Matrix Games Forums

Hi! I could not find specific details in the manual(s), except that they lower the retreat chance and help entrench faster.

But do they do anything else?


1. Does it gives a bonus like +defence to attacks or +readiness or -readiness or... ?

2. Does it only give that bonus against attacks from a fortified side (I assume so, but...)

3. Does a fortification on a mountain keeps the 3/3 defence bonus from the mountain?

Hi

It gives a defensive bonus against attacks from the fortified side(s). Additionally it provides additional entrenchment benefits.

In terms of the terrain, the fortification itself is what counts, the effect isn't cumulative so they are better positioned in more open terrain.

Thanks a bunch!


So... creating a whole line of fortifications in the Chinese mountains, like I always do to stop the yellow monster, isn't a good strategy!

Is the bonus of the Fortification the same regardless of terrain and therefore less than a hill/mountain or against tanks a marsh

Right now this is indeed the case, the fortification, or even a resource on top of terrain will take precedence in terms of the defensive bonuses. In the past, the defensive bonuses were cumulative, i.e. terrain and resource values were added together, but it was found that it was too much this way in game.

However, placing a fortification in a mountain hex and then having that actually lower the defensive bonus of that hex is not ideal either, and we are looking to make an adjustment to address this for the next update.

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Right now this is indeed the case, the fortification, or even a resource on top of terrain will take precedence in terms of the defensive bonuses. In the past, the defensive bonuses were cumulative, i.e. terrain and resource values were added together, but it was found that it was too much this way in game.

However, placing a fortification in a mountain hex and then having that actually lower the defensive bonus of that hex is not ideal either, and we are looking to make an adjustment to address this for the next update.

Good to know.

I think allowing fortifications in marsh hexes is a bit of a stretch.

Being that most fortifications of WW2 were of the subterranean nature in addition to above ground structures I'm reasoning that the below ground level part would tend to flood quite easily and be somewhat unusable.


I'm not saying there should be no defensive improvements but perhaps a level or two less of entrenchment value would be appropriate since units aren't allowed to automatically entrench in marshes anyway, makes this seem to be a bit of a paradox.

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I think allowing fortifications in marsh hexes is a bit of a stretch.

Being that most fortifications of WW2 were of the subterranean nature in addition to above ground structures I'm reasoning that the below ground level part would tend to flood quite easily and be somewhat unusable.


I'm not saying there should be no defensive improvements but perhaps a level or two less of entrenchment value would be appropriate since units aren't allowed to automatically entrench in marshes anyway, makes this seem to be a bit of a paradox.

Nonsense. I have personally seen what the game would consider to be a fortified swamp/marsh hex, and I promise you that they can be dug into and fortified.

In difficult terrain, forts should have even more of an impact since the number of 'good' paths through that area would be even more limited. So it would be much easier to create strongpoints that would be more difficult to capture. Forts have very little to do with below ground digging. At least I assume so [:)]

Since forts require an Eng unit, I assume these are pillboxes, tank traps, mines, etc. versus simple trenches and foxholes. Which means these Eng types of forts could really be anywhere, regardless of terrain. But I do agree that forts should ADD to the terrain values replace them. Maybe a scale based on terrain?

So clear gets a 10% bonus as it would be much easier to go around it? Could even be 10% per side since each side would increase the difficulty of bypassing the strongpoints. Rough terrain would get 20%, Mountains/Cities(?) would get 30%.

If it could be done, each air attack by a TAC would reduce the fort bonus by 5% down to a minimum of say half the fort value?

So a unit in a three sided fort would have a 30% increase in defense in open terrain. Attacking with three TACs would reduce the fort value to 15%. Further air attacks would have no impact. The fort would 'repair' by 5%/turn as the repair work would be assumed to be done by non-Eng (or a much smaller number of Eng built into the unit).

Attacking forts across rivers/invasion could add an additional 10% defense value as well.

Just some suggestions based on many years of playing these silly games as my Dad used to say [:)]

A good balance would be that the fortification adds to the terrain, but that it takes longer to build.

Or maybe keep it like it is, except add more possible upgrades to it, such as Infantry an anti-tank.