Fortifications, how will they work?

[juv95hrn]

In HOI2 you have up to +20% percent dug-in bonus that disappers when you move or 6 months constructions and nothing in between.

I would like to see more detailed levels of fortifications:

* Some automated bonus like the +20 dug-in bonus from HOI2 representing foxholes, trenches and improvments done by troops themselves with local means in a short time.

* given some time and resources there should be a new level of fortifications in-between the two existing ones in HOI2 representing an advanced trench line, some shell proof dug-outs, a few improvments requiring limited amounts of communcation equipment, concrete, wood and metal to make field fortifications. These can be destroyed/reduced when you move out of them. Engineer brigade required to build them would be nice but you want your divisions to be able to do it at some cost. The period to improve this should range between 20 days and the time to build a real fort I suppose so in the ball-park of 20-180 days. If you want something better you have to bring in the real construction firms.

* The maginot/West-wall/Atlantic wall type full blow super-forts represented by IC are already in HOI2. I dont think the effect should be gone in hours though.

I guess Im saying I'd like one more intermediate field-fortification level available to units with time to prepare a defense properly. (The Kursk Salient defences would be a good example.)

Maybe making each higher level of fortification taking longer time/costing more resources would be good as well.

 

[unmerged(84607)]

In HOI2 you have up to +20% percent dug-in bonus that disappers when you move or 6 months constructions and nothing in between.

I would like to see more detailed levels of fortifications:

* Some automated bonus like the +20 dug-in bonus from HOI2 representing foxholes, trenches and improvments done by troops themselves with local means in a short time.

* given some time and resources there should be a new level of fortifications in-between the two existing ones in HOI2 representing an advanced trench line, some shell proof dug-outs, a few improvments requiring limited amounts of communcation equipment, concrete, wood and metal to make field fortifications. These can be destroyed/reduced when you move out of them. Engineer brigade required to build them would be nice but you want your divisions to be able to do it at some cost. The period to improve this should range between 20 days and the time to build a real fort I suppose so in the ball-park of 20-180 days. If you want something better you have to bring in the real construction firms.

* The maginot/West-wall/Atlantic wall type full blow super-forts represented by IC are already in HOI2. I dont think the effect should be gone in hours though.

I guess Im saying I'd like one more intermediate field-fortification level available to units with time to prepare a defense properly. (The Kursk Salient defences would be a good example.)

Maybe making each higher level of fortification taking longer time/costing more resources would be good as well.

Hmm... I sortof think of the 20% you get over time (the "dug-in" bonus) as being the second item in your list... I suppose you could have a button like the "offensive" button called "defensive" or "dig in" which exchanges supplies for some extra defensive capability.

I rather think the 1-10 forts show the difference ranging from minor bunkers and pillboxes through the Atlantikwall to the Maginot line quite well...

 

[humancalculator]

* The maginot/West-wall/Atlantic wall type full blow super-forts represented by IC are already in HOI2. I dont think the effect should be gone in hours though.

I think forts should be built by Units, not industry. Many forts were made by forced labor (which isn't allowed in HOI series) so why not have them made by units, which was very common.

 

[lordashran]

would also add a neat feature to engineers

 

[unmerged(92480)]

You are mixing up two different things: army built entrenchments and industry built fortifications, which require building material, cement, static artillery and so on. Its built by standalone troops (building battallions, in Soviet army, which do not fight) and requires IC.

However I like the idea that engineers brigades speed up and slightly improves dig-in bonus. Realistic and makes them more helpful.

 

[Bullfrog]

I would hope that the land fortifications are directional, rather than omnidirectional. I mean, the Maginot line didn't have guns and machinegun nests, barbed wire funnels and land mines facing France...

 

[zeekater]

You are mixing up two different things: army built entrenchments and industry built fortifications, which require building material, cement, static artillery and so on. Its built by standalone troops (building battallions, in Soviet army, which do not fight) and requires IC.

