Fortresses

[greg1863]

Fortresses are nearly indestructible. While fortifications in World War II were powerful, they were able to be overcome by a carefully coordinated combined arms attack. This probably needs to be addressed unless the goal is specifically for fortifications to be impregnable.

[Razz1]

They are tuff but easy to crack.

You need to know what unit to use.

[tnourie]

Anti-tank units worked well against them, so far. . .

[pupski]

Forts look though and are in a certain way. But after suppressing a fort it can be easily destroyed with a tank for example. It will show combat odds 1 strength point loose but a lot of times a strength 8-9 fort can be destroyed with a single tank attack. Just ignore the combat odds in the case of a fort.

[uran21]

Fortresses are nearly indestructible. While fortifications in World War II were powerful, they were able to be overcome by a carefully coordinated combined arms attack. This probably needs to be addressed unless the goal is specifically for fortifications to be impregnable.

Only in Barbarossa and Stalingrad scenario

But you have solution for them and those also cannot replace losses so you do not need to have three units adjacent to it. For other forts - strongpoints they are quite destructible with ordinary weapons.

[Akaoz]

They are tuff but easy to crack.

You need to know what unit to use.

And what unit is that then?

I find suppressing it and attacking with anything that can cause it to "retreat" works best. Pioneers didn't work as well as I expected...

[uran21]

Oh, there was one change regarding forts, strongpoints. In the past infantry attacking it would shoot against its close defense values which was low and now it shoots against ground defense which is somehow different. It will require looking at stats. But anti tanks have bigger hard attack, in combination with some suppression it should work.

[OmegaMan1]

Maybe it's just me, but pionere units no longer seem very effective against fortications/strong points. I think these units should be a bit more effective against such installations, since that's what these guys were trained to do.

[tnourie]

Maybe it's just me, but pionere units no longer seem very effective against fortications/strong points. I think these units should be a bit more effective against such installations, since that's what these guys were trained to do.

I believe this is correct, as the pionere is similar to an engineer in attacking dug in troops. Forts should be counted as having high entrenchment and that is what the engineer specializes in, or so I thought. Also, tanks should have a lesser impact than a pionere unit because they are bigger targets for the forts gunnery.

[pupski]

I envision a pioneer unit next to a fort. Now a fort is not a bunker or trench but an significantly BIG construction. I can imagine that only a pioneer unit with carried explosives is not entirely sufficient to destroy (or neutralize) it.

[tnourie]

From Wikipedia: The battle was a decisive victory for the German forces, with the airborne troops landing on top of the fortress via the use of gliders and using explosives and flamethrowers to disable the outer defences of the fortress. The Fallschirmjäger then entered the fortress, killing a number of defenders and containing the rest in the lower sections of the fortress. Simultaneously, the rest of the German assault force had landed near the three bridges over the Canal, destroyed a number of pillboxes and defensive positions and defeated the Belgian forces guarding the bridges,

They didn't use armor or anti-armor that I am aware of. Only Fallschirmjäger units participated. I believe they had sapper\engineer training as well, for this mission.

[pupski]

Yes, that was a nice capture at Eben Emael. But it wasn't that easy all the time I think

[Minenfeld]

That's actually the way I tried to capture the two forts in the Low Countries scenario the first time around. I dropped three units of Fallschirmjaeger around the fort and attempted to capture it. I could not land on the fort as I originally planned. At first I thought that was because the paradrops went off course. But the more I tested it, I found that it was impossible to do so. The forts also do not seem to fall to combined assault from Stukas, 105mm artillery and Pioniere assaults. It's rather disheartening.

[Razz1]

^ Practice Padeewan Practice.

There are ways to crack the nut open.

The force is with you!

[pupski]

Suppressing artillery and then a tank attack can take a fort down in a single turn..

[heinemo]

Barbarossa fortress (Brest) is unbelievably hard to crack

[tnourie]

Barbarossa fortress (Brest) is unbelievably hard to crack

Bypass. . . They are no threat once your units get more than three hexes from it!

[IainMcNeil]

It would be good if engineers had some ability to maybe use Close defence values against forts.

[tnourie]

It would be good if engineers had some ability to maybe use Close defence values against forts.

In every wargame I've ever played, engineers have been the 'solve' for any dug in or fortified emplacement or structure. I do not understand why this game doesn't ascribe to that norm!

[lordzimoa]

In Panzer Corps engineers are specialist against rugged defence situations.

Occasionally a defending unit manages to surprise an attacking unit and open fire from a unexpected direction at close range. This situation is known as rugged defense. When rugged defense occurs, the attacker often takes heavy casualties.

Only entrenched units can put up rugged defense, and the higher the entrenchment level, the more likely it becomes. That's why it is often a good idea to soften entrenched units with bombers and artillery before attacking it. While planning your attack, you can see the exact chance of rugged defense in the extended combat prediction window, invoked by Ctrl+click on an enemy unit.

Military engineers are specifically trained to fight against these entrenched enemies and so are immune to rugged defense.