Let me explain what a coastal fort is, ingame: A structure that costs a not too low amount of IC (in this case, considering no research or minister bonuses), that takes a tremendously large amount of time to build (more than land forts, if i recall), and which serves to do two things, give a penalty to amphibious landings, and slowing down the attack itself, meaning it takes longer for the battle to play out. The higher the level of coastal fort, the higher the penalty, the longer the battle will go on.
So, for a cost of 5 IC, and nearly 2 years of building, you buy a static position that draws out combats, allowing the enemy to suffer more casualties, but at the same time you also suffer casualties.
The first thing, the penalty. Seriously, Amphibious landings in the game are already a tricky issue that the game engine was just not meant to handle (and even then, consider the impossibility of landing 100 divs on a single beach all at once). Amphibious landings give titanic penalties to everyone using them (less so for marines, but more on that in a minute), so the addition of more penalty issues thanks to fortifications seems like a complete waste of time. If you add in a paratroop landing on a beach province with coastal forts, these will NOT factor on the outcome of the battle. That means that, potentially, a lvl 10 coastal fort guarded by a single garrison div could easily(another reason in a bit) hold a beach against overwhelming numbers at least until reinforcements arrive, but a 4 div paradrop could wipe it out in about 5 hours, allow for the previously stated overwhelming numbers to land unopposed, and push inland.
Second of all, the time. The higher the coastal fort, the more time it takes to beat a garrison, thus fulfilling the apparent purpose of the coastal fort (if the original purpose would be "hold them off on the beaches" instead of "kill them BEFORE they land"). But then, what happens to a garrison without a coastal fort? after it´s org drops, it will retreat to a neighbouring province, most of it´s strength still intact, and allow it to take action afterwards. With a coastal fort? The garrison will fight on, inflict a higher amount of losses on the enemy, lose most (3/4) of it´s strength and then retreat. the result? either buy some time at the expense of more damage, or lose faster but less org/strength loss.
Essentially, this means that you are wasting IC on fixed positions that will, assuming no reinforcements, be lost, and can easily be exploited? This doesnt even touch on the subject of paradropping on coastal, non beach provinces that you wouldnt defend because it made no sense. The paradrop/amph landing exploit is too well known to simply be ignored. I am not saying that a single garrison division should not be able to hold off an invasion force composed of hundreds of thousands of men (we have D-Day, dont we?), but i am saying that if i spend 50 IC total to build a lvl 10 fort, then said invasion force would be utterly obliverated before half the landing force set foot on the beach. There is a reason the ports were not directly attacked during D-Day, because they knew they were too well defended and fortified to be attacked upfront. if i have 13000 men defending cherbourgh, all well supplied with massive amounts of artillery and concrete bunkers (to simulate level 10 coastal forts), and the enemy launched an invasion into it, then it is completely possible that d-day would have been a titanic disaster.
And also, there is the issue of softness on landing. By softness, i refer to the individual value each unit has for softness and hardness. Infantry have almost total softness, means they take more damage overall from soft attack, while hard targets have the opposite. By a sheer twist of logic, it makes sense that you cannot simply send tanks on landing ships to capture a beach, because of all the different factors (shore level, obstacles, the sand itself, etc) that would make it impossible to do so. A few support tanks, ok, but a whole division? Anyway, that´s not the issue. The issue itself is the inability of even lvl 10 coastal forts manned by garrisons to kill armor. It stands to reason that the enemy expects infantry to attack, clear out obstacles THEN call the tanks. Garrisons (even mid level infantry) do not have good hard attack values. Despite the penalties suffered by armor, once they land, the garrisons will barely scratch them. The tanks, meanwhile, can rip apart the garrisons. Do you see the issue? if i launch Marines, with full research done, the one advantage they have is that they dont suffer such a titanic amount of penalty as other units, allowing for quicker capture of ports. Launching 7 div marines with artillery or amph. armor brigades can rip apart a garrison in record time, assuming no coastal fort. With coastal forts however, it becomes a waste.