However I like the idea that engineers brigades speed up and slightly improves dig-in bonus. Realistic and makes them more helpful.

How about a division with only a building battallion, plus HQ and logistics?

A cheap unit, which can only build fortifications, both land and coastal.
They cost quite a bit of manpower, but, in contrast with how you build forts now, the manpower isn't permanently gone. You can use the same division again to build another fort or disband it for the manpower.

 

[{LD}Firestorm]

I would hope that the land fortifications are directional, rather than omnidirectional. I mean, the Maginot line didn't have guns and machinegun nests, barbed wire funnels and land mines facing France...

In this instance, it actually did by the way. Just not as much. It proved a hinderance to the allied advance into Germany.

 

[unmerged(92480)]

How about a division with only a building battallion, plus HQ and logistics?

A cheap unit, which can only build fortifications, both land and coastal.
They cost quite a bit of manpower, but, in contrast with how you build forts now, the manpower isn't permanently gone. You can use the same division again to build another fort or disband it for the manpower.

Its simplier just to click on "build land fort" button, why bother with division micromanagement?

 

[zeekater]

Its simplier just to click on "build land fort" button, why bother with division micromanagement?

You're right, it's just an extra step.

The only advantage is the manpower, at the cost of extra management.

 

[True Grit]

How about a division with only a building battallion, plus HQ and logistics?

A cheap unit, which can only build fortifications, both land and coastal.
They cost quite a bit of manpower, but, in contrast with how you build forts now, the manpower isn't permanently gone. You can use the same division again to build another fort or disband it for the manpower.

I think it would be a better option for "Garrison" divisions. They can't move anyway (only strategic) and if you can assign engineers (or work attachments, whatever) they should be able to do some work in provinces. There would have to be a cap on what they could do - maybe build to land fort level 2 or 3, one level taking approximately 6 months or so. This would be a duty you assign to them just like you would for reserves or anti-partisan duty. While they are building/fortifiying/whatever they should have a drastically higher supply requirement to simulate the extra IC they are using.

 

[wheels0132]

I would hope that the land fortifications are directional, rather than omnidirectional. I mean, the Maginot line didn't have guns and machinegun nests, barbed wire funnels and land mines facing France...

Seconded.

In this instance, it actually did by the way. Just not as much. It proved a hinderance to the allied advance into Germany.

I would say that any fort level from 2-10 should be directional.
Ex) A level 10 fort facing east is a level 1 from the west. This could pose some problems however in provinces with many different borders in all directions. Maybe the forts could be built ON a border. So a province with three east facing frontier borders would have to build three different forts-depending on the length of the frontier. -This could get complicated!

 

[unmerged(63189)]

* The maginot/West-wall/Atlantic wall type full blow super-forts represented by IC are already in HOI2. I dont think the effect should be gone in hours though.
.

yes, extend the usefulness of forts, in ARM you can easily enter through maginot line (after couple of hours its gone). make them decay less easily (also since many of those forts were placed in very strategic points, had l-art/h-art and MG's, it would be nice to see not only attacker attack penalty but defender attack bonus, resulting in higher org (and then) strenght loss from attacker)

 

[True Grit]

I would say that any fort level from 2-10 should be directional.
Ex) A level 10 fort facing east is a level 1 from the west. This could pose some problems however in provinces with many different borders in all directions. Maybe the forts could be built ON a border. So a province with three east facing frontier borders would have to build three different forts-depending on the length of the frontier. -This could get complicated!

It could get complicated if not handled correctly, but its a good idea and I think it could be reasonably represented in the UI.

In HOI2 when you click on a province it shows you the adjacent province(s) you can move to and roughly "how" you get there (land, river, over water, etc.). This could be extended to show fortification as expressed with a simple expression. For a typical land province you get to adjacent provinces by a direct land route and this is expressed as a small dash followed by the name of the destination province. A number could be incorporated into that expression to show relative fortification between them. i.e. - (HOI2) when you click on Berlin it shows you the overall "land fort" value (say 2 for example) in the province details and then shows the adjacent provinces (say Potsdam or whatever, I don't have the map @ work) as "- Potsdam". In the new system it could show the 2 land fort in Berlin and maybe the 4 land fort (for example) in Potsdam at the same time as "2 - 4 Potsdam".

