Germans need city forts in Soviet Union

[cameron88]

You are so unbelievably wrong and/or delusional.
I implore you to play a 1942 STB game and be able to put 5-10 divisions on a tile as Germany and not for it to be immediately encircled or have serious gaps in your frontline, all while having a noticeable immediate and unbalancing game impact as you baselessly assume it will, which spoiler alert, it won't. (I have 90-120 turns worth of STB experience now against players)

Infact i further ask this, give me an exact example in 1942 of where you could build a city fort as Germany, be able to man it without issues mentioned above, and then the Soviets be "forced to storm it" or else it would be at all game unbalancing, so much so that the Soviets become "the role of an extra". Because i know you can't, and your comment adds literally no value to this discussion, which comes from your lack of game experience.

The reality is all city forts do is stop dumb and unrealistic situations from happening and are completely historical. This thread is about Stalingrad being encircled in STB scenario, and there's no place to put HQs, small 3k size units, or much else, as the city tiles are limited to just a couple divisions. Because of this, the issues mentioned at the top of this thread inevitably will happen as a result like your HQs being overrun and there being no actual fight for the city.

And your comment "Moreover, it is simply impossible to regard Demyansk and even Stalingrad as a "fortress city" in the literal sense." Is completely irrelevant. If that's the case, then the Soviets shouldnt be able to build fortress cities at all, because how could you consider Tallin a fortress city "in the literal sense" as you put it, or smolensk, or dneprovetsk all which i've seen players fortify in 1941 campaigns, guess the Soviets shouldn't be able to build them then either.

How about you don't consider it a city fort "in the literal sense" Because you have a comprehension of city forts being an 18th century fort and taking months/years to prepare, when in reality it's nothing more ingame then the ability to put more units into a city, and in real life an adhoc decision to fortify a city and try to defend it with nearby forces, more often then not already surrounded.

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yeah, was wishing I could hole up in Tallinn in the future (as the Germans). It's just not possible with only 3 units in the hex, since one of them needs to be an HQ. Same issue with Sevastopol. Maybe I can naval transport an HQ a couple of hexes off the coast so I can have 3 CU's in the hex.

[ShaggyHiK]

Speaking about the encirclement of German troops at Stalingrad, one must understand the number of those encircled, and the fact that most of the encircled were defended outside the city.
In addition, the Soviet commanders and the Headquarters estimated the encircled grouping as 80k people, and not 300k people as it was in reality.
Players, however, are well aware of what size piece of cake they bite off and use adequate forces to destroy the enemy group.

A hypothetical example, a fortress erected by a German player in Moscow at the turn of the winter of 41-42.
If the German player reaches Moscow, then he will be able to place a fortress there and place 5 divisions. Which will likely rule out the possibility of Moscow returning by a winter counter-offensive. With obvious serious consequences for the Soviet player. Obviously, even the loss of these 5 divisions will pay off.

That is, we do not consider the possibility of combining small units of 3-4k people into 1 unit of 15k people? Do you need to place all these stubs in 1 hex?

Well, I generally doubt that you understand the very term fortified city or in the German way "Festung", as a definite term. You mean by this some kind of "fortress", although in fact, in the doctrine of the German command, this is a city prepared for a perimeter defense, with accumulated resources for its defense inside the city itself and holding it for a long period of time even if it is completely surrounded by enemy lines.

[ShaggyHiK]

Tallin a fortress city

Sounds pretty funny, the Soviet fortress is in Tallinn, I certainly have questions, where did the Soviet player get the points for building a fortress in Tallinn? Why didn't the German player take Tallinn fast enough to rule out the possibility of creating a fortress in the city?
At the initial stage (on move 3), the Soviet player simply does not have enough strength to effectively occupy the fortress erected in Tallinn; at best, NKVD regiments of 1.5k people will sit there, and brigades of 7k people, who may have participated in the battles of the division, will be assessed as 5k people (although usually less), at best, if the German player does not cut off the railway to Tallinn for 3 moves, there will be a theoretical opportunity to put there, for example, 2-3 divisions. In general, this is no more than 45-50 thousand people for 4 turns.
Whether the Soviet player wants to be scattered like that in the North, the answer is no.
The German players have a stable circle around Tallinn on their 3rd turn. Which means that the reaction of the Soviet player is only 2 moves.
If this does not happen on turn 3(2 sov turn), then it will happen on turn 4(3 sov turn), the Soviet player will have to make a quick decision on his 3rd sov turn to occupy Tallinn in conditions of an acute shortage of troops in the North, and on the 5th German turn, the German player can already start storming Tallinn ...

[jubjub]

Tallinn can be a massive headache to deal with if it’s not taken immediately. There’s a reason everyone rushes it down - ahistorically -with a couple of motorized divisions. If it’s not rushed, it’s very feasible to put up a solid defense with 4-5 divisions in the city.

