"Digging In" as Germans?

[cfulbright]

I'm playing my first WITE game, so forgive the newbie question. I'm hitting Winter of 1941. I want to "dig in" on a defensible line and try to beat off the massed Russian attacks I'm told will come. How does one "dig in" in this game? Do I just stop where I am and let the units fortify themselves? Get behind rivers where possible? Are the Fortification units worth deploying, and if so, any tips and tricks with them? Some other way to solidify my line?

Thanks in advance for the advice.

[morvael]

Select good positions (terrain, behind rivers) and stop your units there (withdraw where necessary). Give them a turn or two to dig in. Attaching pioneer support units directly or having them in direct HQ close by will speed up the process. Forts are too be built further back, where you want another defensive line, but can't spare troops for that. Dismantle them when the enemy comes (and put retreating units in those hexes) not to lose equipment.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Forget it! You can't dig in during blizzard. Even level 3 forts won't hold. All you can do is retreat in an orderly fashion. Don't waste APs on fortification units. They are useless. Unfortunately, this is the worst part of the game. The blizzard just doesn't make any sense.

Entrenching behind a major river is probably the only alternative to retreating.

[SigUp]

Um, I think entreching behind rivers or not doesn't really matter in winter conditions. As soon as the ice level reaches 5 or higher the river has no effect on movement costs or combat. In the north and centre it is possible to slow the red onslaught to a certain degree with units in good terrain and high level forts. In the south forts don't matter, just run.

[Gabriel B.]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Forget it! You can't dig in during blizzard. Even level 3 forts won't hold. All you can do is retreat in an orderly fashion. Don't waste APs on fortification units. They are useless. Unfortunately, this is the worst part of the game. The blizzard just doesn't make any sense.

Entrenching behind a major river is probably the only alternative to retreating.

He is probably playing against the AI so there is no need to be so drastic.
In my first game 16th army held a overextended line broken down into regiments.
The soviets did not comit important forces there (1 soviet bde vs 1 german regiment )

The situation was tougher in the Donets bend where the romanians were hammered by numerical superior soviet forces despite level 2-3 forts prepared before hand .


So my advice is to identify enemy concentations and either withdraw or if afordable consolidate.
As for fortied zones , build them behind the front line to build forts, than slowly retreat into them . Once the enemy gets a shot at it ,disband them . If you have pioneers to spare you can atach them directly to fortified zone to expedite fort build level.

Deny the AI the posibilty to atack your hex from 3 sides , it invariably succeds .

for instance : 6 soviet rifle divisions can lauch a deliberate atack with a ofensive CV between 240 and 300, it very hard to counter that even with 3 divisions in december without forts. At 360 -450 ofensive CV it is imposible .

[SigUp]

And don't forget the Soviet attack doctrine. They get +1 on the odds once they pass 1:1. So basically, they win the battle if the odds are even.

[javats]

All of these and many other reasons, the German must retreat (run like &ell) in the winter of 41 to 42

[Tuhhodge]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Um, I think entreching behind rivers or not doesn't really matter in winter conditions. As soon as the ice level reaches 5 or higher the river has no effect on movement costs or combat. In the north and centre it is possible to slow the red onslaught to a certain degree with units in good terrain and high level forts. In the south forts don't matter, just run.

I didn't realise this. I thought it was common sense to fortify your lines once you take a defensive posture for the winter?! Why are forts a waste of time?

And can someone please explain this idea of disbanding forts once the enemy makes an appearance. I really don't understand the sense of that.

It all seems a bit unrealistic to me if fortifying is pointless!

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Tuhhodge

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Um, I think entreching behind rivers or not doesn't really matter in winter conditions. As soon as the ice level reaches 5 or higher the river has no effect on movement costs or combat. In the north and centre it is possible to slow the red onslaught to a certain degree with units in good terrain and high level forts. In the south forts don't matter, just run.

I didn't realise this. I thought it was common sense to fortify your lines once you take a defensive posture for the winter?! Why are forts a waste of time?

