Are forts in HOI IV OP?

[Sunforged General]

Many people here say forts in HOI IV are too overpowered. Especially lvl 10 forts. However, if we take into account the performance of equivalent lvl 10 forts in real life during WW2 (I think the only ones that qualify are the largest forts of the maginot line, but give me other examples if you think I am wrong), we might find that the strongest of forts during WW2 were pretty incredibly durable.

For example, Ouvrage Schoenenbourg, one of the bigger forts in the maginot line, showed the following resilience.

"On 19 June 1940, German Stukas attacked Schoenenbourg and other ouvrages, returning on the 20th and 21st. The attacks on the 21st were joined by a bombardment with 420 mm siege mortars, lasting three days. Schoenenbourg fired during this period in support of nearby casemates, not seriously affected by the bombardments. Schoenenbourg's turrets were retracted to receive the heavy shells, and raised during the lengthy reloading period for counterbattery fire. The inventory of German ordnance fired against Schoenenbourg was assessed after the armistice, and found to comprise 160 aerial bombs, 50 42 cm shells, 33 28 cm shells, and approximately 3000 smaller projectiles,[22] the most ammunition used against any fortification in France. "

Some people also falsely claim that the Germans eventually penetrated the maginot line, but this is not correct. The Germans, after the French took manpower out of the maginot line to defend the north, managed to make shallow penetrations of forward positions in the line. However, no Gros Ouvrages (or large forts) making up the main defense line, were ever taken in combat, even with most of the supporting French infantry withdrawn.

Given the demonstrated durability of Ouvrage Schoenenbourg, shrugging off direct hits from 420mm siege mortars without disrupting the forts own guns or taking any damage, its arguable that no WWII era weapons, other than large Earthquake bombs, Schwerer Gustav, or a nuclear weapon, can even hope to damage a lvl 10 fort. And none of these were available in 1940.

 

[DicRoNero]

When facing the Germans in HoI, I actually start thinking that level 1-6 forts are underpowered: the Germans always seem to have fort buster dude either as a general or as field-marshal; sometimes both. On top of that, their main infantry division, while vulnerable to a single heavy tank battalion in the opposing side, also enlists 3 ART, which weaken fort effects even further. Then the first/last fort lvl is always instanty damaged; and finally, omni-directed defense against multiple attacks renders fort penalty for the attacker either very little or non-existant.

Its a good quotation you bring here. What we should keep in mind is that forts do not stop the attackers all by their own - rather, they act as a force multiplier, vastly increasing the resistance capabilities of the forces manning them in adequate numbers. In this aspect, even relatively hastly erected field-like fortifications at Kursk proved extremely strong, and now imagine Red Army defending amongst the bunkers of the Maginot line...

All in all, it's not the forts which are overpowered, but rather the AI is underperforming (i.e. attacking through mountains ain't much better). Or the players who simply can not roll their panzer forces the way they want.

 

[mursolini]

Forts performance was a mixed bag. There was that Eben-Emal fort, that was taken by a glider drop, and largely allowed Germans to move into Belgium unmolested.
There was Finnish Mannerheim line, that despite their forts being not so impressive technically, performed well. Sevastopol had extensive forts, that forced a prolonged siege, but were taken, both by Germans, and larger back, by Russians. Maginot line was breached at Sedan. Western wall was breached as well.

Forts are OP vs AI, or when on a river line, but player has a LOT of options, while AI fails miserably.

 

[Sunforged General]

Forts performance was a mixed bag. There was that Eben-Emal fort, that was taken by a glider drop, and largely allowed Germans to move into Belgium unmolested.
There was Finnish Mannerheim line, that despite their forts being not so impressive technically, performed well. Sevastopol had extensive forts, that forced a prolonged siege, but were taken, both by Germans, and larger back, by Russians. Maginot line was breached at Sedan. Western wall was breached as well.

Forts are OP vs AI, or when on a river line, but player has a LOT of options, while AI fails miserably.

Its worth mentioning that the part of the line at Sedan was not part of the main line, or the so called lvl 10 forts we see in game along the Franco-German border. If i had to guesstimate what lvl the forts along the Belgian border were i'd say lvl 4-5, due to the Belgians strongly insisting that forts not be built on their border. The main maginot line was never fully breached in Combat.

