Page 1 of 1
Purchase of Fortresses?
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:46 pm
by amcdonel
Has any consideration or thought been given to the ability to purchase a fortress and place on the board? There would, of course, be some restrictions but it seems that a certain amount of PP and game turns would be required. The biggest issue I see would be how to add the purchase of this asset to the Purchase pop up window.
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:46 pm
by metolius
Agreed! Would be great to be able to build:
+ fortresses
+ airfields
+ Mulberry ports
Re: Purchase of Fortresses?
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:16 am
by schwerpunkt
amcdonel wrote:Has any consideration or thought been given to the ability to purchase a fortress and place on the board? There would, of course, be some restrictions but it seems that a certain amount of PP and game turns would be required. The biggest issue I see would be how to add the purchase of this asset to the Purchase pop up window.
I did raise this over a year ago in an email to the Beta group members - I suggested that each country be assigned a max number of fortresses they could build cumulatively (increases each year) so that rather than having to have the historical ones/locations, players could build them where their strategic situation dictates (annoying having fortresses pop up in Italy when the allied player isnt actually conducting an Italian campaign). They would need to cost a reasonable amount and take a reasonable time to build.....
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:40 am
by Morris
I had also raised this before several months .
I suggest fortress to build for 6-12 turns ,cost 80-120 pp . only on the plain not on city , port & mountain ( if so , the fortress will be too hard to attack )
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:34 am
by metolius
That seems reasonable! Would love to see this as an 'extra' option.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:01 am
by pk867
Actually, You would have to pick a site (i.e.. a hex) then start production.
To build a fortress from scratch would take about 3 or more years (ie. 54 turns at least) you have to stay in control of the hex the entire time.
We do simulate forts by entrenchment increase of units in cities, Capitals, starting forts.
The forts that occur during the game already had some major structure there or were fortresses from earlier wars that was enhanced to convert it from a city into a fortress during the timeframe of WWII.
Some hexes that have Forts appear may not have a city present for game balance. The city or fort is not present early in the war, but what important later in the war.
The game and the war is a simulation of the beginnings of modern mobile warfare not stationary lines.
If you have a suggestion of a fort that should be on the map that was present during the war we can discuss that change.
It comes down to compromise to game balance.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:38 am
by Peter Stauffenberg
Having a chance to frely build fortresses can seriously disrupt the game balance.
E. g. Germany can follow the strategy by Supermax (take England and make a defensive approach in the east). Then the Axis player could find a good river line in e. g. Poland and Romania and build a long line of fortresses. Then you have a Maginot line in the east that will be very hard for the Russians to break.
Germany can ignore building a lot of tanks and airplanes and instead work on the fortresses. If the line is built far enough to the west then it would be hard for the Russians to outflank it by invading behind the line.
The Germans can send many subs to the Baltic to prevent invasions there. The Kriegsmarine can also be used to keep the Russians at bay. So the Russians will have to invade Romania and Bulgaria to get anywhere. That can take a lot of time and be enough for the Germans to ensure victory.
A line of fortresses like the Maginot line too a long time to build (several years).
Instead both sides built entrenchments when they wanted to defend a line.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:46 am
by Peter Stauffenberg
So an alternative solution could be to allow for a higher max entrenchment in a hex if you e. g. spend PP's to get above the natural max entrenchment value.
E. g. a clear hex has a max of 1. So by entrenching you could e. g. get it up to as high as 8. You have to pay for each extra like:
2 PP's per extra entrenchment level. You can only increase the level by 1 per turn.
So free entrenchment will be the value up to the natural value we have now. All above and you have to pay. You lose all entrenchments if you move and if you swap you lose 1 entrenchment level.
This way the Russians can during the Spring 1943 build the entrenchments around Kursk so it could hold better against German attacks.
A good thing about entrenchments (1 or above) is that a unit is less likely to retreat and you get terrain bonuses. When the entrenchment is 0 you lose these. So building these entrenchments up mean that you can hold a line better.
We could link entrenchments to the key E so if you click on the E key when a friendly unmoved unit is selected then you get a question whether you want to pay 2 PP's to increase the entrenchment and the unit loses the chance to move. You get the extra entrenchment immediately.
Such a change can be made with few code changes.
I think that's probably better than allowing players to build fortresses. The Axis player gets quite a bit of fortresses anyway.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:43 pm
by Morris
Stauffenberg wrote:So an alternative solution could be to allow for a higher max entrenchment in a hex if you e. g. spend PP's to get above the natural max entrenchment value.
E. g. a clear hex has a max of 1. So by entrenching you could e. g. get it up to as high as 8. You have to pay for each extra like:
2 PP's per extra entrenchment level. You can only increase the level by 1 per turn.
So free entrenchment will be the value up to the natural value we have now. All above and you have to pay. You lose all entrenchments if you move and if you swap you lose 1 entrenchment level.
This way the Russians can during the Spring 1943 build the entrenchments around Kursk so it could hold better against German attacks.
A good thing about entrenchments (1 or above) is that a unit is less likely to retreat and you get terrain bonuses. When the entrenchment is 0 you lose these. So building these entrenchments up mean that you can hold a line better.
