Land fortifications on Island ??

[_Sky_]

Hi everyone,, I have hard time understanding one detail of HOI4.
We all know you can build land and coastal fortifications, even on small Island like Iwo Jima that have size of single province. So I wonder how land forts work there??

For example, If you are planning to invade Normandy and Germans have Lvl 10 coastal fortifications attacking from the sea would be almost suicidal, but if attacked from land those coastal forts do not count at all.

But what if I am forced to attack from sea like in Iwo Jima situation and not only am I faced with Lvl 10 coastal forts, but Lvl 10 land forts too. How does that change overall battle? Are enemy divisions forced to fight much harder battle than it would otherwise be the case, or Land forts on Islands are only good for fighting of paratroopers (Note: that does not make sense to me.)

From how I see it, coastal forts give LARGE defensive bonus to your troops in that province until enemy has secured a beach, and after that they do not work at all. But if you also have Land forts in that same province you troops will still have that bonus even after enemy has secured the beach.

Or Land forts simply do not count if you are attacked from the sea,? And if they do count isn't it then better to only build land forts ( if you have limited resources) cuz they will be useful either way regardless of are your being attacked from sea, land or facing paratrooper drops.??

 

[panzerzombie]

I don´t have the details so not sure entirely. My guess is that as individual divisons stay inside of their beginning stance, so either they are invading by sea or coming over land ( perhaps outflanking from other province or paradropping ) and having their own combat modifiers. So an seaborne division gets a malus from any coastal fort and ignores a land fort until a victory or defeat is achieved ( so there is no securing the beach, its all or nothing).

The single-province Island of your example only allows for sea invasions and airborne, so the modifiers are allocated as approbiate. A land fort would only help against airborne landings ( they may even ignore fortresses - but they did not in HOI3 ). Helping against paratroopers makes sense for me as there are lots of pillboxes and hedgehog strongpoints scattered around the land which they need to assault with their meagre equipment ( and quick and decisive EbenEmael situations were extremely rare).

 

[alexchau]

let not say about Iwo Jima. How can you assault on Malta as Italian is already a headache

 

[_Sky_]

I don´t have the details so not sure entirely. My guess is that as individual divisons stay inside of their beginning stance, so either they are invading by sea or coming over land ( perhaps outflanking from other province or paradropping ) and having their own combat modifiers. So an seaborne division gets a malus from any coastal fort and ignores a land fort until a victory or defeat is achieved ( so there is no securing the beach, its all or nothing).

The single-province Island of your example only allows for sea invasions and airborne, so the modifiers are allocated as approbiate. A land fort would only help against airborne landings ( they may even ignore fortresses - but they did not in HOI3 ). Helping against paratroopers makes sense for me as there are lots of pillboxes and hedgehog strongpoints scattered around the land which they need to assault with their meagre equipment ( and quick and decisive EbenEmael situations were extremely rare).

Point is that land fortifications should be of help on islands like Iwo Jima and Malta,, even if you dont have costal fortifications, and I would like to understand how it works.

 

[Vidkjaer]

It goes like this.

Attack the island by naval invasion. the island has coastal forts. You will get an attack penalty (the defender does not get a defensive bonus).
when you have defeated the units on the one province island you occupy the island province. Hence you will not attack by land and therefore landforts are not influencing the combat.

The only way i can think of is if you use paratroopers. Then land forts would give the paratroopers a attack penalty.
That is at least how it was in HOI3. We dont know if landforts will count towards naval invasions (perhaps a smaller penalty plus the coastal fort penalty) - but i dont think it will be like that.

You may be thinking of it in to much detail. Coastal fort is not only a big gun pointing outwards. It reflects a penalty to the attacker if he attacks by naval invasion. That will include bunkers, pillboxes and on on. Land forts are a penalty if attacked by land and can represent the same thing. It is just to seperate them for each other and make you choose some strategic decisions.

 

[_Sky_]

It goes like this.

Attack the island by naval invasion. the island has coastal forts. You will get an attack penalty (the defender does not get a defensive bonus).
when you have defeated the units on the one province island you occupy the island province. Hence you will not attack by land and therefore landforts are not influencing the combat.

The only way i can think of is if you use paratroopers. Then land forts would give the paratroopers a attack penalty.
That is at least how it was in HOI3. We dont know if landforts will count towards naval invasions (perhaps a smaller penalty plus the coastal fort penalty) - but i dont think it will be like that.

You may be thinking of it in to much detail. Coastal fort is not only a big gun pointing outwards. It reflects a penalty to the attacker if he attacks by naval invasion. That will include bunkers, pillboxes and on on. Land forts are a penalty if attacked by land and can represent the same thing. It is just to seperate them for each other and make you choose some strategic decisions.