 

[blue_yonder]

Forts certainly used to be wildly OP when they were 500 a pop, but now that the price is cumulative, I think they're fair enough. I've even stopped being irritated they're just as strong from the rear as the front; as the AI has no clue which way is up about anything, why should forts be any different.

 

[el nora]

I agree with @DicRoNero and @mursolini. Forts should not be a problem for a player. In mp games, building forts is largely considered to be a noob move. Sure there are a couple nonintuitive ways to use them, but simply to have the -15% attack and breakthrough per fort level, is a weak use of your civs. Every level 10 fort built could have been 4-5 mils, which would have done more to protect you than the fort does. A competent player will come at the fort with (general + field marshal) * (engineer + fortress buster) + support engineer 2 + siege artillery = +77.5% attack and breakthrough vs forts, counteracting over 5 fort levels. Given that the first fort level is pretty much guaranteed to be damaged by siege artillery almost immediately, and attacking from 3 sides reduces fort level by two, you can be sure that a level 10 fort is providing 2 actual fort levels at the most vs a dedicated attacker. And fewer when accounting for further fort level reduction by strat bombing and siege artillery.

This is the problem with mechanics such as forts. They act as an insurmountable barrier until you learn how to surmount it, after which they are nigh useless. The ai has no idea how to deal with them, so they are en effective counter vs the ai. And against an unskilled player, they can pose as anything from a roadblock to a minor hurdle. But in more competitive play, they are viewed as nothing more than wasted gui real estate that could have been used for an actual effect.

 

[DicRoNero]

This is the problem with mechanics such as forts. They act as an insurmountable barrier until you learn how to surmount it, after which they are nigh useless.

I blame the way bonuses are stacked on each other. Instead of being additive (which is almost never a good idea in game design), most things should be multiplicative, with values above 1 standing for increased fort defense and below 1 - for overcoming it. I.e. 'fort buster' perk could be like x0.5-0.75 to w/e penalty you'd normally face, and similarly for the remaining things. It's quite absurd to see instances like -115% attack/breakrthough coming from just one source. While x0.01 (like with naval landings by tanks) is far more straightforward and doesn't make you scratch your head thinking whether damage of your soldiers indeed goes negative.

On the other hand, maybe its easier for most to add and substract a list of numbers rather than multiply them by each other. I'm not sure either way. It's kinda convoluted already, I was quite shocked to find out for the first time the way bonuses interact with each other and how the hell my base 300'ish attack went into 2000+.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

I think the problem with Forts is that the higher level Forts are too cheap and get built too quick.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Schoenenbourg was built burried on the top of a hill, you can clearly see this in multiple images: http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/03/93/99/77_big.jpg

The region of Maginot is hilly (not mountainous like HoI4 makes it).

I think that from a realism point of view, forts in Hills/Mountains, ok, if you invest a lot you can get a Maginot. But in flat terrains: no, just no. You can't have nearly the same effect, because you lack the field of view of being up, you lack the protection of being dug into the ground, you have to build high walls which are very vulnerable to bombs, etc.

I think it is simple: Forts in flat terrains (plains, forrest, swamp, etc) should have their stats halved.

 

[Secret Master]

The fact that forts in HOI4 can be damaged by combat and bombing does a lot of mitigate their value in the long run.

We ended up capping forts at level 7 in our MP mod because you could get some crazy modifiers in certain provinces. But the crazy modifiers we have derive from certain modifications to terrain, weather, and attrition that are far more harsh than in vanilla.

 

[Sunforged General]

I agree with @DicRoNero and @mursolini. Forts should not be a problem for a player. In mp games, building forts is largely considered to be a noob move. Sure there are a couple nonintuitive ways to use them, but simply to have the -15% attack and breakthrough per fort level, is a weak use of your civs. Every level 10 fort built could have been 4-5 mils, which would have done more to protect you than the fort does. A competent player will come at the fort with (general + field marshal) * (engineer + fortress buster) + support engineer 2 + siege artillery = +77.5% attack and breakthrough vs forts, counteracting over 5 fort levels. Given that the first fort level is pretty much guaranteed to be damaged by siege artillery almost immediately, and attacking from 3 sides reduces fort level by two, you can be sure that a level 10 fort is providing 2 actual fort levels at the most vs a dedicated attacker. And fewer when accounting for further fort level reduction by strat bombing and siege artillery.

