Directional building of land forts

[unmerged(61401)]

Building of land forts should probably be improved. Remember the HoI2 "Flanking the Maginot line" event? It was meant to symbolize that the line was constructed against attacks from the east (Germany), not the west. So in HoI3 constructing a land fort to defend from only as many directions should be cheaper IC-wise, than constructing an all-directions fort.

 

[unmerged(42324)]

I agree, the easiest way IMO to implement this is to use the same front as beeing used in land battles and just implementing a price pr front, so say 2 IC pr front so if you want to build fortifications which spans two fronts, ie two borders, you have to pay 4 IC.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Let's hope so.
One could also imagine a situation where the presence of fortifications affect the frontage of a border, perhaps even with the possibility for someone to remove some friendly fortifications as preparations for an offensive of his own.

 

[unmerged(112350)]

many people will argue now because of 'lots of micromanagement' :rofl:
i dont see anything difficult in it and think that its a rather neccessary change and would bring a new level of strategical planning in game

 

[unmerged(122975)]

I already tought about that too.

I also think infrastructure should be directional; one province can connect better to some neighbours than others.

 

[Iberville]

Awesome and basic suggestion.

 

[Rodrico Stak]

Yes, good idea.

 

[unmerged(122939)]

Nice idea, also I would like an exponential cost grow for the levels and that the building be only one... I mean if you want a lvl8 fort you doesn't need to pass from lvl1 to after several years reach lvl8, you simply go and make a lvl8, and this is the reason for exponential cost (its obvious that a lvl10 a should be far more expensive in IC and time than a lvl1).

 

[bz249]

Nice idea, also I would like an exponential cost grow for the levels and that the building be only one... I mean if you want a lvl8 fort you doesn't need to pass from lvl1 to after several years reach lvl8, you simply go and make a lvl8, and this is the reason for exponential cost (its obvious that a lvl10 a should be far more expensive in IC and time than a lvl1).

Mostly agree.

The bad thing with a system like that what will happen if the invasion comes before expected? Like at the Atlantic Wall.

There the half-built structures still offered some bonus to the defenders though not much. So the current incremental system offers some advantages too.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Nice idea, also I would like an exponential cost grow for the levels and that the building be only one... I mean if you want a lvl8 fort you doesn't need to pass from lvl1 to after several years reach lvl8, you simply go and make a lvl8, and this is the reason for exponential cost (its obvious that a lvl10 a should be far more expensive in IC and time than a lvl1).

This could be easily solved by making the gearing bonus (or in HOI3-terms, the percentual "building skill" concept) apply to naval and land forts.

 

[Hayden]

I already tought about that too.

I also think infrastructure should be directional; one province can connect better to some neighbours than others.

Forts are one thing, but this seems like a micro management nightmare...

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Forts are one thing, but this seems like a micro management nightmare...

Better than the logistics nightmare the current system offers
Considering we have been promised a logistics system in HoI3, having roads and railroads leading to and from somewhere instead of having an even spread within a province without ever crossing province borders would be a vast improvement as it would actually mean such things would have an impact on troop- and supply movement.

 

[Striker475]

The reality is, by 1936, the only serious fortification line which had that sort of directional line was Maginot. The Stalin Line was in place too, however, it was nowhere near as strong as Maginot.

Such a feature does belong, however, the only places which I can see anyone building such a line would be the Dnieper-Daugvala line (sorry, spelling, had a few drinks), or an extension of Maginot. With the exception of mods (eg HoI3 equivs of Mod33/34) there would be no real provocation for the construction of such a line, as everyone will be pumping IC into divisions for the actual fighting. And remember, there are more provinces to hold such a line, which means such an extension of the line will be both costlier and harder to hold. (The entire Belgian-Lux border?! As well as the German border?!?!??!)

 

[Timmetie]

The reality is, by 1936, the only serious fortification line which had that sort of directional line was Maginot. The Stalin Line was in place too, however, it was nowhere near as strong as Maginot.

