Germans need city forts in Soviet Union

[jubjub]

Germans need the ability to create city forts in the Soviet Union. There's just no way 3 ID (with no HQ) or 2 ID and 1 HQ in a city can hold out for more than a turn. Urban combat is even worse, and 3 ID will become depleted and routed after a couple of large attacks.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

Germans need the ability to create city forts in the Soviet Union. There's just no way 3 ID (with no HQ) or 2 ID and 1 HQ in a city can hold out for more than a turn. Urban combat is even worse, and 3 ID will become depleted and routed after a couple of large attacks.

At what stage did the German generals come to the doctrine of the city-fortress?
At a certain stage, Stalingrad can be considered such a city, but this is an accident, in fact, the Germans began to resort to such tactics only in the territories of Germany within the borders until June 22, 41.

[cameron88]

From 1942 onwards, City fortress doctrine was prevalent in the Germany army and with Hitlers furthering command over it as it found itself more on the defense, as 'Festung' cities, or literally fortress cities.

Stalingrad is the obvious example, hundreds of thousands of troops were within the city told to hold out against all odds and wait for relief, which isn't possible without a city fort ingame. Likewise is velki luki, which also became surrounded and turned into a festung city, holding a corps, and multiple divisions, both which is not possible without ability to make a city fort there. Another example is Demyansk, which was a city surrounded and eventually broken out. Ternopol also was declared a festung by hitler, and told to fortify the city and build up defenses within it. Smolensk is another city which was cut off and fortified, aswell as Breslau and Warsaw later in the war.

Me and jubjub both are playing a modded 1942 scenario, and it has a few fortress cities, most notably in Stalingrad, because the base game mechanics don't allow it, even when Germany has lost the initiative. It is literally impossible to have a historical or semi historical Stalingrad encirclement/battle without them, from gameplay perspective and my personal opinion on it, you lose 2-3 tiles and then your hqs get over run and surrender well outside the city, and a slew of other issues like that and what jubjub mentioned.

So it's simply objectively better to allow or in this case start Germany with fortress cities in certain areas in 1942 for gameplay, and completely historical. I'd recommend the developers simply add the ability to create them within Soviet borders in any scenario if they lose the initiative, it makes perfect sense and isn't noticeably unbalanced.

[DesertedFox]

I don't see an issue with "altering" the historical doctrine set by Hitler and Stalin.

1. Russians are under no obligation to do suicidal and very expensive useless attacks on the Germans or stick around whilst they get surrounded.

2. The Germans are under no obligation to stick their neck in a noose aka Stalingrad and not withdraw to a better defensive position.

3. The so-called "fortress" cities will not happen out of thin air as in a Harry Potter movie. It will take time, engineers, and especially SUPPLIES, and lots and lots of supplies to build them.

[cameron88]

Both 1 and 2 are ridiculous comments, and i really wonder why at all you felt the need to make them. In 1942 you literally start the game as Germany with Stalingrad encircled. This game is entirely based on history, and forces you to do many things to recreate them, oh why did Germany send those forces west or to Norway when they could have just stayed on the Eastern front? Why did this division forcefully disband, why does Stalin & the NKVD forcefully execute officers ingame? ect.

And as for the other comment, yes... they do... have you even played as the Soviets? A fortress city ingame does spawn out of thin air like a harry potter movie, and furthermore provides 0 defense, 0 supply, and 0 engineers, those are all things part of the divisions you put into them. They also don't provide any fortification bonus, or battle bonus, its entire purpose is to allow more divisions onto a tile, which is normally limited to 3, and as such limits historical fortress cities on the Eastern front, where plenty more then 3 divisions were defending, and hqs.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: cameron88

Both 1 and 2 are ridiculous comments, and i really wonder why at all you felt the need to make them. In 1942 you literally start the game as Germany with Stalingrad encircled. This game is entirely based on history, and forces you to do many things to recreate them, oh why did Germany send those forces west or to Norway when they could have just stayed on the Eastern front? Why did this division forcefully disband, why does Stalin & the NKVD forcefully execute officers ingame? ect.

And as for the other comment, yes... they do... have you even played as the Soviets? A fortress city ingame does spawn out of thin air like a harry potter movie, and furthermore provides 0 defense, 0 supply, and 0 engineers, those are all things part of the divisions you put into them. They also don't provide any fortification bonus, or battle bonus, its entire purpose is to allow more divisions onto a tile, which is normally limited to 3, and as such limits historical fortress cities on the Eastern front, where plenty more then 3 divisions were defending, and hqs.