We could link entrenchments to the key E so if you click on the E key when a friendly unmoved unit is selected then you get a question
whether you want to pay 2 PP's to increase the entrenchment and the unit loses the chance to move. You get the extra entrenchment immediately.
Such a change can be made with few code changes.
I think that's probably better than allowing players to build fortresses. The Axis player gets quite a bit of fortresses anyway.
Yes ,sir . But we may keep it as a choice topic in the coming GS 3.0 .
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:05 pm
by amcdonel
Morris wrote:Stauffenberg wrote:So an alternative solution could be to allow for a higher max entrenchment in a hex if you e. g. spend PP's to get above the natural max entrenchment value.
E. g. a clear hex has a max of 1. So by entrenching you could e. g. get it up to as high as 8. You have to pay for each extra like:
2 PP's per extra entrenchment level. You can only increase the level by 1 per turn.
So free entrenchment will be the value up to the natural value we have now. All above and you have to pay. You lose all entrenchments if you move and if you swap you lose 1 entrenchment level.
This way the Russians can during the Spring 1943 build the entrenchments around Kursk so it could hold better against German attacks.
A good thing about entrenchments (1 or above) is that a unit is less likely to retreat and you get terrain bonuses. When the entrenchment is 0 you lose these. So building these entrenchments up mean that you can hold a line better.
We could link entrenchments to the key E so if you click on the E key when a friendly unmoved unit is selected then you get a question
whether you want to pay 2 PP's to increase the entrenchment and the unit loses the chance to move. You get the extra entrenchment immediately.
Such a change can be made with few code changes.
I think that's probably better than allowing players to build fortresses. The Axis player gets quite a bit of fortresses anyway.
Yes ,sir . But we may keep it as a choice topic in the coming GS 3.0 .
I definitely agree - do not put into GS 2.1
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:21 pm
by Peter Stauffenberg
No we can't because it may affect the game balance.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:27 pm
by Morris
Stauffenberg wrote:No we can't because it may affect the game balance.
we can limit it by more turns to build & more pp to spend & limited build number in the coming 3.0 . Just do not totally close this interesting door .even if a very small possibility . It has no harm .
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:20 pm
by metolius
Stauffenberg wrote:So an alternative solution could be to allow for a higher max entrenchment in a hex if you e. g. spend PP's to get above the natural max entrenchment value.
E. g. a clear hex has a max of 1. So by entrenching you could e. g. get it up to as high as 8. You have to pay for each extra like:
2 PP's per extra entrenchment level. You can only increase the level by 1 per turn.
So free entrenchment will be the value up to the natural value we have now. All above and you have to pay. You lose all entrenchments if you move and if you swap you lose 1 entrenchment level.
This way the Russians can during the Spring 1943 build the entrenchments around Kursk so it could hold better against German attacks.
A good thing about entrenchments (1 or above) is that a unit is less likely to retreat and you get terrain bonuses. When the entrenchment is 0 you lose these. So building these entrenchments up mean that you can hold a line better.
We could link entrenchments to the key E so if you click on the E key when a friendly unmoved unit is selected then you get a question whether you want to pay 2 PP's to increase the entrenchment and the unit loses the chance to move. You get the extra entrenchment immediately.
Such a change can be made with few code changes.
I think that's probably better than allowing players to build fortresses. The Axis player gets quite a bit of fortresses anyway.
This is a great solution! I love it.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:29 pm
by amcdonel
Stauffenberg wrote:No we can't because it may affect the game balance.
I believe you might have mis-read my response. I said "NOT" in version 2.1...
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:00 am
by Kragdob
Stauffenberg wrote:A good thing about entrenchments (1 or above) is that a unit is less likely to retreat and you get terrain bonuses. When the entrenchment is 0 you lose these. So building these entrenchments up mean that you can hold a line better.
So if you are not entrenched (e.g. in the mountains) you do not get 50% defensive bonus? What happens to the tank influence (50% as well in this case)?
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:58 am
by JimR
Agreed, spending PPs on stronger entrenchments is something to consider (and to test and re-test) for a future 3.0. It would be too big a change to introduce now, when version 2.1 is nearing public release.
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:48 pm
by ncali
Glad to see this will wait for a later version of the mod. It's an intriguiging idea, but would be difficult to implement properly, as Stauffenberg points out. If it is eventually considered, having a long lag time in fortress construction is important.
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:36 am
by amcdonel
ncali wrote:Glad to see this will wait for a later version of the mod. It's an intriguiging idea, but would be difficult to implement properly, as Stauffenberg points out. If it is eventually considered, having a long lag time in fortress construction is important.
If it is considered for implementation in a future GS version - I would propose a more subtle method. Instead of buying it all at once -- Buying additional "fortress" protection would have a shorter/medium time requirement - but is not a full fortress - just enhancement. Subsequent purchase of more fortress/entrenchment could be done -- thus increasing capability. Therefore, perhaps after 2 or 3 cycles of purchase - they end up with a full fortress. There would, of course, have to be a limit or I could envision a super-fort blob strategy - LOL.
I stress again - an idea for disuse only at this time