Well if is it so I would like to know it so I dont waste my IC building Land forts where they will not be of use

 

[Denkt]

Naval forts protect against amphibious attacks but not normal attacks while land forts protect against normal attack but not amphibious attacks so they never double up.
Forts get weaker the more directions you attack from, paradroping count as one direction. Forts will also take damage and lose levels during combat.

 

[kalauer]

Naval forts protect against amphibious attacks but not normal attacks while land forts protect against normal attack but not amphibious attacks so they never double up.
Forts get weaker the more directions you attack from, paradroping count as one direction. Forts will also take damage and lose levels during combat.

That's my impression too. And as I understood it, this is because it is assumed that land forts are too dispersed over the entire province to matter during amphibious attacks. This model, of course, shows its weakness in the case at hand but I guess we can live with it.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Land forts only work against land-attacks, while coastal forts only work against naval-attacks. That question was actually asked and answered during one of the WWW streams. The only effect this would have if you'd reinforce the normandy with land and coastal forts would be, that the allies would have a much harder time to secure ports to bring in additional supplies.

It should be noted that the defensive bonus from the forts gets weaker if you attack from multiple angles and that forts can get damaged and eventually destroyed during combat.

 

[kalauer]

Also, to add another aspect which maybe alleviates the pain , one might argue that fort Level 10 means that the province is fortified to the maximal potential. This, one could assume, means that the marginal increase of additional forts nears 0. While one might discuss whether this can be the case at all, this would mean that when having 10 naval forts, the additional land forts cannot improve defense anymore.

So it should be a relative intepretation, not an absolute Bonus. 10/10 forts mean maximal possible defense.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Having coastal forts affect invasion while land forts affect only overland attacks as you say does simplify gameplay, but conflates the roles of coastal artillery with ground defenses against invasion. Coastal artillery emplacements, such as in the case of Japan, often existed without preparation of defense works for ground troops, so they were vulnerable to being overrun by landing parties if they failed to serve their purpose of having invaders suffer serious losses in the approach or deter them so that they head elsewhere more suitable for landing. However, they should be able to have an effect on enemy shipping without requiring the presence of ground troops, instead of effectiveness depending on ground troop strength.

 

[kalauer]

Having coastal forts affect invasion while land forts affect only overland attacks as you say does simplify gameplay, but conflates the roles of coastal artillery with ground defenses against invasion. Coastal artillery emplacements, such as in the case of Japan, often existed without preparation of defense works for ground troops, so they were vulnerable to being overrun by landing parties if they failed to serve their purpose of having invaders suffer serious losses in the approach or deter them so that they head elsewhere more suitable for landing. However, they should be able to have an effect on enemy shipping without requiring the presence of ground troops, instead of effectiveness depending on ground troop strength.

I believe the main issue presented by Op is that land forts do not help against naval invasions. One might think that these still hamper advancement of invaders when they get off the beach and deeper into the province. This aspect is not modeled in the current system.

This is why I suggested that level 10 forts represent a maximum value of fortification at which point additional forts do not do anything.

 

[_Sky_]

I believe the main issue presented by Op is that land forts do not help against naval invasions. One might think that these still hamper advancement of invaders when they get off the beach and deeper into the province. This aspect is not modeled in the current system.

This is why I suggested that level 10 forts represent a maximum value of fortification at which point additional forts do not do anything.

Yes, that is a problem, coz in provinces like Iwo Jima or malta land fortifications should count.

 

[Sir Garnet]

With the thrust of HOI4 being to streamline and consolidate mechanisms, having one type of fort only address invasions of the province by sea and the other only address invasions by land seems reasonable. Which means land forts make no sense on single-province islands - need to provide more men for the defense.

 

[Pathfinder12]

I think in a discussion such as this it is worth bringing up the Battle of Fort Eben-Emael where about 493 german paratroopers (Fallschirmjäger) knocked out Belgium's, and one of Europe's, most formidable fortress, Eben-Emael, which was defended by 1200 belgian soldiers. Of these 493 german paratroopers only 83 actually assaulted the fortress, the rest just secured the surrounding area. This group of 83 paratroopers, sturmgruppe Granit, landed on top of the fortress (yes the fortress was that big) with 9 gliders and placed specially designed explosive charges that blew out the armored cupolas of the fortresses powerful artillery, making it toothless.

Edit: Oh and I forgot to mention that after this all Belgian troops surrendered, 44 Germans died and 60 Belgians died. Despite begin outnumbered almost 1 to 10 they still defeated the entrenched Belgians and made them surrender.

Edit 2: I changed the number of gliders from 11 to 9, since one glider snapped loose from it's tugger aircraft before leaving Germany and thus landed on german territory, and one glider got shot down by Anti-Air Artillery.