I stand corrected on #3.

I stand by 1 and 2.

You are also welcome to your absurd opinion as well.

I don't recall in my message talking about killing officers or disbanding units. So why would you raise such ridiculous arguments?


Let's talk about what I did say.

1 and 2. They are absolutely correct. No player is obliged to follow such tactics or doctrine.

My response was to Shaggy's post in this thread and has absolutely nothing to do with your #3 post.

I agreed to let them be able to build city forts.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

2. The Germans are under no obligation to stick their neck in a noose aka Stalingrad and not withdraw to a better defensive position.

But in StB as the Axis, you start the game with Stalingrad surrounded. The point that he is making is that by allowing the use of City Forts (which only allow you to stack up more units, nothing else) you can potentially do better in defense and hold the city for longer, similar to the historical example.

I think City Forts should not have a geographical constrain for either side. If the German player wants to stack 5 divisions and leave them to die in Smolensk so he can slow the Soviets down, he should be able to do so.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

2. The Germans are under no obligation to stick their neck in a noose aka Stalingrad and not withdraw to a better defensive position.

But in StB as the Axis, you start the game with Stalingrad surrounded. The point that he is making is that by allowing the use of City Forts (which only allow you to stack up more units, nothing else) you can potentially do better in defense and hold the city for longer, similar to the historical example.

I think City Forts should not have a geographical constrain for either side. If the German player wants to stack 5 divisions and leave them to die in Smolensk so he can slow the Soviets down, he should be able to do so.

I agree with your statement.

However, I made my post without reading cameron88's post and it related only to the fact that shaggy felt the Germans shouldn't be allowed this option. To which I disagree with him, and thus agree with jubjub and cameron88 in this area.

I don't agree with his further stupid comments which suggest I was disagreeing with having this as an option, which any moron could tell I was FOR the Germans having this option.

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

I don't see an issue with "altering" the historical doctrine set by Hitler and Stalin.

My 1 and 2 comments were "in the general context" of the game and not limited to or referring to the StB scenario.

[Dreamslayer]

Why do not change the outdated hex limitation(no more 3 units in hex)? There is series Panzer Campaign that uses hex limitation but in men total not in units. And WitE/WitW players should suffer just because of old interface stuff.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

Why do not change the outdated hex limitation(no more 3 units in hex)? There is series Panzer Campaign that uses hex limitation but in men total not in units. And WitE/WitW players should suffer just because of old interface stuff.

Then players would block key routes with a stack of 5-6 divisions and defense CV of > 100. No way to push it.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

Why do not change the outdated hex limitation(no more 3 units in hex)? There is series Panzer Campaign that uses hex limitation but in men total not in units. And WitE/WitW players should suffer just because of old interface stuff.

Then players would block key routes with a stack of 5-6 divisions and a defense CV of > 100. No way to push it.

Given the width of the entire front, placing so many units in a single hex tends to create opportunities elsewhere.

Basically, go around it.

I am speaking in a general sense. Nonetheless, in a situation like Stalingrad where your cut off the best chance of delaying the enemy is to hold up as many units in a location, preferably one with a depot, to delay its capture.

Currently, as the example provided for the StB scenario is the Germans have difficulty in holding out anywhere near as long as they did historically, or at least that is my guess as I am only on turn 2 of that very scenario.

Regardless, if the Russians can do it, why not the Germans? It cannot be spammed across the map as it must be in or adjacent to a major city, not a town, and you put 5 divs each into 10 city fortress and the front line is going to look like Swiss Cheese.

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

Why do not change the outdated hex limitation(no more 3 units in hex)? There is series Panzer Campaign that uses hex limitation but in men total not in units. And WitE/WitW players should suffer just because of old interface stuff.

Then players would block key routes with a stack of 5-6 divisions and defense CV of > 100. No way to push it.

Panzer Campaign series uses penalty for units in the hex if they over limit. 3 units in the hex is an anachronism.

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

Why do not change the outdated hex limitation(no more 3 units in hex)? There is series Panzer Campaign that uses hex limitation but in men total not in units. And WitE/WitW players should suffer just because of old interface stuff.

Then players would block key routes with a stack of 5-6 divisions and defense CV of > 100. No way to push it.

As for it blocking key locations as you stated, yes, and this is directly from the rules book.