[ShaggyHiK]

Spending 10 AP points to create a fortress in the first turns of the 6-8. Bad strategic decision, if this bad decision works well it means the German player is making bad strategic decisions.

[Pionpion]

I agree : I built a Fort in Tallinn on my first game ever on version 2, filled wiuth secondary troops, the Fort was wiped out on turn 3 (Road to Len scenario).

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: cameron88

You are so unbelievably wrong and/or delusional. ....

your view may be completely right and ShaggyHiK may be completely wrong but you can still keep it polite?

I've tended to see the axis pocket at Stalingrad hold on pretty much as long as it did historically, so that suggests that the lack of a city fort is not the issue?

No one is arguing that city forts are some sort of "18th century fort" or the game requiring the sort of leisurely approach to campaigning and fort reduction of say Rise of Prussia.

There are two arguments against allowing the Germans to do this in Soviet territory. One is that they didn't, cities were declared fortified zones but in the main were defended within the current stacking rules. The other is that it might unbalance the game?

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

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.

And? Fortress Citys are not a magic get out of jail card, the Germans dont have infinite troops and cannot create any new ones from scratch. That means, any units left in a city fortress are basically expected to be captured or killed, which is quite a serious loss of experienced formations and manpower. So the Axis player has to consider the benefits of slowing down the enemy for a few turns vs the downside of losing strong and experienced formations to buy time.

Even the toughest forts can be beaten down by the Soviets with the use of multiple Rifle Corps. Also: The possibility to build forts doesnt mean that they will be build. It is simply an option for players to have and due to the resources the Germans have they cannot have so many fort cities.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

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?

Thats not how that works. First of all: Dont lose Moscow. Secondly, once the city would be captured it would have 0 fortifications. So adding a City Fort there would be silly. Thirdly, you can capture it back as the Soviets, you just need to put in the effort to do so.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

Create a fortress in Smolensk, build a high level of fortifications - place your tank troops there, save them during the winter counter-offensive.

How will they be safe? You can encircle them and destroy them as the Soviets.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
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?

This is a simple suggestion, not a handout. Calm down with your projecting.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
The fortress city was Konigsberg, Budapest, Poznan and other cities on German territory within the borders on June 21, 41.

What is your definition of fortress city? If it is simply Festung, then all the other ones mentioned above were fortresses. If it is based on the number of men defending, then issues arise. The forces defending Budapest and Koenigsberg cannot be compared to the relatively small forces defending Posen (around 40k men).

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
Well, I generally doubt that you understand the very term fortified city or in the German way "Festung", as a definite term. You mean by this some kind of "fortress", although in fact, in the doctrine of the German command, this is a city prepared for a perimeter defense, with accumulated resources for its defense inside the city itself and holding it for a long period of time even if it is completely surrounded by enemy lines.

Please stop with this projecting. City forts are just a gameplay mechanic so you can add more units above the stacking limit. It has nothing to do with the doctrine of German command.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

A hypothetical example, a fortress erected by a German player in Moscow at the turn of the winter of 41-42.
If the German player reaches Moscow, then he will be able to place a fortress there and place 5 divisions. Which will likely rule out the possibility of Moscow returning by a winter counter-offensive. With obvious serious consequences for the Soviet player. Obviously, even the loss of these 5 divisions will pay off.

You are repeating yourself without countering any of the points that cameron raised while at the same time making claims that make no sense. No sane German player can afford to stack up 5 divisions in one hex. You just dont have the unit density for it. If you did that, you are leaving your flanks exposed, which means the Soviets can encircle you easily.

Again: You keep saying it will rule out the possibility of a winter offensive and that is insane. Just because one hex fell, doesnt mean the Soviets wont counterattack, what logic is this??

You are also ignoring the fact that as the war goes by, Soviet forces get bigger and German ones get smaller. In 1944 having 3 Rifle Corps in an urban hex (around 78k men) is not the same as having 3 German Infantry Divisions (around 30k men). But these are the limitations of the game and the 3 unit stack and we have to work within that frame.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: 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.
...

Have you ever tried to play as an Axis? You have to create depots and assign constructions workers which cost AP. Also there are huge amount of bad leaders with ratings 5-5-5-5 that had to be replaced. And guess what? It costs AP to do so.
You are constantly defending Soviets (cuz you are from Russia?) and voting against any improvements for the Axis. And then you are asking if the game will be interesting for an Axis player if developers add X/Y/Z.

If you think that Axis can afford to put 5-6 divisions into fortress then probably this is the answer for my question: "Have you ever tried to play as an Axis?"

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: loki100

I've tended to see the axis pocket at Stalingrad hold on pretty much as long as it did historically, so that suggests that the lack of a city fort is not the issue?

I agree, in StB, Stalingrad almost always holds out as long as it did historically, so I dont see a problem there. However, one example does not mean that this will be the case everywhere.

