Does anyone have any information on exactly what effect these have during a battle, and if they are worth the investment over utilizing AA battalions or just extra units to defend a coastal province? Thanks!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well provincial AA won't cost you manpower, so if that is an issue I guess they make sense compared to AA brigades for coastal defenses.
Also, upgrading provincial AA is free whereas upgrading regiments will cost you IC. Of course you won't get the mobility or the hard attack from AA regiments when you use the provincial AA guns - they'll only help stopping the air crafts from bombing your troops.
Also, upgrading provincial AA is free whereas upgrading regiments will cost you IC. Of course you won't get the mobility or the hard attack from AA regiments when you use the provincial AA guns - they'll only help stopping the air crafts from bombing your troops.
Well static AA shoot at every hostile wing that cross the province, causing org (and str?) losses, while giving art practicals, being quick to build, not costing much Ic, no MP and no officers so yeah... They are nice. They are usually useful in provinces with important buildings (big ports/airports, big industrial centers, ...). You can also build a line of them to protect your whole country if the geography calls for it (the frontier between France and Germany for example).
Coastal forts works just like regular forts, boosting the defense efficiency of the defender and hampering the attack efficiency of the attacker. The thing is they are costly and take a long time to build and amphibious assault are difficult enough as it is. I'd say they are nice in places you really can't afford to lose (Gibraltar for instance) but otherwise not very useful.
Coastal forts works just like regular forts, boosting the defense efficiency of the defender and hampering the attack efficiency of the attacker. The thing is they are costly and take a long time to build and amphibious assault are difficult enough as it is. I'd say they are nice in places you really can't afford to lose (Gibraltar for instance) but otherwise not very useful.
When was this change made? Static AA only used to fire at planes attacking the province the AA was in (or units on said province), not anything just passing over.
Could anyone confirm whether statical AA shoots at all planes flying over a province?
It has been confirmed many times over that no form of AA fires at planes that are just passing over-- the game isn't keeping track of each individual province the plane passes, so there's no way the engine could allow for that sort of fire.
Alright. Thanks for clearing that out. Was it in HoI2 or did I just dream that? Anyway, static AA are still great to protect important provinces.
Coastal (and land) forts will bolster defense and reduce offense as noted above. Useful in increasing the time it takes to capture a province in that it gives you more time to reinforce the defenders. If someone really wants to take a province and is willing to pay the price, forts won't stop them. In my limited experience, fortified islands/ports can beat off small attacks, but if isolated and the Marines show up to the party it is just a matter of time. Forts do have the added factor of increasing construction practical and build faster than IC, something to consider early for IC "whores" like Russia or USA.
Provincial AA does help in the island wars in that it reduces the org of CAGS etc, reducing the time on target. Same for hammering strat bombers, a consideration for those on the receiving end. And provincial AA costs no MP and improves your artillery practicals, something to consider if you plan to add artillery to your divisions due to MP issues.
I consider building both items situationally, depending on whether I expect to have MP issues, do I have provinces/ports/cities I just have to defend, am I going to pump IC or artillery, can I afford to build them insterad of others items, how fast do I expect to be in the war, etc.
Provincial AA does help in the island wars in that it reduces the org of CAGS etc, reducing the time on target. Same for hammering strat bombers, a consideration for those on the receiving end. And provincial AA costs no MP and improves your artillery practicals, something to consider if you plan to add artillery to your divisions due to MP issues.
I consider building both items situationally, depending on whether I expect to have MP issues, do I have provinces/ports/cities I just have to defend, am I going to pump IC or artillery, can I afford to build them insterad of others items, how fast do I expect to be in the war, etc.
Anyway, I only psoted 1/2 the question in my answer.
As to forts:
it depends on your opponents.
The AI doesn't know how to handle forts properly; having 1 can sometimes convince the AI to just plain old not attack. And when they do, they don't seem to including any fort-circumventing methodology to their attack (like ENG brigades).
Against a human, a level 1 fort will be almost useless, because if they want that province, they will put in ENG, ART, or just plan old overloaded force to blast through it.
A level TEN fort is a significant difference; even divisions of something nuts like 1xINF 4xENG led by a full chain of Fortress Buster generals will still suffer a penalty, and would require a massive investment ont he attacker's part (11 divisions of 1xINF 4xENG?!?!?).
However, a human will rarely attack this province. As the Maginot Line has shown, the much easier way is to simply "go around". Even as a deterrant, a fort is usually worth less than an equal IC-amount of... just about anything else.
As such, the only time Forts are really useful is when you put them in places your opponent has no choice but to engage on.
Coastal forts on key islands are good; it's not like you have any other way to take, say, Iwo Jima or Bermuda than by direct invasion, and their locations are VERY important.
also, if you have a total glut of IC and not enough manpwoer to fill it with, a "coastal wall" can be a good way to prevent invasion. NOTE: the only country I've seen this work with is the USA; GER cannot really build an Atlantic Fortress because, even if they DO load the entire coast, the Allies can just, say, invade Italy and go from there. Or utilize Spain. Or wait for SOV to flatten the almost-no-army-cause-they-spent-all-their-time-on-forts GER.
JAP, if it gets the IC bases of CHI and India can pull off a smaller version; but rather than their whole home turf, just forting up the homeland's Port provinces (despite JAP's normally good MP, it can run into MP issues if it goes to war with SOV, or as I do from time to time, send armies over to Europe after taking out CHI). Of course, I still had port garrison divisions to make use of them.