AGC will probably determine your overall strategy.
If you want to seriously threaten Moscow you cannot
weaken AGC in the early turns. Try constantly to look for
opportunities to outflank the Soviets and to push past
Smolensk (which can be turned into a major fortress if you
give the Soviets too much time)

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox
Regardless, if the Russians can do it, why not the Germans? It cannot be spammed across the map as it must be a city, not a town, and you put 5 divs each into 10 city fortress and the front line is going to look like Swiss Cheese.

In the game we have Soviet "Oranienbaum fortress" but what a city is there?

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox
Regardless, if the Russians can do it, why not the Germans? It cannot be spammed across the map as it must be a city, not a town, and you put 5 divs each into 10 city fortress and the front line is going to look like Swiss Cheese.

In the game we have Soviet "Oranienbaum fortress" but what a city is there?

Maybe need a Dev to answer, I am only quoting the rules of creating them, but there was a fortress there historically.

Also, it is a level 5 fortress and these take years to build, (a quote from the rule book), and forts can only be built to level 4 in game.

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox
Regardless, if the Russians can do it, why not the Germans? It cannot be spammed across the map as it must be a city, not a town, and you put 5 divs each into 10 city fortress and the front line is going to look like Swiss Cheese.

In the game we have Soviet "Oranienbaum fortress" but what a city is there?

Maybe need a Dev to answer, I am only quoting the rules of creating them, but there was a fortress there historically.

Also, it is a level 5 fortress and these take years to build, (a quote from the rule book), and forts can only be built to level 4 in game.

The Soviet defence of this area was based on the naval fort that was constructed before WW1. But I mean its not a city.

[DesertedFox]

The Soviet defence of this area was based on the naval fort that was constructed before WW1. But I mean its not a city.

Okay, I am not going to argue with you, it's not a city, I never said it was. I just said a fortress had been built there

historically. I never said it was a city.

What I did say was

it must be in or adjacent to a major city, not a town,

which was paraphrasing the rule book.

20.6. CItY FoRtS

A “City Fort” is a notional unit that allows players to
stack more combat and HQ units in any city or port hexes.

20.6.1. CREAtIoN
To create one, you must select a unit in or adjacent to the
urban/port hex.

Note that some scenarios have at-start city forts that
breach this rule but no new ones can be created outside
these areas.

I am not sure what you are driving at.

[Joel Billings]

Yes, city forts are intended for port fortified areas and urban areas where often much larger unit densities existed. Ports were often situated with a large fortified area that could sustain a large density of troops in a small area. While there were smaller cities like Vitebsk that had garrisons larger than the 3 unit stacking allows, it wasn't on the order of the much larger garrisons in the port or the need to allow a larger defense of Stalingrad or Berlin (or some of the German city forts in 1945). Ideally we'd have a mechanism that allows a somewhat smaller city fort in other locations, but this was added complexity for in our opinion very small gain.

[GibsonPete]

cameron88 and jubjub are simply pointing out that one side has an option that the other does not. They would like to see that option for both sides. Arguing that it is ahistorical is weak. It is similar to the limit on the number of Axis fortresses available. Something that is also being explored. The stacking limit is simply a diversion from the topic. I suggest we examine (in a calm manner) the benefits and detriments of what is being suggested. Is it a game breaker? Don't know. Is it supported by history? Yes. Should a Soviet city fort be exactly like an Axis city fort? Maybe but maybe not.

[ShaggyHiK]

I know your German suggestions for "improving the game". The German player almost does not spend AP points for most of the game, he is not forced to constantly create new units and change army commanders. If the Germans were allowed to create forts, it would appear that the Soviet Union would be forced to constantly storm the fortified cities. Just because the German player will begin to turn every significant point into a fortress, even in operation it will delay the capture of an important hex for the placement of large warehouses and interfere with the construction of rails, than the German player will be able to greatly slow down the advance of the USSR in 43-44-45.

Imagine what kind of Moscow will be returned if the Soviet player loses it, and the German player immediately makes a fortress out of it?
Create a fortress in Smolensk, build a high level of fortifications - place your tank troops there, save them during the winter counter-offensive.

I just have no words, the most active suggestions for the game for some reason come from the German players who are now in greenhouse conditions.
Do you really need all these handouts to win with confidence? Are you interested in playing when the Soviet player actually plays the role of an extra?

Moreover, it is simply impossible to regard Demyansk and even Stalingrad as a "fortress city" in the literal sense.
It's like looking at an armored car with bulletproof armor and saying that this is a full-fledged tank match the German panther.
The fortress city was Konigsberg, Budapest, Poznan and other cities on German territory within the borders on June 21, 41, to consider Velikiye Luki a fortress city, this is wishful thinking, an armored car for a tank.