What Sigup referes too is during the blizzard in particular when the effects are worst early on in dec and normally in jan too. The CV decrease from the blizzard effects are such even with fortification levels u very well might not be able to defend in any serious manner. If forts even with its CV modifiers doesnt make any difference in ur ability to defend cuz of the blizzard effects. One can question the point in making them. As it doesnt change ur sitasuon to an extend it matters.

And can someone please explain this idea of disbanding forts once the enemy makes an appearance. I really don't understand the sense of that.

Idea is that manpower and arms are tied up in the forts, as in the equipment/men they inheritly have. As they cant retreat they auto surrender up on being attacked by a 2-1(in effect 1-1 cuz of speciel rules) enemy result or better. This Means almost all the manpower and arms/equpment are lost. If u disband the forts that before that happens u save the men/arms for another rainy day. Thats the idea behind the disbanding.

It all seems a bit unrealistic to me if fortifying is pointless!

As said this specificly has to do with the conditions during the first blizzard cuz of the effect of those rules have on CV. So fortifying in it self has a point its just not great enough during this periode to make any different on the end result in most cases why ppl tend not to make em.

Hope it helps,

Rasmus

[Disgruntled Veteran]

I disagree with some of the points made here so let me give you my take. First lets make acknowledge a few things.

-Disbanding Forts is a misnomer. What your disbanding is the fortified region and the troops that comprise it. The actual fort is still there and is indicated by hovering your mouse tip over the given hex. Fortified Zones/Regions are primarily used to maintain forts that have already been built. This and they also help push forts beyond lvl 's 2-3.

-People will often build Fortified regions not only to maintain an existing fort (because without a unit on them they degrade to nothing over time) but they often use fortified zones to help build forts from scratch. An example would be Germany building FZ's (Fortified Zones) behind the Oder river early in the war in order to build a fort a late game wall without committing combat troops.

-People disband FZ's because the FZ itself is a poor combat substitute. This and the fact that if they lose a battle the whole fort unit surrenders. So they disband them and recover the men and material and keep the fort level. Make sense?

-Finally, ignore this rubbish about Forts being useless in Blizzard. They are extremely effective if built before snow and provide a line of stability to check the Red Horde if only for a turn or two. To see for yourself adjust your counters to show defensive CV then move any unit from a non fort hex to a fort hex and watch their defensive CV double. Granted the Blizzard effect degrades the axis CV roll but half of 10 is a lot better than half of 5. My advice for future games is to have a fort line built far enough behind the front in December so that you plan on reaching it in January when the blizzard effect is nullified somewhat. Hope this helps.

[Tuhhodge]

The manual is unclear with regards the interaction between fortified zones and forts, although it is detailed on the mechanics of fort construction once they exist.

My vague understanding is demonstrated by these thoughts! :-

It seems that the normal way a player can instigate the construction of a new fort is by using Shift-F and expending 4 APs to place a fortified zone in a hex provided they also place a combat unit in the hex? Is construction of new Forts started in any other way?

SUs can be attached directly to a FZ (or to a combat unit in a FZ) to improve its ability to construct a fort but you always need combat troops in the FZ to actually increase the Fort level?

It'll take a long time and effort to go from FZ to Fort level 5, but once you get to Fort level 3 you don't need to keep the hex garrisoned with combat troops because the Fort won't decay?

On the other hand Level 1 and 2 Forts will decay over time. The presence of a FZ can halt that decay but won't lead to an increase in the Fort level?

Forts are a seperate entity from FZs, so if a FZ is disbanded, the Fort remains in place and gives its defensive value to any combat unit in that hex? Does this mean that a Fort has no intrinsic combat value - kind of like an ungarrisoned castle - but can only be used by the side who built it? Seems odd?

Thanks for any replies.

[Gabriel B.]

ORIGINAL: Tuhhodge

The manual is unclear with regards the interaction between fortified zones and forts, although it is detailed on the mechanics of fort construction once they exist.

My vague understanding is demonstrated by these thoughts! :-

It seems that the normal way a player can instigate the construction of a new fort is by using Shift-F and expending 4 APs to place a fortified zone in a hex provided they also place a combat unit in the hex? Is construction of new Forts started in any other way?

