I am not so much concerned what direction the forts protect but I do like nice placement. Nothing worse then a fort/costal fort icon in the middle of the province.
Direction of Land Fortifications
- Thread starter WWIINERD
- Start date
-
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.
Aye, I was just thinking some kind of interface for building forts that could 'paint' multiple borders at once would be good for reducing the RSI of anyone that was going for a fort strategy, as the individual province-to-province connections are likely to close to double (or more/less, a bit tired to work it out atm) the number of clicks required to build something like the Maginot or Siegried lines. Not suggesting it's the best solution, just throwing ideas around
.
For simplicity / automation, you could have a thing like in HoI3 where the AI would recognise a "front". You could say "built fort along Front with Germany" or whatever. Thus even if it's a bit micro-intensive to do on a province level, you could do large scale builds without tedium.
.png){kind=avatar}
IMO, fortifications are an important feature and the question is so. Should be said in a DD to my mind.
There were any kind of those fortifications, some were very unilateral and others were 360°, modern ones. And by the way, for example, Germans shouldn't get all the bonuses of the Maginot line when defending against an anglo-american offensive in France, but should get a bit though, as Maginot line still provided certain important advantages, even attacked from west. (It wasn't only bunkers with artillery, it was an incredible underground organisation/capability.)
If the classic ?/X level of fortif is kept, I see the things this way :
- Each level should be explained in what it is exactly and how it functions. (A series of sentry niches is a fortif yet, even if very low level..)
- When the construction is ordered, the province is chosen, and the different province borders wished to be defended are selected. Each border portion has a value of size (like in HoI3 for number of units you can place into effective attack position). The sum of these values (those wished) brings the cost of the construction work for 1 level. You can yet or later improve the level (borber by border would be the top).
- This same value of size (in fact sum of province borders sizes) reduces proportionally the efficiency of the fortifications in this province. (Because you dilute more or less your construction work). Then you have a decent generic system to model the cost, the effectiveness and the direction of the land fortifications.
- On a side way, there should be a slight defensive bonus when different province borders are linked by fortifications. The more constant level, the bigger bonus.
- On a side way again, a fortification should provide a slight portion of its effectiveness to the province defenders, even when it's attacked from a non fortified border, since a level of 5/10 for example. The effectiveness provided could be 10% for example, or 10% from 5/10 to 8/10 and 20% from 9/10 to 10/10, or something like that.
There were any kind of those fortifications, some were very unilateral and others were 360°, modern ones. And by the way, for example, Germans shouldn't get all the bonuses of the Maginot line when defending against an anglo-american offensive in France, but should get a bit though, as Maginot line still provided certain important advantages, even attacked from west. (It wasn't only bunkers with artillery, it was an incredible underground organisation/capability.)
If the classic ?/X level of fortif is kept, I see the things this way :
- Each level should be explained in what it is exactly and how it functions. (A series of sentry niches is a fortif yet, even if very low level..)
- When the construction is ordered, the province is chosen, and the different province borders wished to be defended are selected. Each border portion has a value of size (like in HoI3 for number of units you can place into effective attack position). The sum of these values (those wished) brings the cost of the construction work for 1 level. You can yet or later improve the level (borber by border would be the top).
- This same value of size (in fact sum of province borders sizes) reduces proportionally the efficiency of the fortifications in this province. (Because you dilute more or less your construction work). Then you have a decent generic system to model the cost, the effectiveness and the direction of the land fortifications.
- On a side way, there should be a slight defensive bonus when different province borders are linked by fortifications. The more constant level, the bigger bonus.
- On a side way again, a fortification should provide a slight portion of its effectiveness to the province defenders, even when it's attacked from a non fortified border, since a level of 5/10 for example. The effectiveness provided could be 10% for example, or 10% from 5/10 to 8/10 and 20% from 9/10 to 10/10, or something like that.
Last edited:
Personally I don't think there were many large forts which weren't build along national borders. Why not say that you can't build fort except along the border? If you did that then the game could automatically add a direction along the borderline. The worst weirdness that would create would be forts between say Germany and Austria when you intended to make a Germany/Czech fort. That's what the screenshot above looks like its doing to me. Alternatively make "border forts" a different build item to "360 forts" with different costs.
Naval forts as always could be build in any coastal province and would point out at sea.
Naval forts as always could be build in any coastal province and would point out at sea.
Fortifications played a major role in WW2 and they deserve a better treatment in HOI4 than in previous games. Battles in which fortifications played a major role include:
The Karelian campaign.
Tobruk.
Sevastopol (both in 1942 and 1944)
El Alamein.
Kursk.
The entire Italian campaign, particularly its later phase.
However, in most of the above battles the fortification weren't of the massive concrete fortress-type, but instead lines of pill-boxes, trenches, barbed-wire entanglements, dragons-teeth, anti-tank ditches, and above all mine-fields. Rather than taking six months to build even the first level of, they took a matter of 1-3 months to construct, and were built up by the units occupying them.