 

[unmerged(47302)]

I would hope that the land fortifications are directional, rather than omnidirectional. I mean, the Maginot line didn't have guns and machinegun nests, barbed wire funnels and land mines facing France...

Did you visit Ligne Maginot?

Ligne Maginot concept is mostly based on standard units backed by fortifications at regular interval.
It is true that some guns in some fortifications were fixed (and generally oriented to back other fortifications, so not especially oriented against german frontier) but most of concept is based on infantry outside fortifications...

Orientation for land fortification has meaning at tactical level, not really at strategic level.

 

[unmerged(13008)]

...However I like the idea that engineers brigades speed up and slightly improves dig-in bonus. Realistic and makes them more helpful...

So we have to scratch the defensive bonus we allready get right now?
Or put the other one on top of it?

 

[unmerged(84607)]

I would hope that the land fortifications are directional, rather than omnidirectional. I mean, the Maginot line didn't have guns and machinegun nests, barbed wire funnels and land mines facing France...

A defensive "line" like the Maginot is not really simple enough to make mono-directional. The complex network of fortifications and armaments is designed to be fought amongst, not only to be attacked from the front. A single line breakthrough shouldn't doom the entire line to instant death - even if its obviously a big problem. If my memory doesn't decieve me the main batteries on the maginot forts were 360 degree cupolas. Further, many of the pillboxes and gun emplacements are simply designed to watch over strategic routes, roads etc.

As someone who has done quite a bit or military drill amongst the fortifications of the Swedish mini-maginot "The Boden Fortress" (designed to keep the evil Russians out), I can tell you that in reality, the presence of fortifications, trenches and bunkers is a quagmire, regardless of direction of approach.

 

[unmerged(92480)]

So we have to scratch the defensive bonus we allready get right now?
Or put the other one on top of it?

Hm, not sure if I get your post correctly.

Typical inf. division has engineer battalion in it. Adding another eng. brigade we can assume that it builds its defense (dig in) faster. So when typical division will have (after 10 days) 10 "dig in" bonus, inf+eng division will have 20 defense points. Also, such brigade allows to build a bit more complex defense line. So when typical division has max. bonus of 20 points, inf+eng. division has 25 defense bonus. That was my point. It is more or less realistic, simple in coding imho and adds some more fun making eng brigades a bit more useful.

 

[unmerged(84607)]

the presence of fortifications, trenches and bunkers is a quagmire, regardless of direction of approach.

I find myself obliged to add that obviously a fortification has a strategic direction. However, making them limited to one border, one direction (for example) would be too far in the other direction. Even 10:1 is too far...

 

[unmerged(13008)]

Hm, not sure if I get your post correctly.

Typical inf. division has engineer battalion in it. Adding another eng. brigade we can assume that it builds its defense (dig in) faster. So when typical division will have (after 10 days) 10 "dig in" bonus, inf+eng division will have 20 defense points. Also, such brigade allows to build a bit more complex defense line. So when typical division has max. bonus of 20 points, inf+eng. division has 25 defense bonus. That was my point. It is more or less realistic, simple in coding imho and adds some more fun making eng brigades a bit more useful.

I´m well aware of that. But adding extra eng.brigade gives you more points in defensive´& toughness.
### 0 - Engineer '36
model = {
... = 2.5
toughness = 3
defensiveness = 5
...
}

### 1 - Engineer '43
model = {
...
toughness = 4
defensiveness = 6
...
}

I just felt it is worthwhile to think about either reducing these benefits, while on the same time diggin in faster, or leave them and time to dig in, too.
No double plus.
Got me?