In other words, about a half of a company (83) worth of elite paratroopers took out one of Europe's most formidable fortresses, defended by a battalion (1200+) worth of troops.

In my mind land forts shouldn't be a defense against paratroopers, rather paratroopers should be their weakness (at least if elite and have high planning).

My sources for this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael
And I have read about this operation in military historical books as well so I know that Wikipedia is quite accurate on this account.

I might start a thread on paratroopers and forts just to discuss their relation further.

 

[_Sky_]

I think in a discussion such as this it is worth bringing up the Battle of Fort Eben-Emael where about 493 german paratroopers (Fallschirmjäger) knocked out Belgium's, and one of Europe's, most formidable fortress, Eben-Emael, which was defended by 1200 belgian soldiers. Of these 493 german paratroopers only 83 actually assaulted the fortress, the rest just secured the surrounding area. This group of 83 paratroopers, sturmgruppe Granit, landed on top of the fortress (yes the fortress was that big) with 9 gliders and placed specially designed explosive charges that blew out the armored cupolas of the fortresses powerful artillery, making it toothless.

Edit: Oh and I forgot to mention that after this all Belgian troops surrendered, 44 Germans died and 60 Belgians died. Despite begin outnumbered almost 1 to 10 they still defeated the entrenched Belgians and made them surrender.

Edit 2: I changed the number of gliders from 11 to 9, since one glider snapped loose from it's tugger aircraft before leaving Germany and thus landed on german territory, and one glider got shot down by Anti-Air Artillery.

In other words, about a half of a company (83) worth of elite paratroopers took out one of Europe's most formidable fortresses, defended by a battalion (1200+) worth of troops.

In my mind land forts shouldn't be a defense against paratroopers, rather paratroopers should be their weakness (at least if elite and have high planning).

My sources for this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael
And I have read about this operation in military historical books as well so I know that Wikipedia is quite accurate on this account.

I might start a thread on paratroopers and forts just to discuss their relation further.

I Agree we should have some kind of special (Super Elite) troops for special task, something like commando brigades Insanely expensive but having large bonuses for defending or attacking fortified positions.
PS : Somebody should make post about Commando brigades.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Not every fort has a convenient unguarded glider landing field on top, just as not every office building has a convenient unguarded open space usable as a helipad for convenient air assault.

In HOI3 covert ops points serve to address commando activities. From one WWW answer it sounded like there is nothing quite like that in HOI4.

 

[Pathfinder12]

Not every fort has a convenient unguarded glider landing field on top, just as not every office building has a convenient unguarded open space usable as a helipad for convenient air assault.

In HOI3 covert ops points serve to address commando activities. From one WWW answer it sounded like there is nothing quite like that in HOI4.

I agree on this, certainly Eben-Emael was a very particular situation, but it is does show that special ops did have an important role in the invasion of Belgium. Spec ops were crucial in almost all successful invasions, whether from land or sea. I hope that the dev team has a juice dev diary upcoming showing how they have improved covert ops, from the streams I have however seen nothing of the kind so I really hope they haven't forgotten about it...

 

[kalauer]

Also, making a mechanic for this game implies it has universal importance. While the story about the belgian fortress is nice, it is anectodic. You would have to claim that every fortress is likely to be taken by a 1:10 attack when carried out by paratroopers. That would be something to consider.

 

[Pathfinder12]

Also, making a mechanic for this game implies it has universal importance. While the story about the belgian fortress is nice, it is anectodic. You would have to claim that every fortress is likely to be taken by a 1:10 attack when carried out by paratroopers. That would be something to consider.

A well planned operation with the element of surprise could certainly do a lot of damage, but let us not forget what the other 400 paratroopers did. They captured important bridges and roads to cut of reinforcements to the fortress. With out them, it is reasonable to argue that the entire operation would have failed. As you say the battle of Eben-Emael was anecdotal but similar operations were crucial to most (if not all) invasion executed during WW2 both on the Axis side and the Allies. Paratroopers as special forces changed the battlefield in very similar way to how armored vehicles changed it. Fortresses and other obstacles became obsolete. It just wasn't quite so obvious.

If one were to drop paratroopers on a fortress it would surely be to deny the defender their obvious strength, outwards facing heavy guns, and to sabotage and hinder reinforcements. As far as I know paratroopers where almost exclusively used in this manner, to destroy infrastructure (supplies and reinforcements) and fortifications (land forts and coastal forts, as in Belgium or Normandy). In HOI3 (and possibly in HOI4) paratroopers can only indirectly be used in this manner and I would like to see a greater emphasis on this in the future, since paratroopers and other special forces where game changers in terms of defeating coastal and land fortresses.