Fortifications, how will they work?

[unmerged(92480)]

Yes. But that bonus to Def and Tou is pretty useless. I did not heard that someone built eng. brigades except "just for fun". So, I try to propose "balanced" decision. I've did it more in my total combat system, but seems noone for it. So I try at least to "push in" something minimal

 

[McNaughton]

It would probably be best to have forts with intrinsic garrisons as in the EU series. Having 'garrison divisions' isn't very realistic, as such formations are realistically abstracted static garrisons. It would probalby be best as representative of a fixed unit, attached to the fort/province. You can increase the 'scale' of the fort, which upgrades the 'unit'. The province itself would multiply any regular forces in the province representing the fortress and supporting troops protecting one another (both become more effective with the other). You build a fortress via industry (as in HoI and HoI2), but instead of 'empty fortifications' you get a unit along with it. A stage 1 fort will have a stage 1 unit attached, and so on (representing technological advances of fort design, such as better concealment, anti-aircraft protection, etc., rater than the extensiveness of the fort).

 

[unmerged(63189)]

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?

the basic toughness-def bonus of eng is much lower than bonus from lets say art (which also adds other 'stats') so reducing it would only nerf eng more. the 6 def points are little in late and even early units if you consider what engineers actually were, so i dont know about lowering those stats, but surely a good idea to improve dig-in bonus, and maybe adding more types of engineers, that many mods already use (pioniere?)

 

[unmerged(112350)]

I agree that Engineers should have impact on speed and lvl of entrenchment of Divs.
From other topic about forts:
'IMO:
Forts should have their own garrisons and use mp (it would resolve the (problem of large coasts)
Even if theres no beach u should be able to create coastall fortifications for sea bombardment (ex - Gibraltar)
Ships should be able to pass the straights - only the coastall artillery and enemy ships would stop them or make them suffer great causalites - even destruction (ex Gibraltar)
Coastal Forts as defensive lines and those for Coastall Art should be separated.
Forts should have their direction like Maginot Line (its also possible to expand them to other borthers and sides) and be assigned to provs borders'

 

[unmerged(47302)]

Forts should have their direction like Maginot Line (its also possible to expand them to other borthers and sides) and be assigned to provs borders'

Did you seriously think about game mechanic consideration and micro-management issue?

I do not want to assign for each fort a direction or a group of direction.
Do you imagine the work if you want to improve France frontier defense?

Provinces are not hexagons so you will generate strange disparity between forts in one province and fort in one other province.


Finally, I have never read any thread in HOI2 forum where players were strongly complaining about fort orientation impact on gameplay, balance or historicity.

I like orientation, but in Company of Heroes when I have to shoot a tank in the back armor with my AT Gun.

 

[unmerged(112350)]

Well it could work the way rivers work in HoI2 - i dont see the problem.
Historically these forts were weeker from behind IIRC

 

[unmerged(13008)]

...the basic toughness-def bonus of eng is much lower than bonus from lets say art (which also adds other 'stats') so reducing it would only nerf eng more. the 6 def points are little in late and even early units if you consider what engineers actually were, ...

So what ARE HOI II Engineers?
Festungspioniere?
Sappers?
Combat Engineers?
Sturmpioniere?
Mineurs?
Bridge Pioneers?
Panzerpioniere?

Afaik, they resemble ALL of engineer duty that you can think off. They aren´t only meant to be cool flamethrower guys nor only bridge equipment. Since it´s a mix (unless we have diversity like you mentioned we have in some mods) they can´t be overpowered in any direction, right?
After all a Division has it´s genuine Engineers anyway.

 

[unmerged(47302)]

Well it could work the way rivers work in HoI2 - i dont see the problem.
Historically these forts were weeker from behind IIRC

You can build fort.
You cannot build river.

 

[unmerged(112350)]

God damn it!
It was only an example to make U understund... But I guess I have failed...
:rofl:

 

[Bullfrog]

So what ARE HOI II Engineers?
Festungspioniere?
Sappers?
Combat Engineers?
Sturmpioniere?
Mineurs?
Bridge Pioneers?
Panzerpioniere?

Afaik, they resemble ALL of engineer duty that you can think off. They aren´t only meant to be cool flamethrower guys nor only bridge equipment. Since it´s a mix (unless we have diversity like you mentioned we have in some mods) they can´t be overpowered in any direction, right?
After all a Division has it´s genuine Engineers anyway.

The hopeful beauty of HOI3 will be that with "unlimited techs" it may be possible to build all of these engineer types, or at least have enough diversity to have a couple of different specialized engineer attachments/brigades/battalions/whatever.

 

[unmerged(84607)]

God damn it!
It was only an example to make U understund... But I guess I have failed...

Actually, I suspect he was making a cynical counterpoint which you missed.

The micromanagement issue holds, and your comment about rivers doesn't address it, consider the complexity of border based fortifications (not to speak of rear of fortifications still providing some extra defence, weaker, not negligable), especially for a province like Stryj (whatever spelling) on the eastern front with eight borders. Now consider that the map in HoI3 will contain many, many more provinces than HoI2. If we assume 10x provinces means 3x along a very linear border (Ger-Fra for example), and that each province has contact with two opposing provinces, the mere act of contruction/assessment would be six times as complex (omitting the step of chosing WHICH borders to build on, which didn't fit very well in the calculation - click, click, click UI design at its best). And thats in a forgiving, straight line border scenario.

User interface methods can be found to simplify this (a fortifications overview map which highlights them with strength, "drawing" new forts onto the map with drag and drop etc...) but this isn't a game about fortresses and I just don't see the complexities of this being motivated.

Forification facing, if well done, would be nice. But just nice, and given the amount of things which would be nice, if I were designing a computer game due for delivery in Q3 next year... I'd probably omitt it.

Just my 2 cents, but all the same.