a sad story

[weird god]

i have to share a sad story. i´m no great storyteller, so i´ll tell you what happend in a nutshell: i was playing with france starting in 1936. i extended the maginot line and stalemated the german monster at my border in 1940. the line just finished in time. german panzers were rolling up and down, and yes, it wasn´t finished a single week too early. they were advancing, then stopped - pooh!

then italy joined the axis. i first went for libya which was taken easily with british support and then somehow managed to capture sicily. it was a though fight from down there, but finally after about one year i could annex italy. i then marched with about 40 divisions into lech and innsbruck to secure the alpes front. but germany beat me back after i had taken both provinces even though we are talking about mountainous terrain here (and yes, i was using up-to-date mountaineers). i was scared german troops managed to push me back!! so i ordered all divisions that werent securing the maginot line to venice and trento. 35+ divisions in each province. and fortified. as fast as possible. up to level 10. i was really scared

next chapter of the story played at the maginot line. sowjets and germany entered a war, which removed some pressure. nevertheless progress was VERY slow. the only chances i had were maneuvers using the -50% flanking bonus. province for province were taken back from former belgium and netherlands, and after a year or two of pushing back and forth, the rhine border finally had been secured. then things went on pretty fast. and after the fall of berlin in 1943, the rest was taken in a french panzer-rush. from koenigsberg down to the romanian border, almost all of europe was colored in french blue.

now i saw the "annex"-button lighten up, i cheered, but decided to better take the rest as well instead of leaving it to the sowjets. this was a BIG mistake. "germany surrenders to udssr" fired, and then a 2 province czechoslovakia was created as a russian puppet (germany still holded two fort-8 provinces there). ah well, i got the rest of germany without a massive belligerence hit, so i thought this is fine. what happened next wasnt though.

in six years of playing paradox games, and im talking about EU1, EU2, Vicky, CK and lots of mods, i never had a single event that messed up my game like this one did. "a new order in europe" or something like that happend, and suddenly everyone and his grandma declared independence from me: italy, germany, luxembourg, belgium, the netherlands....and worst of all, the rest of the CSSR decided to join that stalinist 2-province-puppet. and no, none of them were my puppets. they were marketliberal democracies like france, with the exception of the CSSR. in this moment i felt i lost everything i played for the last weeks within a second....

i dunno what would have happend if i had annexed germany straight away, or if i had decided to create puppets throughout europe. maybe things would have turned out otherwise.....

[screwtype]

Ouch, that's a nasty one. Yeah, I guess you should have annexed and released to get puppets before the USSR did their thing.

I don't think much of the extended Maginot Line strategy though. I assume you did this for fun as a "what if", rather than as a sound strategic plan? IMO, you are much better off building more divisions than wasting IC's on fortifications, which cannot move or attack and don't seem to be hugely powerful even in defence.

[agricola]

Originally Posted by screwtype

IMO, you are much better off building more divisions than wasting IC's on fortifications, which cannot move or attack and don't seem to be hugely powerful even in defence.

A couple of units of forts have been responsible for <10 divisions beating off attacks made by 20, 50, 100 + divisions before. The only things worse are frost and mud.

[weird god]

Originally Posted by screwtype

I don't think much of the extended Maginot Line strategy though. I assume you did this for fun as a "what if", rather than as a sound strategic plan? IMO, you are much better off building more divisions than wasting IC's on fortifications, which cannot move or attack and don't seem to be hugely powerful even in defence.

i have to confess it was a thought-out plan because i had been defeated before with an early unit-build-up approach. and well, it was a viable way. whats your experience with france, if i may ask?

a big advantage of that line is, that it doesnt need support, so it saves on your TC-load while still providing ENORMOUS defence power until you are ready. it also allowed to build up a solid industrial base, air force and 1939-type infantry, thus providing necessary ressources for the conquest of italy while holding the line in the lowlands at the same time.

[screwtype]

Originally Posted by weird god

i have to confess it was a thought-out plan because i had been defeated before with an early unit-build-up approach. and well, it was a viable way. whats your experience with france, if i may ask?

Well, I'm just halfway through my first campaign as France - and my first as a major power actually (I've played Italy mostly up to now).

I didn't find it too difficult to knock off Germany at all. After the first two years ('36-'37) I quit building factories and just started turning out as many infantry divisions as I could. By September '39 I had maybe ten infantry divisions less than Germany, although I was heavily outnumbered in armoured/lt armoured divs (10 to 2), motorized divs (I had none, can't remember how many Germany had) and they also had more cav and mtn divisions.

When Germany invaded Poland in September '39 I decided to go on the offensive just to see if I could knock off Germany quickly. I'd kept most of my divisions to the rear of the Maginot Line to try and persuade the Germans not to defend the Siegfried Line too heavily, and whether or not it was because of that, I was able to quickly capture a couple of Siegfried Line provinces.

By then it was September 14 and perhaps you can imagine my shock when the Germans annexed Poland only two weeks into the campaign! I'd been banking on the Poles holding out for at least a month, so then I expected to get creamed.