Such a feature does belong, however, the only places which I can see anyone building such a line would be the Dnieper-Daugvala line (sorry, spelling, had a few drinks), or an extension of Maginot. With the exception of mods (eg HoI3 equivs of Mod33/34) there would be no real provocation for the construction of such a line, as everyone will be pumping IC into divisions for the actual fighting. And remember, there are more provinces to hold such a line, which means such an extension of the line will be both costlier and harder to hold. (The entire Belgian-Lux border?! As well as the German border?!?!??!)

any sort of fortification line is directional.. It's a simple case of where the guns are pointing..

And every nation had them. The Belgians and the Dutch had their own defensive lines but ingame the french can't improve on their defenses.

 

[Czert]

for forts:
In WWII era was two types of forts
direct fire forts - mostly employed by germans, belgians and frenchs - they have main arament directed directly on enemy borders/movement.
pros - can disturb enemy preparednes for attack, long range shoting
cons - if enemy came from another direction defence is very stricened (not all round defence planed)
flanking forts - employed by czechs - guns are directed on flanksof enemy advance
pros - big resistence againt direct fire ( no firing post in front, allowing aditional ground coverage), all round defence
cons - inability to disturb enemy preparations for attack, higher ammo consumtion.

for half-finished forts
after forts have more than 50% finished, then they start giving defensive bonus from 1% from 50% finished up to 100% at 100% (at 50% imagine only concetre forts without guns and equpment - they serve only as covers for inf.)

Building of level 10 (or another number) forts directly.
I think this is needed and logical - if you want heavy fortification - you willl starrt directly building it, and dong go rfom field fortification (level 1) up to light (e.q. 5) up to biggest (10).
Building direcly level 10 will cost (actual) more IC but in time wise you will save time and resources (IC).

 

[Timmetie]

for forts:
In WWII era was two types of forts
direct fire forts - mostly employed by germans, belgians and frenchs - they have main arament directed directly on enemy borders/movement.
pros - can disturb enemy preparednes for attack, long range shoting
cons - if enemy came from another direction defence is very stricened (not all round defence planed)
flanking forts - employed by czechs - guns are directed on flanksof enemy advance
pros - big resistence againt direct fire ( no firing post in front, allowing aditional ground coverage), all round defence
cons - inability to disturb enemy preparations for attack, higher ammo consumtion.

Where did you pull that from?

 

[Czert]

for timmetie

from books )).

I think you can agree with my pros/cons for direct fire/flanking forts. Or is here problem ?

for nations - for french - look at maginot line. germans - atlantic wall, siegfrid line, belgium - eben emael. Czechs - lines of LO vz.37 (flanking fire, yes LO vz.36 was direct fire, but in 37 was considered obsolete and replaced by Lo vz 37 if possible) and heavy forts.
And yes, in maginot line was flanking fortifications too, but it was not majority.

 

[{LD}Firestorm]

I saw a diagram somewhere, most of the fortifications in the Maginot Line could turn (pop-up turrets). The Maginot defences were occupied by Germany when the Allies pushed towards Germany, and caused the Allied troops quite the headache.


Just some examples

 

[unmerged(112350)]

Yes - but most of forts and the whole defence system wasnt. Maginot should be hard from 1 and weak from the other side (and not only one directional).

 

[Timmetie]

Czert, no I still don't. A fort in itself can't flank troops. Troops can only bypass it. This is where location counts. So what you're referring too is a complicated mixture of the make-up of the fort (the sides it's defended and how) and the location in reference to tactical points of interest or access points.

How can a line of defenses ever flank an opponent? Defensive lines aren't castles. They are interlocking machine gun fields combined with cover from anti tank and anti air. The roads are pre-targeted by artillery and minefield and other constructions are set up to funnel opponents towards strong points. Furthermore defensive lines include communications, logistics and lines for reinforcement or retreat. They include fall back lines, headquarters etc.
In an age or targeted artillery and fire support, no fort stood alone.

And to the general discussion of this topic. I believe a defensive line could be converted towards the other side. It would be weaker ofcourse(think of defenses along a river which would suddenly cease to have the river between them). But during an attack I believe a defensive line would even prove a major negative effect when attacked from both sides. Everything the line is designed for would work against the defenders. This could easily be put into the game.