In HOI3 this really isn't properly modelled. If you tried to build a line of fortifications at Kursk, the battle line would have swept over the area long before the forts would be ready. Whilst units had a ten-day dig-in bonus, this could not be transferred to other units taking over its position, and the bonus disappeared as soon as the unit moved. The result was a game in which the only real option was continual attack, in which you never had to "go firm" on a given objective and the only lines worth standing on were river-lines. This wasn't WW2. Obviously WW1 shouldn't happen in the 1940's, but HOI3 went too far in the other direction.
Adding a direction to the forts in-game does nothing to address the above. Instead it makes fortifications even less useful and even harder to build.
The Karelian campaign.
Tobruk.
Sevastopol (both in 1942 and 1944)
El Alamein.
Kursk.
The entire Italian campaign, particularly its later phase.
However, in most of the above battles the fortification weren't of the massive concrete fortress-type, but instead lines of pill-boxes, trenches, barbed-wire entanglements, dragons-teeth, anti-tank ditches, and above all mine-fields. Rather than taking six months to build even the first level of, they took a matter of 1-3 months to construct, and were built up by the units occupying them.
In HOI3 this really isn't properly modelled. If you tried to build a line of fortifications at Kursk, the battle line would have swept over the area long before the forts would be ready. Whilst units had a ten-day dig-in bonus, this could not be transferred to other units taking over its position, and the bonus disappeared as soon as the unit moved. The result was a game in which the only real option was continual attack, in which you never had to "go firm" on a given objective and the only lines worth standing on were river-lines. This wasn't WW2. Obviously WW1 shouldn't happen in the 1940's, but HOI3 went too far in the other direction.
Adding a direction to the forts in-game does nothing to address the above. Instead it makes fortifications even less useful and even harder to build.
My only worry is you can't easily tell from the map how fortified a province is. This was one of my pet gripes in HOI3. There was no map mode or anything that told you how strong defenses were, so you had to select provinces one by one (goes for other installations like AA, radar, airports and so on, too, of course). Hoping this is different somehow in HOI4.
It's not as much a question of where the fortif is built as a question what kind of. I assume some WWII fortifications had more or less 360° capabilities. As I said yet, even the Maginot line had 360° capabilities when it was obviously built in only one direction, and when the goal was to prevent France from German attack and not French partisans attack.
The Eben-Emaël belgian fort is a good example.
Last edited:
I completely agree with what you say a part from I like the idea of giving the orientation(s). But it's perfectly true that we need a system where we can build some light fortifications in a few weeks only, when heavy ones need months or even years. The bonuses should be more and more important of course, but probably in a degressive effectiveness ratio [cost and time vs defensive bonuses]. That's why heavy fortifications were built during the very peace eras. And maybe we should decide all these parameters since we give the construction orders. (Such builds need a planification).
On a side note, the game should give the old fortifications (plenty of in Europe with WWI) and give to all an "armour" rate or something, because some concrete fortresses were completely useless since the ennemy artillery was able to destroy it and others not. It was the case during WWI with 1870 war fortresses yet.
Are you talking your own defenses or the enemies? You should not be allowed to see the enemies defense strength 100% IMO.
My own, obviously.
Yes, actually I think I should, if I have enough intel on them and/or if I have fought over them before.
Forts are mosly 1 directional. and i think in gamefort means that it cannot be built by ground troops, which can build yrenches. Bunkers etc while using materials in local area. Forts are heavy duty instsllations which can take beating from artillery and bombs witouth much problem inlike showel made bunkers/trenches.
Also even if there was360 degree forts it doesnt mean anything as they were single forts in tiny local area when comparez to size of a province. It does not matter at all if forts are 360 and on 1 border only in province. They arent portable and any attack coming from other border than where forts are is esy as forts dont play any role in that battle. forts are only effective in sight distances minus installed artillery. Even range arty can shoot is monimal compared to size of province.
In game picture tells at least for me that forts are only multi directional. Which is really stupid. Which country would build fort line(inside province) which enemy could use against it if captured?
also. fort could be shown on map on border with dragon tooths. more there is them more fortified border there is. or small bunker icons or different sizes or shapes, or just number over the fort on map. same with everything else.
Also even if there was360 degree forts it doesnt mean anything as they were single forts in tiny local area when comparez to size of a province. It does not matter at all if forts are 360 and on 1 border only in province. They arent portable and any attack coming from other border than where forts are is esy as forts dont play any role in that battle. forts are only effective in sight distances minus installed artillery. Even range arty can shoot is monimal compared to size of province.
In game picture tells at least for me that forts are only multi directional. Which is really stupid. Which country would build fort line(inside province) which enemy could use against it if captured?
also. fort could be shown on map on border with dragon tooths. more there is them more fortified border there is. or small bunker icons or different sizes or shapes, or just number over the fort on map. same with everything else.
I disagree. Did you read the rest of the topic ? We need a far better fortification model.
What's really stupid is making statements like this, when you don't know anything about history, beyond a bare understanding of the Maginot Line. Fortresses existed as strong points of defence, usually with all round cover, throughout history. And even in the era of "modern" warfare played an important role.
