Matrix Games Forums

Suggestion:
Allow players to build fortification public assets that provide entrenchment points for units in the hex.
It can be strategically useful to build defensive works in certain locales like narrow passes and so on. This might become even more important when we have ports, navies and amphibious assaults.

Example of what the fortification asset might look like:




-Mark R.

Looks good to me, just make it require 100 LP per asset level and we're set

As a gameplay concept they sound fine.

But, I think there are two issues to first consider. As public assets they could be cut off from supply and then cease to function. They also would be maintained by civilian workers. I think that real fortifications are maintained by soldiers (including the men who man them) and that their benefit wouldn't suddenly disappear if for two months they didn't receive trucks or trains bringing supply.

I could be wrong, but wouldn't a unit with zero move (relies on strategic movement or is stuck on whatever hex the player recruits it on using logistic points) that includes a number of men acting as it's maintainers actually do the job better, with less waving of the hand to pretend it makes sense?

Good points to consider during implementation.

I suppose an isolated fortress should be cut off from supply - this suggests a need to be able to store food, ammo, etc... Then you could have sieges.

Good point regarding the workers. I just left them as civilian since I didn't want to confuse the basic suggestion with details.

but wouldn't a unit with zero move (relies on strategic movement or is stuck on whatever hex the player recruits it on using logistic points) that includes a number of men acting as it's maintainers actually do the job better, with less waving of the hand to pretend it makes sense?

Perhaps. I'd be fine with that approach too if it produces the same effect. Might be easier to implement too as a new unit class (covers the food, ammo, storage issue cleaner too).

-Mark R.

The problem is, with the way combat interacts with Assets they'd get smashed apart pretty quickly.

There is such a thing as automated turrets and machine guns, which can give you static defenses for relatively low maintenance. They require hi-tech items to manufacture however, and strategic movement to be moved.

They also don't exist in easy to use pre arranged formations, so you would need to manually create battlegroups for your entire defensive line or otherwise create them and shuffle them around one by one. I've found stationing troops on the border at least as effective and requiring about as much mental bandwith once in place. By the time you can replace any border guard force with automated forces you should have enough troops it doesn't matter.

Personally I would prefer "manned fortifications", where the workers actually fight with militia gear if the Hex is attacked. Without someone guarding it, a fortification is just waiting for the enemy to take it from you:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4843059

As public assets they could be cut off from supply and then cease to function. They also would be maintained by civilian workers. I think that real fortifications are maintained by soldiers (including the men who man them) and that their benefit wouldn't suddenly disappear if for two months they didn't receive trucks or trains bringing supply.

Actually for large fortifications a large amount of civilian workers are needed to build them. Even if you got a massive engineer corpse like germany in WW2, a lot of the work is done by slave labour rather then soldiers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Todt

If the hex does not get supplies, then the soldiers starve same as any other cut off troop.
Minor restoration would fall under the Units building entrenchment.
I guess they would also be no Civilian workers there to do relevant repairs (actually restroing the HP of the Asset).

ORIGINAL: newageofpower

The problem is, with the way combat interacts with Assets they'd get smashed apart pretty quickly.

Well I think asset destruction (intentional and due to fire) as well as swapping out should get a pass anyway:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4837855

This would be just one aspect to it.

Mark,

Sieges sound very cool. I'd like to see that.

- Nicholas