ORIGINAL: loki100

There are two arguments against allowing the Germans to do this in Soviet territory. One is that they didn't, cities were declared fortified zones but in the main were defended within the current stacking rules. The other is that it might unbalance the game?

The first argument is a bit odd though since "City Forts" is just a name that the devs came up with to explain the gameplay mechanic that allows you to stack more units.

As for the second argument: It might unbalance the game, but I dont think it will for two reasons: 1) The Germans cant afford to have so many units defending City Forts or you recreate a Stalingrad situation and 2) there is a counter to it, in that the Soviets bypass, isolate and destroy such key locations.

As long as there is a trade off, Im fine with it:

-The Soviets get slowed down at a key locations but at the expense of multiple German formations that are completely destroyed.

[Iam5not8]

Demyansk pocket was 60km by 50/70 km wide. IN game terms, that is roughly 3*3 hexes.
Stalingrad pocket, even at the end, was not limited to the city Stalingrad Maps
In Stalingrad, many divisions were declared out of combat even before the encirclment, by German HQ. In game terms, they will have been merged (which can leads to weird divisions with TOE over 100, because of the damage elements).
Then as Stalingrad (as Volgograd nowadays), is a line following the volga, the map can hardly represent the reality. That"s a limitation of any cartography at this scale.

Velikye garrison was a single inf regiment, with a security battalion. It was heavily fortified which in my understanding, is a fortified unit in game, at least lvl 3. When Soviet launched the offensive, the 83rd division front was more than 100km long.
Most of the German losses came from the relief attempts, and some regiments surrounded north & south of the town. When you go through the Ops Diaries, there is an Mountain inf rgt reporting the loss of 20 out 22 officers in 1 week of fight, and a remaining force of 60 men. (so a big platoon, not even a company). Same high losses of the soviet sides, as some guard rifle divisions were taken out of combat in 3 to 5 days.
Anyway, even nowadays Velikye is quite a small town of about 100.000 people.
When you look a map of VL in 1940, there is no way any Head of Staff would have garisonned many divisions there (map at 1:25000)
VL in 1940

Orienbaum & Kronstadt were old "Coastal" Forts built to protect the naval entrance to St-Petersburg. (even if we could challenge the fort level of Orienbaum).

Nevertheless, on a pure game point of view, I can't see why German could not build City Fortress, even in Soviet Union, within the current rule set.
Fortified units are avalaible to both sides. Merging units is the best way to represents multiple badly beaten divisions making their last stand in a one-hex location.


(sorry for the english)

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Iam5not8

Merging units is the best way to represents multiple badly beaten divisions making their last stand in a one-hex location.

It is what I am using constantly as the Germans in VtB. No other way to do it and it gives you a historical feeling.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: xhoel
-The Soviets get slowed down at a key locations but at the expense of multiple German formations that are completely destroyed.

I doubt this can be seen as a compromise.
The German player will be able to create fortresses, for example, in Leningrad, where there is a port. He can, if desired, hold him for a while, and then evacuate from the city by sea. Having crossed, for example, to Tallinn, without losing a single division. The same is with the southern ports on the Black Sea. Sevastopol, Novorosiysk and others.
There may be many points that are not taken into account in the proposal. Which can greatly upset the balance of the game in both directions.

In fact, I see some pretty interesting counter-arguments. On the one hand, they say, "The Germans need forts in order to plant more divisions there and stay on Soviet soil," I say: "Then you will have the opportunity to create a fortress city in cities for the Soviet player, if you take them, which will completely win the game at 41, with no chance of a comeback "
to which I hear the geometrically opposite, "The German player does not have so many divisions to put at least 5 divisions in 1 hex!", well, if you do not have these 5 divisions, why do you need a fortress on Soviet territory?

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

The German player will be able to create fortresses, for example, in Leningrad, where there is a port. He can, if desired, hold him for a while, and then evacuate from the city by sea. Having crossed, for example, to Tallinn, without losing a single division. The same is with the southern ports on the Black Sea. Sevastopol, Novorosiysk and others.

It is your job as the Soviet player to prevent that. Run Naval interdiction on the port so no supplies make it in and so that the units are isolated or rush your armor to Tallinn to threaten the Axis rear. Also attack the city to wear the enemy down?
You are making a mountain out a mole hill. No German player will build a fortress in Novorosiysk or any other Black Sea ports except for Sevastopol, since there is very little gain from it.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

On the one hand, they say, "The Germans need forts in order to plant more divisions there and stay on Soviet soil," I say: "Then you will have the opportunity to create a fortress city in cities for the Soviet player, if you take them, which will completely win the game at 41, with no chance of a comeback "
to which I hear the geometrically opposite, "The German player does not have so many divisions to put at least 5 divisions in 1 hex!", well, if you do not have these 5 divisions, why do you need a fortress on Soviet territory?