This is the problem with mechanics such as forts. They act as an insurmountable barrier until you learn how to surmount it, after which they are nigh useless. The ai has no idea how to deal with them, so they are en effective counter vs the ai. And against an unskilled player, they can pose as anything from a roadblock to a minor hurdle. But in more competitive play, they are viewed as nothing more than wasted gui real estate that could have been used for an actual effect.

What you say is true on flat terrain. But I don't think I've seen anyone take a lvl 10 fort on a mountain, or behind a large river, with defenders having max level engineers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can abuse the AI with them, but you can also abuse the AI by leaving ungarrisoned ports as bait and killing units that land there over and over. Forts are nothing special in that regard and actually take a lot of investment.

Also as usual air power --> bombing will take care of these kinds of problems.

 

[DicRoNero]

You can abuse the AI with them, but you can also abuse the AI by leaving ungarrisoned ports as bait and killing units that land there over and over.

The problem is that even if one plays a super-conservative no-cheese game like I'm doing here, the things you mention are totally unnecessary as the AI will willingly do this:

Spoiler: LOL

Dropping 16 full-blown army divisions in the middle of nowhere? Sure, why the hell not? At the end of the day, each platoon is equipped with a rod to supply them.

People complain about division templates and the land war, while in fact the naval side is absolutely broken, starting from shipbuilding to ship designs to then naval forces application and eventually landings. If the land war matters were to be that broken, the forums would have been ablaze.

So forts are as abusable as just anything else. The AI just asks to be abused.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah naval game is definitely bad. Which is more "broken" depends on the kind of broken we're talking about. In terms of AI understanding of it, tradeoffs/balance the naval game is more broken hands down. UI controls are actually somewhat better than land, though that's not a high bar. I often complain about war score algorithm and the extremely limited consideration for anything naval in that equation doesn't help.

 

[seattle]

The following changes vastly improve the balance of forts.
- max level: 5 (instead of 10)
- cost: 3200 + 500/level (instead of 500 + 500/level)

I think "Hearts of Oak" and "Total War" use those settings.
Makes you think twice instead of plastering everything with lvl 1 forts.

Max level of 5 is also more realistic.
Take it from the French if you don't believe me: the French designed the Maginot with the goal of delaying a German invasion for 2 weeks! Not even the creators themselves intended the Maginot to be an impenetrable obstacle.

Neither Sevastopol, nor Eben Emael, Singapore, Maginot, Hindenburg line nor any other line of fortifications has ever proven impenetrable.

People tend to apply linear logic of walls withstanding frontal artillery barrages.
A glider landing of some paratroopers to eliminate Eben Emael, an outflanking of the Maginot, a Schwerer Gustav to breach even the thickest walls...

There is always a way.

 

[Sunforged General]

The following changes vastly improve the balance of forts.
- max level: 5 (instead of 10)
- cost: 3200 + 500/level (instead of 500 + 500/level)

I think "Hearts of Oak" and "Total War" use those settings.
Makes you think twice instead of plastering everything with lvl 1 forts.

Max level of 5 is also more realistic.
Take it from the French if you don't believe me: the French designed the Maginot with the goal of delaying a German invasion for 2 weeks! Not even the creators themselves intended the Maginot to be an impenetrable obstacle.

Neither Sevastopol, nor Eben Emael, Singapore, Maginot, Hindenburg line nor any other line of fortifications has ever proven impenetrable.

People tend to apply linear logic of walls withstanding frontal artillery barrages.
A glider landing of some paratroopers to eliminate Eben Emael, an outflanking of the Maginot, a Schwerer Gustav to breach even the thickest walls...

There is always a way.

I think you underestimate the power of a modern, well placed, well built fortification. One of the goals of the maginot line was to hold the Germans back for a month, not 2 weeks, with the intent of giving the French army time to mobilize and be ready to fight. That doesn't necessarily mean the maginot line couldn't hold for far, far longer, provided it be given ample reinforcements.

Given the fact that the french fort i mentioned shrugged off 50 hits from a 420mm siege mortar, and 3000+ other shells, with no significant damage, and also that these forts had interconnected firing zones with the forts on their flanks, its incredibly difficult to knock out the bigger forts, and if you don't knock them out, you simply don't pass, due to the enfilade fire.

Now, the purpose of a line like the maginot line, in case of a major attack, is to hold long enough for massive reinforcements to arrive, who will then make the defenses truly unbeatable. And i reckon a month is long enough for plenty of reinforcements to arrive wherever the enemy chooses to attack.