Overall, that means that Coastal forts are meant to counter Marines, and not much else. Coastal forts negate the bonuses marines have, so they become like normal infantry, and take longer to capture beaches.
So, assuming i want to garrison france against possible attackers (lets say right after battle of france, historical treaty, as germany), i need 14 divs (if i recall correctly) to guard every beach province with at least 1 garrison. These garrisons are meant there as placeholders, to avoid facing raids rather than stopping a full invasion. So, lets say i spend the time, and the IC, to build lvl 6 forts between 1940 and 1943/44. my garrisons are all 1942 model (do they have 1942 models?) and ive given them AA, to stop the constant plane attacks. Note that that would mean 14*5*6, a total whopping 420, with 70 IC used per build level. Let´s also say i keep a garrison of 3 armor, or 3 motorized, to reinforce threatened beaches.
Lets see the possibilities of action against such a force:
Paradrop on top of a garrison. Since there is no stacking penalty for paradropping, that means that the UK/US could drop a good 8 paras (far more if there is a dedicated paratrooper build along with enough transport planes, both wholly doable for an american player, and at least partially for UK players) over a garrison, overwhelm it in a few hours, and secure landing for an invasion force, far away enough from any armor. Add to that shore bombardment by a dedicated fleet and the garrison, with -25% penalty, will crumble, and disappear.
Paradrop on an empty beach province. This is even easier, and far more exploity. The AI can be accused of being aware of this trick (or maybe they just really like to keep low dissent in their provinces) and will usually garrison nearly every coastal province. Still, look at above and come to your own conclusion.
Paradrop with landing. Both will NOT stack with each other. That means amph. landing penalties are not shared by paras, and viceversa. this means that a lvl 10 fort could (WILL) get overwhelmed very very fast. Again, factor in shore bombardment and laugh.
Landing with tanks. Assuming at least no immediate reinforcements, tanks will not suffer huge casualties to either strength or org, while garrisons will slowly get chipped away. a mass landing by armor will destroy a garrison not quite as fast as the ones above, but will certainly allow you freedom of action elsewhere.
So, for a cost of 5 IC, and nearly 2 years of building, you buy a static position that draws out combats, allowing the enemy to suffer more casualties, but at the same time you also suffer casualties.
The first thing, the penalty. Seriously, Amphibious landings in the game are already a tricky issue that the game engine was just not meant to handle (and even then, consider the impossibility of landing 100 divs on a single beach all at once). Amphibious landings give titanic penalties to everyone using them (less so for marines, but more on that in a minute), so the addition of more penalty issues thanks to fortifications seems like a complete waste of time. If you add in a paratroop landing on a beach province with coastal forts, these will NOT factor on the outcome of the battle. That means that, potentially, a lvl 10 coastal fort guarded by a single garrison div could easily(another reason in a bit) hold a beach against overwhelming numbers at least until reinforcements arrive, but a 4 div paradrop could wipe it out in about 5 hours, allow for the previously stated overwhelming numbers to land unopposed, and push inland.
Second of all, the time. The higher the coastal fort, the more time it takes to beat a garrison, thus fulfilling the apparent purpose of the coastal fort (if the original purpose would be "hold them off on the beaches" instead of "kill them BEFORE they land"). But then, what happens to a garrison without a coastal fort? after it´s org drops, it will retreat to a neighbouring province, most of it´s strength still intact, and allow it to take action afterwards. With a coastal fort? The garrison will fight on, inflict a higher amount of losses on the enemy, lose most (3/4) of it´s strength and then retreat. the result? either buy some time at the expense of more damage, or lose faster but less org/strength loss.