SUs can be attached directly to a FZ (or to a combat unit in a FZ) to improve its ability to construct a fort but you always need combat troops in the FZ to actually increase the Fort level?

It'll take a long time and effort to go from FZ to Fort level 5, but once you get to Fort level 3 you don't need to keep the hex garrisoned with combat troops because the Fort won't decay?

On the other hand Level 1 and 2 Forts will decay over time. The presence of a FZ can halt that decay but won't lead to an increase in the Fort level?

Forts are a seperate entity from FZs, so if a FZ is disbanded, the Fort remains in place and gives its defensive value to any combat unit in that hex? Does this mean that a Fort has no intrinsic combat value - kind of like an ungarrisoned castle - but can only be used by the side who built it? Seems odd?

Thanks for any replies.

If you meant fort as in trenches , the way to start construction is to simply keep a unit in that hez for several turns ( axis minors are not as good as the germans because of the lower construction values but they will have to do ).


A fortified zone is a basicly a bunker with a several batalions worth of infantry (1480 men). You do not need combat troops to be stacked with it to increase fort level , but:
fort level would increase faster if you do .

Yes.


Depends on range to the nearest suplied enemy unit.

I think of them as trenches .

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Tuhhodge

The manual is unclear with regards the interaction between fortified zones and forts, although it is detailed on the mechanics of fort construction once they exist.


My vague understanding is demonstrated by these thoughts! :-

It seems that the normal way a player can instigate the construction of a new fort is by using Shift-F and expending 4 APs to place a fortified zone in a hex provided they also place a combat unit in the hex? Is construction of new Forts started in any other way?

There are a fortification zone(FZ, many also just call em forts for short). Then there are fort levels. The first as u indicate functions just like any other unit. U place it as inidcated above. It counts for a unit stacking wise, it starts with 1% ToE and with refit on and draws replacement like any other unit, u can attach SU and so on. Only difference is that is has 0 MP cant move and therefor cant retreat if such a result occures in its hex, In that case it surrender with any men/equipement in it.

Then there are fort levels. Those arent a unit, but an CV modifier that a hex can obtain. So these 2 thigns are seperate tho FZ have an effect directly and indirectly on fort levels but ill come back to that.

I gather u read the old manual. If but u hafta do it manually go into the manual folder of the game there is a file called WITE-manual-us_letters.pdf. Its an updated manual and lots of thing has changed in game since the original manual was released. The original manaul is of limited value now a days. The updated manual has under each paragraph inserted in red tex what ever pacthes affects that rule. among others lots of stuff relating to FZ and fort levels. Remember to thx Apollo/Leo for ther work when u see him.

Fort levels are build by having any unit in a hex(including but not excluded to FZs, remember it acts like a any other unit). If the unit have MP left at end of a turn a unit will use the remaning MP/time to build fort levels. How good a unit is at this u can check in the unit menu by checking its Construction value. The higher the better. In effect some will have such a low value u wont see them build much. Also there is a direct corrololation with amount of MP non used and digging/bulding ability. The less % of starting MPs u have left the less or no build is done.

There are some limitations on fort levels tho. U can obtain max fort level 2, less:

Requirement to build up to Fort Level 5 - Only will be built in port hexes that have a fort unit(FZ). Once built, the fort unit(FZ) is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in a swamp hex.

Requirement to build up to Fort Level 4 - Must have a fort unit(FZ) in the hex. Once built, the fort unit(FZ) is not needed to keep the level 4 fort. Not possible in swamp hex.

Requirement to build up to Fort Level 3 - Must be adjacent to an enemy hex, be an urban or city hex, or be in or adjacent to a fort unit(FZ).

So apart from frontlines hex or city/urban hex. U need a FZ in or adjecent to get higher than fort levels 2. Thats how they interact. Apart from FZ has a low Construction value so it in it self just like any other unit can also build tho slowly in them self. As FZ is a unit it can counteract fort level decay from happining, less its really low in ToE. Any combat unit will stop decay, it doesnt have to be a FZ. Non combat unit wont stop but slow decay.