If forts were as weak as you suggest, the Germans wouldn't have had to go around the maginot line, they would have gone through it, but even they knew they couldn't.

As for your suggestion, a massive nerf of forts is not in line with how effective they were in real life. The Germans didn't dare challenge the maginot line head on, the Soviets never broke through the Mannerheim line, which was far more modest than the maginot line, and wasn't even complete.

 

[seattle]

I think you underestimate the power of a modern, well placed, well built fortification. One of the goals of the maginot line was to hold the Germans back for a month, not 2 weeks, with the intent of giving the French army time to mobilize and be ready to fight. That doesn't necessarily mean the maginot line couldn't hold for far, far longer, provided it be given ample reinforcements.

Given the fact that the french fort i mentioned shrugged off 50 hits from a 420mm siege mortar, and 3000+ other shells, with no significant damage, and also that these forts had interconnected firing zones with the forts on their flanks, its incredibly difficult to knock out the bigger forts, and if you don't knock them out, you simply don't pass, due to the enfilade fire.

Now, the purpose of a line like the maginot line, in case of a major attack, is to hold long enough for massive reinforcements to arrive, who will then make the defenses truly unbeatable. And i reckon a month is long enough for plenty of reinforcements to arrive wherever the enemy chooses to attack.

If forts were as weak as you suggest, the Germans wouldn't have had to go around the maginot line, they would have gone through it, but even they knew they couldn't.

As for your suggestion, a massive nerf of forts is not in line with how effective they were in real life. The Germans didn't dare challenge the maginot line head on, the Soviets never broke through the Mannerheim line, which was far more modest than the maginot line, and wasn't even complete.

Well, I said that forts can be nullified in multiple ways.

Once the Soviets had amassed enough arty, they smashed the Mannerheim line.
Once Germany had Schwerer Gustav in place, they smashed Sevastopol.

If you can't smash it, outflank it.
Germany outflanked Maginot, Japan did likewise in Singapore through the jungle.

Then there's still the spec ops solution like at Eben Emael.

In case of the Maginot: its main weakness was that it could simply be circumvented. Case Yellow isn't really helpful in your argument pro Maginot.

 

[Voigt]

The Maginot did exactly what it was planned for, and it wasn't outflanked. It forced Germany to go trough Belgium and required comparitivly a small amount of man to defend the french-german border, so everything could be thrown into Belgium to fight the germans there, far away from the french homeland and a somewhat short active front, prefarably behind rivers.

The Maginot didn't get outflanked, the French army did in Belgium. After the French Army was in Belgium, Germany pushed between Maginot and the French Army trough the Ardennes to outflank and encircle the French Army, not the Maginot.

Also this Paragliding thing with the Belgian Fort happend once,,because they simply didn't thought about a 3D defense, nothing to easily repeat if people know to care about the air.

 

[seattle]

The Maginot did exactly what it was planned for, and it wasn't outflanked. It forced Germany to go trough Belgium and required comparitivly a small amount of man to defend the french-german border, so everything could be thrown into Belgium to fight the germans there, far away from the french homeland and a somewhat short active front, prefarably behind rivers.

The Maginot didn't get outflanked, the French army did in Belgium. After the French Army was in Belgium, Germany pushed between Maginot and the French Army trough the Ardennes to outflank and encircle the French Army, not the Maginot.

Also this Paragliding thing with the Belgian Fort happend once,,because they simply didn't thought about a 3D defense, nothing to easily repeat if people know to care about the air.

The irony is that German High Command since the late 19th century planned to strike France through the Low Countries. The Schlieffen plan is much older than 1914 even and was designed and executed well before the Maginot existed.

One major issue with buildings in HoI4 is that they cost 0 maintenance.
The Maginot's upkeep cost had to be horrendous in peace time.
Same with static a.i. that costs 0 for upgrades and consumes 0 ammo.

Do you guys think that lvl.10 is too much for forts?
At least in SP it seems to break the a.i. which is incapable of reducing forts by strat bombing and multiple attack vectors.

For that reason alone I would like it reduced to 5 max.

 

[Chary_]

Forts aren't OP because they are a decently expensive investment that, if used, can force attackers to either adapt or lose thousands. That's actually pretty well balanced, and it prevents mindless forwards marches, you need to stop and let your airforce level the playing field, literally.