Essentially, this means that you are wasting IC on fixed positions that will, assuming no reinforcements, be lost, and can easily be exploited? This doesnt even touch on the subject of paradropping on coastal, non beach provinces that you wouldnt defend because it made no sense. The paradrop/amph landing exploit is too well known to simply be ignored. I am not saying that a single garrison division should not be able to hold off an invasion force composed of hundreds of thousands of men (we have D-Day, dont we?), but i am saying that if i spend 50 IC total to build a lvl 10 fort, then said invasion force would be utterly obliverated before half the landing force set foot on the beach. There is a reason the ports were not directly attacked during D-Day, because they knew they were too well defended and fortified to be attacked upfront. if i have 13000 men defending cherbourgh, all well supplied with massive amounts of artillery and concrete bunkers (to simulate level 10 coastal forts), and the enemy launched an invasion into it, then it is completely possible that d-day would have been a titanic disaster.
And also, there is the issue of softness on landing. By softness, i refer to the individual value each unit has for softness and hardness. Infantry have almost total softness, means they take more damage overall from soft attack, while hard targets have the opposite. By a sheer twist of logic, it makes sense that you cannot simply send tanks on landing ships to capture a beach, because of all the different factors (shore level, obstacles, the sand itself, etc) that would make it impossible to do so. A few support tanks, ok, but a whole division? Anyway, that´s not the issue. The issue itself is the inability of even lvl 10 coastal forts manned by garrisons to kill armor. It stands to reason that the enemy expects infantry to attack, clear out obstacles THEN call the tanks. Garrisons (even mid level infantry) do not have good hard attack values. Despite the penalties suffered by armor, once they land, the garrisons will barely scratch them. The tanks, meanwhile, can rip apart the garrisons. Do you see the issue? if i launch Marines, with full research done, the one advantage they have is that they dont suffer such a titanic amount of penalty as other units, allowing for quicker capture of ports. Launching 7 div marines with artillery or amph. armor brigades can rip apart a garrison in record time, assuming no coastal fort. With coastal forts however, it becomes a waste.
Overall, that means that Coastal forts are meant to counter Marines, and not much else. Coastal forts negate the bonuses marines have, so they become like normal infantry, and take longer to capture beaches.
So, assuming i want to garrison france against possible attackers (lets say right after battle of france, historical treaty, as germany), i need 14 divs (if i recall correctly) to guard every beach province with at least 1 garrison. These garrisons are meant there as placeholders, to avoid facing raids rather than stopping a full invasion. So, lets say i spend the time, and the IC, to build lvl 6 forts between 1940 and 1943/44. my garrisons are all 1942 model (do they have 1942 models?) and ive given them AA, to stop the constant plane attacks. Note that that would mean 14*5*6, a total whopping 420, with 70 IC used per build level. Let´s also say i keep a garrison of 3 armor, or 3 motorized, to reinforce threatened beaches.
Lets see the possibilities of action against such a force:
Paradrop on top of a garrison. Since there is no stacking penalty for paradropping, that means that the UK/US could drop a good 8 paras (far more if there is a dedicated paratrooper build along with enough transport planes, both wholly doable for an american player, and at least partially for UK players) over a garrison, overwhelm it in a few hours, and secure landing for an invasion force, far away enough from any armor. Add to that shore bombardment by a dedicated fleet and the garrison, with -25% penalty, will crumble, and disappear.
Paradrop on an empty beach province. This is even easier, and far more exploity. The AI can be accused of being aware of this trick (or maybe they just really like to keep low dissent in their provinces) and will usually garrison nearly every coastal province. Still, look at above and come to your own conclusion.
Paradrop with landing. Both will NOT stack with each other. That means amph. landing penalties are not shared by paras, and viceversa. this means that a lvl 10 fort could (WILL) get overwhelmed very very fast. Again, factor in shore bombardment and laugh.
Landing with tanks. Assuming at least no immediate reinforcements, tanks will not suffer huge casualties to either strength or org, while garrisons will slowly get chipped away. a mass landing by armor will destroy a garrison not quite as fast as the ones above, but will certainly allow you freedom of action elsewhere.