I legit dont understand what you even wrote here. The point is very clear: Forts should exist so that IF
the German player is willing to sacrifice his units to slow the Soviets down, he can do so. Its a simple trade off.

The whole 5 division thing came from your Moscow example, which you now conveniently forgot about. You brought that point up and were rebutted. Just play 1 game as the Axis before speaking about them please. Your comment about admin points clearly shows that you are out of your depth here.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: xhoel
I legit dont understand what you even wrote here.

I say that people's argumentation is interesting, "Where it is convenient we will talk about balance, where it is not convenient we will talk about historicism"

Judging by Joel's comment, I conclude that at the stage of developing the game, these issues were worked out to one degree or another, and in fact it was decided that such a possibility was unnecessary.

You know that in all games there are discussions about the balance of the game and new chips? Often, players playing the same game come to geometrically opposite opinions. One says Axis OP, the other says Axis sucks, Soviet Union OP. And who to believe? One says to fix the Germans, the second says to fix the Soviet Union.

I really liked the comment by Iam5not8, which clearly showed that from a realistic point of view, Demyansk / Velikiye Luki and Stalingrad cannot be considered a "fortress CITY", because the defense was not built around the city as a key point of defense. What destroys the arguments given in the topic about the fact that these cities were "fortress cities" therefore, the Germans should be able to build fortress cities on Soviet territory.

From your comments, I see that in general you are aware of the real state of affairs in a real war. I understand your desire to give more freedom of action to the players in the game, but do you realize how this will potentially work?
I gave an example with Moscow to show how unreasoned the proposal for which you are speaking is not thought out. There are weak players who will start by planting 10 divisions in 1 hex and then complain that the Soviet player is surrounding them and that the fortress cities are useless and harmful, an experienced player can use this opportunity to isolate the Soviet player in the early stages of the game. Agree, if you take Moscow playing for Germany, you want to keep it in the winter. I am sure that you would rather spit and give Kharkov than Moscow.

I gave an exaggerated example to show that this player's proposal has aspects about which the player who proposed did not bother.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: loki100

I've tended to see the axis pocket at Stalingrad hold on pretty much as long as it did historically, so that suggests that the lack of a city fort is not the issue?

I agree, in StB, Stalingrad almost always holds out as long as it did historically, so I dont see a problem there. However, one example does not mean that this will be the case everywhere.

...

except that the big example as to why this is needed cited above is that the poster can't hold the Stalingrad pocket in StB - so its not just 'one example' its the example that is used to claim this change is needed. And as we both agree, its not a very good example as there are plenty of ways a German player can keep the pocket going to its historical collapse unless the Soviet player responds in a very particular way?

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: loki100

I've tended to see the axis pocket at Stalingrad hold on pretty much as long as it did historically, so that suggests that the lack of a city fort is not the issue?

I agree, in StB, Stalingrad almost always holds out as long as it did historically, so I dont see a problem there. However, one example does not mean that this will be the case everywhere.

...

except that the big example as to why this is needed cited above is that the poster can't hold the Stalingrad pocket in StB - so its not just 'one example' its the example that is used to claim this change is needed. And as we both agree, its not a very good example as there are plenty of ways a German player can keep the pocket going to its historical collapse unless the Soviet player responds in a very particular way?

If by the 'poster', you are referring to me, my issue is not holding Stalingrad, but I'm able to take it extremely quickly without the city forts. I was able to take the north city 3 weeks early even with a city forts and 100,000 men in it. Without the city forts, I could've taken it 2-3 turns earlier with far fewer casualties.

I was forced to abuse the urban combat mechanics, or it would've never fallen due to the unrealistic supply and air supply situation. This kind of gets into several other issue that I'll probably bring up in separate posts.

[Stamb]

If Axis player decides to hold Sevastopol - what he can do? Leave 2 divisions + HQ in the city? It is free VP when Soviets get there.
City fort is needed or review of the rules for unit stacking. There is a difference between 3 ID and 3 riffle corps and 3 regiments in 1 hex in terms of men count but currently game counts only "boxes" for this people.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

If Axis player decides to hold Sevastopol - what he can do? Leave 2 divisions + HQ in the city? It is free VP when Soviets get there.

You put 3 divisions there and you have the HQ sit 5 hexes off the coast in a boat (indefinitely long naval transport where you never disembark).

However, this is assuming that it makes sense to significantly defend Sevastopol in the first place, which I doubt. Sevastopol has to hold out until longer than ~ turn 151 to get bonus VP down due to the historical capture time. That is unlikely to be really achievable, so it is likely to be better to put your troops on the main line instead. Holding Sevastopol is also not going to materially hurt Soviet logistics until at the minimum they are starting to get into eastern Europe I would think, so there is not much reason to try to deny Soviets the port either. And there is hardly any manpower/industry there either.