Fortifications - Normandy

[guino27]

Hi all,
I've played through a few campaigns, mostly the 20-30 turn ones involving the landings. My current game, using the latest update, has been a bit weird. It might just be random, but getting the beach fortifications cleared has been a really tough job. I understand it shouldn't happen immediately, but, for example, on Omaha beach, I've only cleared the bunkers above the beach around noon on the 7th.

To me, it feels like the fortifications are too persistent. Being surrounded and bombarded by tanks, naval guns, AT, etc., some turns there are no effects at all. Now I've seen the maps and diagrams of these WNs and they aren't a single building, but complexes. They will take time to clear.

I wonder if every assault or bombardment there should be a chance for the fortification to be downgraded. Meaning a pillbox after a damaging attack would be considered a bunker. A bunker would be downgraded to a trench, etc. This way there is less of a chance for a fortification to survive an unnaturally long time.

Thoughts?

[Dion]

The same thing happened to me too back when I was playing with "1.something or other". I don't think things have changed much since then, so I believe my views are still valid. It takes most of the game to get a breakthrough, but you can do it, it's easy, it just takes a lot of time, so don't give up. Once one fortification is eliminated, the whole prepared defensive system gets weaker and weaker with each fortification that you eliminate.

The only logical explanation I can think of is each fortification must be a complex of various types of fortifications, not individual buildings, that's why their so hard to eliminate, so at this scale, which is operational, having different levels of damage for individual fortifications would be pretty much impossible to simulate with any degree of accuracy, and because the "fortified complex" would entail so many variables it probably would make amphibious assaults overly complicated and cause even more aggravation.

You could try Eagles Strike from the Squad Battles series, which I think it's played with 40 meter hexes instead of 1 km hexes. In a lot of ways, since the scale is much smaller, minute detail of individual fortifications should be much more realistic.

[LordDeadwood]

Fortifications in any of the PzC titles can be frustrating. Normandy '44, Kursk '43, France '40, and Philippines '44 all have extensive and strong fortifications. While I will agree that it does seem like the fortifications can be a bit overly strong at times, I believe the reason for this is primarily play balance. All WDS titles are extensively play tested and many times the fortifications will be "tweaked" to provide a more balanced scenario.

One thing I have learned is that many times you have to assault the fortifications even though the defending troops are not disrupted. This is sometimes the best way to cause defender casualties and disruptions. It will often result in more casualties to your attacking units than the defender, and will sometimes disrupt your attacking units as well, but if you know you outnumber the defenders by a considerable margin, it can be worth it. Another thing to remember is to leave a retreat route for the defenders. If they are disrupted and you successfully assault them, they will retreat. Unless they can't. Which will cause more casualties, but very often leave them still in possession of the fortification. The exception to this is the Pacific titles with the Japanese defenders, who will never retreat from a fortified position.

[Dion]

Another thing to remember is to leave a retreat route for the defenders. If they are disrupted and you successfully assault them, they will retreat. Unless they can't. Which will cause more casualties, but very often leave them still in possession of the fortification. The exception to this is the Pacific titles with the Japanese defenders, who will never retreat from a fortified position.

Good point, that's probably more important than anything! You know your going to take heavy casualties with a small chance of taking the hex when you assault a fortification, but when you leave no path for the defenders to retreat, you just end up taking heavy casualties with no chance of taking the hex. This tactic isn't "too gamey" or unrealistic, it was used many times throughout the war.

[guino27]

Fortifications in any of the PzC titles can be frustrating. Normandy '44, Kursk '43, France '40, and Philippines '44 all have extensive and strong fortifications. While I will agree that it does seem like the fortifications can be a bit overly strong at times, I believe the reason for this is primarily play balance. All WDS titles are extensively play tested and many times the fortifications will be "tweaked" to provide a more balanced scenario.

One thing I have learned is that many times you have to assault the fortifications even though the defending troops are not disrupted. This is sometimes the best way to cause defender casualties and disruptions. It will often result in more casualties to your attacking units than the defender, and will sometimes disrupt your attacking units as well, but if you know you outnumber the defenders by a considerable margin, it can be worth it. Another thing to remember is to leave a retreat route for the defenders. If they are disrupted and you successfully assault them, they will retreat. Unless they can't. Which will cause more casualties, but very often leave them still in possession of the fortification. The exception to this is the Pacific titles with the Japanese defenders, who will never retreat from a fortified position.