As for land forts... the only time I've used them was during what I called operation "Germany won't make that mistake again", where I started an INFRA and landfort construction province in SOV after pushing to about Leningrad. (I drew a line from Leningrad south, figured where I could use the rivers to make a defensive line, and where the "gaps" in the rivers would be minimized, and forted those areas up). I then continued to push into SOV for all of Summer, Fall, and the start of winter... when I ended up stalling due to supplies et. al., I pulled ALL of my troops back to those lines and waited for late Spring.
That sounds like a ramble, but it's literally the only time since vanilla 1.4 I put landforts into actual use.
As to forts:
it depends on your opponents.
The AI doesn't know how to handle forts properly; having 1 can sometimes convince the AI to just plain old not attack. And when they do, they don't seem to including any fort-circumventing methodology to their attack (like ENG brigades).
Against a human, a level 1 fort will be almost useless, because if they want that province, they will put in ENG, ART, or just plan old overloaded force to blast through it.
A level TEN fort is a significant difference; even divisions of something nuts like 1xINF 4xENG led by a full chain of Fortress Buster generals will still suffer a penalty, and would require a massive investment ont he attacker's part (11 divisions of 1xINF 4xENG?!?!?).
However, a human will rarely attack this province. As the Maginot Line has shown, the much easier way is to simply "go around". Even as a deterrant, a fort is usually worth less than an equal IC-amount of... just about anything else.
As such, the only time Forts are really useful is when you put them in places your opponent has no choice but to engage on.
Coastal forts on key islands are good; it's not like you have any other way to take, say, Iwo Jima or Bermuda than by direct invasion, and their locations are VERY important.
also, if you have a total glut of IC and not enough manpwoer to fill it with, a "coastal wall" can be a good way to prevent invasion. NOTE: the only country I've seen this work with is the USA; GER cannot really build an Atlantic Fortress because, even if they DO load the entire coast, the Allies can just, say, invade Italy and go from there. Or utilize Spain. Or wait for SOV to flatten the almost-no-army-cause-they-spent-all-their-time-on-forts GER.
JAP, if it gets the IC bases of CHI and India can pull off a smaller version; but rather than their whole home turf, just forting up the homeland's Port provinces (despite JAP's normally good MP, it can run into MP issues if it goes to war with SOV, or as I do from time to time, send armies over to Europe after taking out CHI). Of course, I still had port garrison divisions to make use of them.
As for land forts... the only time I've used them was during what I called operation "Germany won't make that mistake again", where I started an INFRA and landfort construction province in SOV after pushing to about Leningrad. (I drew a line from Leningrad south, figured where I could use the rivers to make a defensive line, and where the "gaps" in the rivers would be minimized, and forted those areas up). I then continued to push into SOV for all of Summer, Fall, and the start of winter... when I ended up stalling due to supplies et. al., I pulled ALL of my troops back to those lines and waited for late Spring.
That sounds like a ramble, but it's literally the only time since vanilla 1.4 I put landforts into actual use.
HoI2. Planes moved one province per hour, therefore it was possible for AA to shoot at them. In HOI3, that is no longer true, so AA is only good in areas that will be targeted by bombers.
So is there any substantive difference between, say, putting coastal forts in a coastal province rather than just a regular land fort? Won't they give the same general bonus, except that coastal forts won't provide a penalty to someone attacking from land?
No land forts will not help you when someone is attacking by sea. Land forts only help by land or airborne assaults. Sometimes it is beneficial to have land and coastal forts. A smart player will land 1 or 2 forces on each side of the port and attack from two or three directions. If playing against a human it can help but the AI will never do that.
My over the top assault is to have 1 group attack from the sea, 2 from land, 1 from an airborne assault, and some form of bombers. Works every time. No amount of forts will stop that unless they have a hell of a lot of troops just sitting on port defence or a rapid response team nearby in which case I would probably use more airborne to hold back the wave of enemy armour till I could get my own armour.
I've never really been a big fan of forts. Basically, they are immobile IC sinks. It's not like you can uproot the Maginot Line and move it forward, can you? Coastal forts are not something I am big fan of, either. I'd rather plant an additional division on the port or island than build forts. They're not useless, but they are next to useless if you have anything else you could possibly be making.
Provincial AA has some advantages if you know you are getting into a year long strategic warfare grudge match with an enemy. Since IC is put in specific provinces, and since ports are specific provinces, you can drop provincial AA there with confidence. You know that enemy bombers are going to hit those places. I'd prefer to gain air superiority, but provincial AA is a manpower and officer free way to provide additional coverage to critical places.
One thing deserves a special mention: surface to air missiles. If you are investing in rockets anyway, and you are big on provincial AA, go ahead and get this tech. It makes those AA guns much more deadly (+200% efficiency). And hurting STR is always a good thing considering the cost of those damn things.
Provincial AA has some advantages if you know you are getting into a year long strategic warfare grudge match with an enemy. Since IC is put in specific provinces, and since ports are specific provinces, you can drop provincial AA there with confidence. You know that enemy bombers are going to hit those places. I'd prefer to gain air superiority, but provincial AA is a manpower and officer free way to provide additional coverage to critical places.
One thing deserves a special mention: surface to air missiles. If you are investing in rockets anyway, and you are big on provincial AA, go ahead and get this tech. It makes those AA guns much more deadly (+200% efficiency). And hurting STR is always a good thing considering the cost of those damn things.
I think forts don't offer any protection against airborne assault.
I just tested this out. I para-dropped onto the maginot line and recieved -90% for modifier so yes they do affect para. Coastal forts do not however.
If you drop PARA onto forts, you might need to rethink their use. They have enough problems just dropping onto an objective and fighting through the airborne assault penalty. 
These guys would disagree with you.If you drop PARA onto forts, you might need to rethink their use. They have enough problems just dropping onto an objective and fighting through the airborne assault penalty.