However I managed to expand my bridgehead a little, to Frankfurt and Saarbruken (both with forts and behind rivers for a good defensive belt) and Nuremberg and Friedrickhaven to the south. By this time the Nazis were back to the Western front in force and a seesaw battle for Nuremberg began.

I was suprised by how well I managed to hold out, and was churning out six infantry divisions at a time, so over the course of time I actually grew to match the Germans in overall divisional strength. Eventually I was able to expand to the southeast which stretched the German line quite a bit.

I fully expected to be steamrolled come May 1940 when the Nazis are programmed to go through the low countries, because I only had about three divisions south of the Maginot Line. However, when the blow finally fell, I took control of the Belgian and Dutch forces and was pleasantly suprised to find they had good '39 inf divisions. With these divisions and my troops in Saarbrucken, I was able to cut off the four German armoured divisions advancing into Luxembourg by capturing Cologne, and then wiping out the entire armoured thrust which was out of supply and with nowhere to retreat!

After that it was pretty much all over. I was able to advance along the length of the front, trapping German divisions against the coast in the north and the Italian border in the south. It turned out to be much easier than I thought, although still a bit of a slog (infantry divisions are slooooow). I'd managed to finish off the Germans by September 1940, at which point the stupid Romanians joined the axis (when Germany had exactly one garrison and one militia division left) and DOW'ed me! It took me till about January '41 to finish off the Romanians.

Currently it's April '41 and I'm setting up a suprise attack on Italy. When I've taken Italy I'm going to go on to see if I can conquer the Bolsheviks in '42

[screwtype]

Originally Posted by agricola

A couple of units of forts have been responsible for <10 divisions beating off attacks made by 20, 50, 100 + divisions before. The only things worse are frost and mud.

I haven't found forts to be too useful at all. In my current campaign I was able to easily take enemy forts again and again, even the very tough Czech forts which are level 8. I don't think I lost a single fort battle in the entire campaign and I must have fought 40 such battles. Holding fortified provinces didn't stop me from losing them either, so I'm not sure what the fort advantage is exactly, but I don't think it could be that big.

Edit: Okay, just checked, all you get with a fort is a lousy -10% to the attack (infantry division). Forts cost 5 IC and take three months to build - you can build 1 1/2 infantry divisions at less cost in the same time.

All you really need to do is get some good leaders, and then attack from multiple provinces, and you will completely overwhelm the fort advantage. For example, attacking from four different provinces with level 4 leaders will give you +80% to the attack. So it's not as though forts give an overwhelming advantage by any means.

[blue emu]

Originally Posted by screwtype

Edit: Okay, just checked, all you get with a fort is a lousy -10% to the attack (infantry division).

-9% per fort level... a maximum of -90% at level 10 fort. Check the misc.txt file in /db

Originally Posted by screwtype

For example, attacking from four different provinces with level 4 leaders will give you +80% to the attack.

Your math is off.

The level four Leaders only give +20% to the attack (four skill levels times +5% per skill level), and the encircling penalty in the 4-vs-1 case you describe is only -20% for the defender (-10% per attack axis beyond the first two).

That's a total combat differential of +50% (120% vs 80% = +50% difference)... not +80%.

[screwtype]

Originally Posted by blue emu

-9% per fort level... a maximum of -90% at level 10 fort. Check the misc.txt file in /db

Your math is off.

The level four Leaders only give +20% to the attack (four skill levels times +5% per skill level), and the encircling penalty in the 4-vs-1 case you describe is only -20% for the defender (-10% per attack axis beyond the first two).

That's a total combat differential of +50% (120% vs 80% = +50% difference)... not +80%.

Oh, I thought it was 10% per skill level and +10% after the first axis, not the second ( should have said 70%). All the same, I don't see what difference it makes. When you combine a bit of advantage from good leaders and outflanking penalties with overwhelming numerical superiority and perhaps air power in addition, forts are hardly going to represent an insurmountable obstacle in most cases.

And they are really poor value. IMO, there are only limited circumstances where I'd want to think about building forts, and extending the Maginot Line is not one of them

[blue emu]

Originally Posted by screwtype

... When you combine a bit of advantage from good leaders and outflanking penalties with overwhelming numerical superiority and perhaps air power in addition, forts are hardly going to represent an insurmountable obstacle in most cases...

True of course... but equally true of the Divisions that might have been built instead of the Forts. Faced with "good leaders and outflanking penalties with overwhelming numerical superiority and perhaps air power in addition"... they will also be overwhelmed.

[screwtype]

Yes, but then you've got the extra divisions in reserve to deal with the breakthrough which you wouldn't have had if you'd built the fort

[blue emu]

Originally Posted by screwtype

Yes, but then you've got the extra divisions in reserve to deal with the breakthrough which you wouldn't have had if you'd built the fort

You are trying to portray the matter much too simplistically.