Ok, these are helpful suggestions. I do have a question though. Is the advantage of allowing a retreat better than putting the defender in an isolated state?

[LordDeadwood]

Fortifications in any of the PzC titles can be frustrating. Normandy '44, Kursk '43, France '40, and Philippines '44 all have extensive and strong fortifications. While I will agree that it does seem like the fortifications can be a bit overly strong at times, I believe the reason for this is primarily play balance. All WDS titles are extensively play tested and many times the fortifications will be "tweaked" to provide a more balanced scenario.

One thing I have learned is that many times you have to assault the fortifications even though the defending troops are not disrupted. This is sometimes the best way to cause defender casualties and disruptions. It will often result in more casualties to your attacking units than the defender, and will sometimes disrupt your attacking units as well, but if you know you outnumber the defenders by a considerable margin, it can be worth it. Another thing to remember is to leave a retreat route for the defenders. If they are disrupted and you successfully assault them, they will retreat. Unless they can't. Which will cause more casualties, but very often leave them still in possession of the fortification. The exception to this is the Pacific titles with the Japanese defenders, who will never retreat from a fortified position.

Ok, these are helpful suggestions. I do have a question though. Is the advantage of allowing a retreat better than putting the defender in an isolated state?

I guess the answer is "it depends". Isolation reduces the defender's morale by one, so that can be helpful in getting a disrupted result with either fire or assault. In my mind the deciding factor is the size of the defending unit. If the number of defenders is "XXX" and you are reasonably certain that the unit is battalion size (i.e., Soviet infantry units are always battalion size), then I think it is more beneficial to try to force the unit to retreat from the fortification than to isolate it. Once it has vacated the fortification you can isolate it and reduce it more quickly than you could while it still occupies the fortification. If the number of defenders is "XX" or you are certain that the "XXX" is only a company, then maybe isolating it is a good approach since the extra casualties caused by being unable to retreat will reduce/eliminate the unit quickly. Quality is another consideration. A "D" quality Soviet rifle battalion in a bunker is very different from an "A" or "B" quality German panzer grenadier unit. Isolating the German unit only drops it to a "B" or "C" quality while the Soviet unit becomes an "E" with all the associated penalties. Know your enemy!

[guino27]

Ok, thank you all for the helpful answers. I do think that fortifications should degrade over multiple assaults as the defenders are much too persistent. It's interesting, though, looking at the Normandy scenarios. I'm not sure I've seen German defenders retreat from bunkers. I'll have to pay closer attention next game.

[TANSTAAFL]

Yeah, forts are a bear. In the Panzer Battles version of the Normandy landings, Omaha gets so clogged up it is a nightmare to even see what is going on, much less actually get a path for motorized units off the beach. In the Panzer Campaigns version, it's not quite as hair-pulling, but it's still a bear. Though nothing is quite like Japan '45/'46, where you can burn through a whole regiment or more trying to take one bunker complex.

I agree with the advice that you will have to take casualties to clear these things. The price will be high, but shells and bombs won't do it on their own for the most part. Also, remember bunkers and pillboxes are hard targets, so you can use AT weapons/vehicles to pound away at them, often from beyond the defenders' range.

[LordDeadwood]

One other thing: It's easy to forget about the quality of your firing units. A "D" quality unit gets a -20% modifier to the firing strength. And many, if not most, artillery units are "D" quality. I am playing the France '40 campaign as the Germans. Brought up the 24cm morser units to pound a Belgian fort. The target is a FORT in a village. Pounded away for several turns, getting nothing but "No Effect". Finally ran the fire value calculations. Even with the siege gun bonus, the "D" quality -20% was enough to make the cumulative fire value negative. That canon was never going to cause any damage to that particular fort. If it had been a "C" quality, there would have been a chance of causing damage. Only way that fort is going down is through costly assaults, so I left it surrounded and moved on. Lesson learned!

[Ashcloud]

Would love the fire value calculations to be visible in a log or a fire results dialogue box. My ability to work it out myself is questionable.