Decay rules has been changed too so now u need a fort level of 4 or higher to avoid decay or have a unit in the hex to stop the decay.

SUs can be attached directly to a FZ (or to a combat unit in a FZ) to improve its ability to construct a fort but you always need combat troops in the FZ to actually increase the Fort level?

Yes u can do this, I'd say its not very used as it costs AP to attach units and remove them too. Making it rather more expensive overall. Most(not all) tend to move actual units into/adjecent the hexes of FZ and then use the Construction value of those units as digger. FZ will dig a bit in it self but mostly its "used" to get around the max 2 fort level limit.

It'll take a long time and effort to go from FZ to Fort level 5, but once you get to Fort level 3 you don't need to keep the hex garrisoned with combat troops because the Fort won't decay?

On the other hand Level 1 and 2 Forts will decay over time. The presence of a FZ can halt that decay but won't lead to an increase in the Fort level?

U can only get 5 in port hexes, but yes getting fort levels 4 and 5 is hard. The non garrison decay rule is now set at fort level 4 or higher, not 3.
Yes a FZ less at really low ToE will stop decay as its a unit. It can increase fort levels as it has a constuction value. Tho even at 100% ToE its relatively low. Why most ppl tend to move units into the hex build it up to 3-4 then move the units to the next hex to play diggers.

Forts are a seperate entity from FZs, so if a FZ is disbanded, the Fort remains in place and gives its defensive value to any combat unit in that hex? Does this mean that a Fort has no intrinsic combat value - kind of like an ungarrisoned castle - but can only be used by the side who built it? Seems odd?

Well there is no such thing as forts, there are FZ but many call them forts for short and then fort levels. See above.

Rasmus

[Tuhhodge]

Thanks Rasmus. Excellent explanation.

[cfulbright]

Thank you all. I should have checked this thread before I started a new one asking some of the questions you answered here.

It sounds like my setting up a fortified line behind rivers in Oct. 1941 isn't going to do me much good.

I'd gotten to Turn 33, and decided to restart back on Turn 16 (early Oct) because I was so sick of all the retreating I'd done through Turn 33. It sounds like nothing I do will make much difference and I may as well go back to Turn 33.

Yes, I'm playing AI.

[lastkozak]

Some other tips.

Break down any mnts divisions into regiments, and place one regiment with a division, as the mnts are not affected by the blizzard effects. Even Hungarian and Romanian mtns units are good. I usually refit all my mnts units last couple turns before snow.

Never leave poor morale units alone! Try to keep a german unit with the axis allies. Slovaks are pretty good and Hungarians if they are defending only one hexside. But Rumanians, don't trust them!! They see the soviets coming, fire one volley, and run! (Note: The cold winter causes the rifles of your Italian Allies to turn into 'overcooked Linguini', so they don't even try to pretend to fight).

keep your line as straight as possible as snow approaches. Salients leave too long a front for you to defend, and can get pinched. Try to find a few units, preferably an army, as a reserve, and rail to where the main thrust is, once it is clear it is not a diversionary offensive. If the Soviet Offensive seems to stop suddenly in mid winter, your opponent may be railing the entire force somewhere else, be prepared to move any reserves to a news pot.

Further, cross your fingers and make some offerings to 'WOTAN', you will need it. Finally, when in need of placing blame for your defeat, blame the axis allies! Such an excuse saved many a German General's head!

Good luck!

[swkuh]

Yes, Wotan might help the Axis, an essential feature for WitE 2.0

But Wotan had inconsistent relationships with people named Siegfried, sometimes helping, sometimes hurting. The one to trust is Loki, even though he posts to this forum. Uh, come to think, so does Siegfried.

[lastkozak]

Yea, but Loki is the trickster god, and one never knows if he enjoys messing with your panzers, or switching your fuel for banana oil!

Go With Fen-Wrys, or Fenrus, all one needs is the magic lassoo and he will reak havoc on any you order him to!