

Rasmus

You know, I fail to understand why anyone would waste AP on FZ construction at all. It costs 4 AP to build and 1 to eventually disband it when you need the extra stacking space... That is a total of 5 AP per FZ... a total waste when you could have built a rifle brigade for the same cost.

FZ's are useless... they cost too much AP and do nothing but provide fat casualty padding for the German combat results when they are annihilated.