I Find I Hardly Ever Build/Use Fortresses

[Creslin]

This is one of the side effect of having manpower coming in a big bunch. It really encourages offensive type playing, you have very little needs for conserving manpower. The game as it is for major is more efficient to just build more divisions.

A plus side for fortress, it consumes no supply, so it is a viable way to strength the defense of certain areas if you got nothing else to use the IC.

 

[Easy1]

This is one of the side effect of having manpower coming in a big bunch. It really encourages offensive type playing, you have very little needs for conserving manpower. The game as it is for major is more efficient to just build more divisions.

A plus side for fortress, it consumes no supply, so it is a viable way to strength the defense of certain areas if you got nothing else to use the IC.

Playing a country with low manpower and much IC is indeed one of the few cases it can pay off

 

[Cybvep]

IMO one balance change is in order - exponential growth of fort costs. Low level forts (1-2) should take less considerably time to build than, let's say, 5-6 lvl forts. 1-2 lvls aren't game-changers and there were plenty of occasions when various countries built basic fortifications in WWII. On the other hard, building the Maginot Line took years and was costly. That's why construction of high level forts (7-10) should cost much more and take much more time to build than in DH Vanilla. That way, forts could be useful to build in some places and we wouldn't end up with Maginot Lines everywhere.

 

[Conanteacher]

5 years playing HoI2 and I only built forts a couple of times
Even then, the front was not as stable to build them up till lvl 6 or more.

It should cost less. But it should get destroyed, too.

I suggest they cost less IC (but the same amount of time)
and everytime they get overrun they lose half of their effectiveness.

Anyway, I could build a lvl 3-4 fort sometimes in a game, but never ever would I wait so many years for a lvl 10 forts.
It gives no really bigger bonus than a lvl 5 fort anyway... apart from the "AI is scared to attack" effect...

 

[Easy1]

IMO one balance change is in order - exponential growth of fort costs. Low level forts (1-2) should take less considerably time to build than, let's say, 5-6 lvl forts. 1-2 lvls aren't game-changers and there were plenty of occasions when various countries built basic fortifications in WWII. On the other hard, building the Maginot Line took years and was costly. That's why construction of high level forts (7-10) should cost much more and take much more time to build than in DH Vanilla. That way, forts could be useful to build in some places and we wouldn't end up with Maginot Lines everywhere.

Yep. This design is in reality a must. Goes also for infrastructure and static AA

 

[Conanteacher]

Yep. This design is in reality a must.

OK why bother to spend that much to upgrade a lvl 6 fort to lvl 8?

The benefit is minimal.
Most players think forts are worthless.
If you make small levels cheaper, noone will ever build over level 6.

IRL many countries had strong fortifications, even minors (Greece, Switzerland etc)

 

[Cybvep]

Most players think fort are worthless.

That's because in almost all cases it's better to invest in more troops. Players don't have a problem with the French Maginot Line, right?

IRL many countries had strong fortifications, even minors (Greece, Switzerland etc)

Exactly - and the players rarely try to recreate those fortifications, because they are not that useful, given their cost and time required for construction. Remember that with this system building a lvl 5 fort would be much cheaper and take less time than building a lvl 9 fort, while constructing a lvl 2 fort would be even easier. The system actually gives a chance for the minors to build a proper defence line.

There were not many in-game lvl 10 fortifications IRL and if forts are made cheaper universally, the majors will easily be able to build 8-10 lvl forts in many places.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

France spent years and a colossal budget on the Maginot line. You do not want majors being easily able to build level 8-10 forts in many places. I think the best way to make forts usable is the same as for any other thing that's widely underused: buff them ridiculously. If I'm able to break the Maginot line in a head-on attack with 72 German infantry divisions including model 1921 ones, then the Maginot line is too weak. If it gave +150 combat effectiveness to the defenders instead of +90 I'd have broken off that attack cca. immediately.

 

[Cybvep]

France spent years and a colossal budget on the Maginot line. You do not want majors being easily able to build level 8-10 forts in many places.

Exactly. We also know that many countries built less impressive but still useful fortifications during WWII and this should be represented. If most players don't see the point in building them, then sth is not right.

BTW forts will also become more useful when the superstack issue is solved. When logistics becomes an issue, static defences, which are much less problematic MP- and logistically-wise, are suddenly a more tempting option. After all, despite their drawbacks, forts are all about economy of force.

 

[Kung Zog]

How about giving forts small secondary effects like maybe an increase in org regain?

I'm all for a exponential increase in cost (and a much smaller start cost) depending on fort level.

Sometimes, if I play USA I build coastal forts at Guam.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Just looked in misc.txt, the penalty was only -0.08 per level of fort. Damn straight they're good for nothing like this! Changed it to -0.13 for the time being, that should make the AI's avoidance of high level forts that much more justified... though it might make CZE invulnerable if they decide not to cede the Sudetenland.

 

[Cybvep]

Just looked in misc.txt, the penalty was only -0.08 per level of fort. Damn straight they're good for nothing like this! Changed it to -0.13 for the time being, that should make the AI's avoidance of high level forts that much more justified... though it might make CZE invulnerable if they decide not to cede the Sudetenland.

Bad idea. It will mean that even lower lvl forts will halt the AI advance, because the penalty will be higher. The AI already overestimates the importance of forts - we shouldn't make the matters worse in that regard.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Well, it will be more accurate now with its estimation of when a fort is assailable and when it's not. And -0.13 for a single level fort is still not a serious modifier.

 

[^_AC_^]

-13% for a single fort is not high? It means -130% to attackers with level 10 forts.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Yes, it's high, but the level 1 fort by itself is not a big problem. With all the positive modifiers the German army has, -130 is needed to make the Maginot line truly impassable.

 

[Cybvep]

Well, it will be more accurate now with its estimation of when a fort is assailable and when it's not. And -0.13 for a single level fort is still not a serious modifier.

No, it won't. If a lvl 10 forts currently gives a -80% penalty, then with your changes the AI would be as passive in relation to a lvl 6 fort (-78% modifier after changes) as in case of the Vanilla lvl 10 fort. The situation would be even worse than it is now.

 

[unmerged(189717)]

A 1933 scenario would make fort building look different.

 

[Cybvep]

A 1933 scenario would make fort building look different.

It will be funny when building the Maginot Line will be pointless in most cases <rotfl>

 

[Rotten Venetic]

I think the AI reacts to fort levels, not to modifiers.

 

[Cybvep]

I think the AI reacts to fort levels, not to modifiers.

I doubt that the AI even knows what a "fort" is. It's probably part of the problem, because it doesn't know that forts will be weakened during fighting. Devs would have to confirm this, though.