With all three Construction Techs, Land Forts can be built remarkably quickly... they even benefit from gearing. But let's assume that the 2-to-1 ratio you mentioned earlier is correct... that you could build a couple if Infantry Divisions for each Fort you skip... in theory.

Forts require no Manpower... so while the Dutch might survive by building level-10 Forts in their capital, they cannot survive by building 20 extra Infantry Divisions instead... because they don't have the required 200 extra Manpower.

Forts do not require Manpower to reinforce in combat, nor do they take ICs to repair if damaged. Infantry does. Forts consume no Supplies, and therefore tie up no ICs after being built... Infantry eats about one Supply per day, and an extra 20 Infantry Divisions will tie up an extra 5 ICs per day... 4 ICs per day after researching Assembly Line Experimentation... which you will then be unable to use for other purposes. Forts do not load your TC. Infantry does, and if it pushes you into the red, your entire Army starts taking combat, movement, re-ORG, upgrade and reinforcement penalties.

The question is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you try to make it sound.

Personally, I rarely build Forts, and only on fronts (eg: Pacific islands) where movement is not really an option... but that's partly because I like to play high-Manpower countries, who have the option of using those same ICs for Divisions; and partly because I prefer a more mobile playing style.

Forts are by no means useless.

[OAM]

I find even with a large UK force (36 divisions or larger), it is hard to hold France even aginst the AI somtimes if France doesn't have forts in the North. One time I even had UK AND US forces backing up France and they still fell. (lucky no Vichy and I evaced some 40 French divisions though)

[screwtype]

Originally Posted by blue emu

Personally, I rarely build Forts

Well then, we are essentially in agreement. There are only rare cases where building forts is useful

I've never said forts are "useless", only that they are poor value for money and that in most circumstances you are better off building divisions. After all, digging a big hole in the ground and hiding in it is not going to win you any wars, though it might arguably prevent you from losing one.

[coreymas]

And you did not have the auto save on by month?

It has saved me a many time when i make a fudge mistake......

Corey

[OAM]

Originally Posted by coreymas

And you did not have the auto save on by month?

It has saved me a many time when i make a fudge mistake......

Corey

Alot of people find that cheep. I personaly continue if I make a mistake, as would happen in real life. Only time I might reload is if I misclick and do something bad like that. Accidental DOW on USSR as Japan FTW lol.

[coreymas]

That is what i mean by a fudge mistake -- like i really meant to do this but clicked that instead. Or i misunderstood what this really meant and only found out later so i will go back and correct the mistake.

And saving a game every month is not a cheat, used to be a necessity in HOI1.....

And cheap it is not either.

Corey

[OAM]

I didn't say it was cheating, I said reloading every time something went bad was cheep. I have autosave every month to safeguard aginst crashes.

[MrLatency]

Originally Posted by screwtype

Well then, we are essentially in agreement. There are only rare cases where building forts is useful

I've never said forts are "useless", only that they are poor value for money and that in most circumstances you are better off building divisions. After all, digging a big hole in the ground and hiding in it is not going to win you any wars, though it might arguably prevent you from losing one.

Sorry but I find that forts are far from poor value for money and in some cases are damn useful, not as rare as you make out. If you are playing as a country like Germany or US forts won't be such a priority but they are great for the middle power countries.

When I play as Romania for example I like to build a series of forts to cover my border with the Soviet Union at the start and then attack Bulgaria. Level 4+ forts with about 3 infantry per province and the Soviets won't break through and I can annex Bulgaria in peace.

When I play as France I generally expand the maginot line with forts. You mentioned that there were some periods where you were having trouble with Germany. You will find if you extend the maginot line to keep France safe you don't need to build so many infantry for defence and you will have spare TC to create armoured and motorized divisions which I find are excellent at matching and overcoming Germany's mobile forces. Also, if Italy has joined the axis you can use your troops to clear the Italian peninsular and then liberate, fortify the border with Germany and Italy with troops and they will need to bring troops from the French border thus making this front weaker for when you break through. All this is made easy with the creation of forts.

When I play as Germany I like to create a line of level 4-5 forts in France once I have occupied it. If the Americans land and get troops onto French soil I pull back to the forts, contain them in a large pocket until reinforcements arrive then clean them up.

As was mentioned - Forts can be built quickly, they take very little IC to build, they don't consume supplies or TC, they don't need to be repaired/reinforced - they provide a permanent defensive boost to a province - quite a significant boost at higher levels, they don't use up manpower and don't need general - you can provide a defensive line and free up divisions/generals for use in different theatres. For smaller countries where there is a lack of availiable leaders not to mention manpower forts can be important.

Forts are useful. Very useful imo.

[screwtype]

Well, I guess it's different strokes for different folks. Forts would be nice, but I always seem to have far more urgent things to spend my IC on.

[weird god]

Originally Posted by coreymas

And you did not have the auto save on by month?

It has saved me a many time when i make a fudge mistake......

Corey

i have every-3-months-autosave activated. i captured berlin at that point. but honestly, its just too tedious to go through this again.