This is from the US military history of the Lorraine Campaign under 3rd Army in late 1944. A little history background for you. Metz is in the Alsace-Lorraine region, and was annexed by Germany after the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. So in 1902 the fort was first built by Germany. I'm not sure if the fort was fought over in the First World War, but potentially this fort and many others in the area covered by the Western Front could have been defended by one side, captured and then defended by the other side with the attacks coming from the opposite direction.
After WWI, Germany had to return Alsace-Lorraine to France, and the French further developed the fort, and defended it in 1940. The whole region was again annexed by Germany after the Fall of France, and they re-occupied the fort they originally built. Of no importance until they were defeated in Normandy and their forces fled from France in disarray. Then the fort, and others like it, became important to holdup the Allied advance while they regrouped shattered divisions and strengthened defences along the Rhine.
Fort Driant was attacked in late September 1944 by US forces, who withdrew after two weeks, without capturing the fort. It was the first defeat that Patton's army suffered since landing in France. The following account of the first day gives an indication of the difficulties they were going to face:
The account of the combat in Driant is very reminiscent of the accounts of the Battle of Verdun in WWI. Developments in technology over the intervening 30 years made little difference, and victory came down to close combat in underground passages. The US weren't prepared to sustain the losses that both France and Germany suffered at Verdun, and withdrew.
Fort Driant wasn't a single fort, but part of a series of forts surrounding the city of Metz. Taken as a whole they were meant to provide an entire fortified area. There was no continuous tunnels, trenches, barbed wire etc linking the forts together to form a "line". This wasn't necessary. But the artillery from one fort could be brought to bear on attackers around another fort, and the forts were close enough and positioned in such a way to restrict manoeuvre so that a force couldn't easily surround and attack each fort in isolation.
These remained important even in a world with mobile forces and air power, when the stronghold had a strategic position that wasn't easily by-passed because of rivers and hills, and cities like Metz were located on main roads and railways.
And Metz also wasn't a single fortified city, but part of a number of similarly fortified cities in the region, like Verdun and Nancy - that had been the subject of conflict for many centuries. They were the fore-runner of the Maginot Line, as a defensive system to defend the region, and as mentioned to defend France at certain times, and Germany at others. It wasn't stupidity that made successive governments and military leaders adopt an all-round defense of the fortifications, but to prevent attackers being able to simply envelop the cities and attack from "the rear", even though they knew that if the lost the city completely then the forts could be used against them in the future.
So - nonsense that all fortifications must be a "line" along the border of a province, and can only possibly be used to defend in one direction and therefore by one country. In fact, those sort of defences on their own would have been stupid. Any penetration of the "line" would mean the whole defenses would collapse. The French planners who built the Maginot Line were not so stupid, they incorporated some measure of all-round defence in the main line, defences in depth and strongholds in the rear.
In my opinion, most forts in HOI represent the fortified cities/towns, and correctly represent these. Only the Maginot Line itself causes significant issues for gameplay. The Event which reduces the forts level once France is defeated adequately deals with this. Germany can use Maginot to provide some defence, but would have to invest alot of IC to make it back to the level of 1940 but facing the opposite way.
Edit: Sorry, also meant to mention. Metz wasn't by any means unique. The campaign map of France at the start of Sept 1944 shows the Allies controlling nearly all northern France, and the Rhone valley from Marseilles nearly to Lyon. But a very long way behind the front lines, Germany still controlled Brest, Lorient, St. Nazaire and Le Havre. All four port cities had been fortified to protect them from attack from inland, as well as from amphibious assault. The Allies found overcoming the fortifications at Brest very difficult (rather like the similar problems Germany had taking Tobruk a couple of years earlier). They had to divert alot of forces and supplies to the battle, and decided to bypass the other ports, leaving small forces behind to contain the German garrisons.
Forts do need work, but not to make them directional, but make them more significant. I couldn't consistently simulate the UK 8th Army holding up Rommel at El Alamein, nor have a city like Tobruk hold out for any length of time. Only a Maginot level of fortifications seemed to make any noticeable difference. And forts and digging in bonus need to use supplies, not IC (factories), and the lower levels be quicker to build.
Last edited:
I have yet to read a post by potski that is not, axe. Even if he holds the opposite opinion of mine, he actually manages to make me re-consider and double check my own position, sometimes. That is rare, sadly, for one reason or the other.
That being said, the problem of directionality is not limited to forts (and may not even apply to them at all). I think the putting more significance on regions as we can see in HoI4, goes into the direction of solving it, partially. Basically, you have to regard a region as what used to be a province, and the provinces in 4 as the new province´s (= region´s) borders (directions).
That being said, the problem of directionality is not limited to forts (and may not even apply to them at all). I think the putting more significance on regions as we can see in HoI4, goes into the direction of solving it, partially. Basically, you have to regard a region as what used to be a province, and the provinces in 4 as the new province´s (= region´s) borders (directions).
Oh aye, Potski, Secret Master, Director, FOARP and Zinegata are just a few of the very knowledgable posters here who I'm a big fan of (and I'm very sorry for others who I haven't mentioned - I struggle to remember stuff at times - I guarantee as soon as I've typed this I'll go off and read another post, and realise I've forgotten someone)
. You're no slouch yourself Jazumir .