Reemphasizing Fortifications in QBs - A Proposed System

[coolbreeze]

Hey y'all,

Too often than not, I find that the majority of the defenses I put forth do not use anything besides TRPs from the fortification tab. Fortifications I find are often too costly, too static, and don't come with a gun that actually kills enemy troops. Furthermore, mines, something I would love to play with more, are too expensive and too small in density to actually be a feasible way to deter attacks and block off access points. I want to develop some QB rules/modifications that will incentivize players to use fortifications. Furthermore, it helps create an atmosphere that the defender actually prepared for an attack, and made efforts to create obstacles for the enemy and cover for their men.

Ideally, there would be a force modifier for the defenders in the quick battle selector. We could then create a 10% point increase for defenders, and stipulate that they spend 20% of their points on fortifications. However, since there is no force adjustment for defenders, instead we could decrease the attacker by 10% and again stipulate the defender spend 20% of their points on fortifications. For example, for a large Assault, the defender would have 3,178 points, and would be forced to spend approximately ~640 points on fortifications. This would be enough points to buy 20 mixed mines, or plenty of sandbags, wire, and a few bunkers. The Attacker, originally would have 5,820 points, and would be reduced by 10% in the force adjustment screen. This would leave them with approximately 5,200 points. The original ratio of attacker points to defender points was 1.83. With this new system, the attacker would have 5,200 points, vs the defenders 2,500 points on actual units (not counting the 640 points spent on fortifications). This creates a ratio of 2.08 attacker. The attacker has a better ratio with this system, but is presented with some new and unique problems with having to deal with different types of fortifications.

I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on how fortifications (excluding TRPs) can be used cost effectively in the current QB system now, as well as any tweaks or opinions to my proposed method on emphasizing fortifications for future QBs between players. Finally, send a pm or drop a message if you would like to try out these proposed rules in a QB game.

 

[Bulletpoint]

A nice idea about bringing fortifications more into play, but the problem is not only the high costs, but that fortifications currently don't really work as they should.

I did tests showing a concrete bunker doesn't offer more protection against direct 75mm fire than a regular building. I haven't tested trenches and foxholes, but from my experience they seem to only really provide protection from artillery (as long as you hide the troops).

 

[coolbreeze]

I haven't done any specific testing on how the protection values differ from buildings. Kind of surprising and disappointing that they aren't as effective. I don't disagree that a lot of the fortifications have fundamental issues in their protection stats and how the Tac AI tends to use them. Foxholes and sandbags often produce weird positioning for infantry attempting to use them. I hope Battlefront decides to one day update their engine and rework how the AI uses fortifications.

I guess the one nice thing is that including fortifications, even in their current state, allows for players to actually prepare for a defense, and place the defensive structures around the map. Instead of just being stuck with the buildings placed by the map designer.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I agree. Wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Battlefront to fix or update anything though. They seem pretty defunct at the moment.

 

[coolbreeze]

@Bulletpoint,

Point taken, thats why I am hoping to revamp the use of the fortifications in the current update. If anything, this thread can be used as a launching point for anyone else interested in fortifications, and a way to make them viable in QBs.

 

[Zinzan]

I like your idea (@coolbreeze) of giving defender more points to spend only on defensive fortifications. it would make people actually use them on the defence rather than simply packing more troops in.

Whilst fortifications, in some people's opinion, may be worth less than a similiar value of men in QB's; I think there may be some value to them from a historical/realism/grognard viewpoint. (Wow he sounds almost rational - fight coming )

(Warning: Outright statements follow) Some Informed Opinions follow - LET the Arguments begin..

1. All armies on the defense are short of men and materials (if they weren't they would be attacking ) and use trenches, mines etc as a force multiplier.

2. The fact that trenches, foxholes & bunkers can't be hidden/camouflaged (In CM due to engine restrictions) allows the defender some possibilities for deception tactics.

3. Minefields were area denial systems NOT kill everything that moves systems. Too many players want them to STOP anything passing - they are mainly an attritional/morale-sapping time waster that forces the attacker to SLOOOOWW down and allows defender TIME. (On this basis they work as advertised, if you can afford enough)

4. Because fortifications are static the troops assigned to them tend to be of low value - under-strength, recovering injured, elderley reservists, unreliable allies etc.

5. Fortifications are used in 2 ways (HUUUGE generalisation) -
a) To strengthen the defence of a specific location - the aim being to delay enemy occupation of that specific location.
i) Point defence of an important site eg. Bridge, airfield. eg. Pegasus Bridge
ii) Area defence of an important location eg strategically important town, railway junction. eg Tobruk
b) In an attempt to prevent passage of the enemy - Make the cost of passage sooooo high enemy chooses another route/gives up (Buys time)
i) Maginot line/West Wall type permanent defences - Deep, costly, designed to survive strategic bombing and massive bombardments. Beyond CM due to depth, sophisticstion etc (Possible but NOT FUN for anyone)
ii) Temporary (in strategic terms) defences built for a strategic/operational purpose eg. Defences at El Alamein or Kursk - layered, very, very deep tends to be mixture of immense minefields and mutually supporting strongpoints designed to delay the attacker NOT stop them. The attacker is stopped by the perceived cost of continuing.

Anyways long ramble over.

Some suggestions/conclusion for our CM2 WWII gaming goodness

Type 5a) Ideal for the current situation and in fact many of the scenarios I've played revolve about this situation.
Thoughts: Scenario designers should use low grade/understrength troops to defend these points - maybe with better quality reinforcements arriving in some cases.

Type 5b) i) JUST Nooooooooo!!!!!!!!

Type 5b) ii) Small parts of such battles can be VERY interesting to fight, though IMNSHO the ideal is LARGE maps with DEPTH and time. Attacker needs specialist troops, waves of reinforcements. Playing defender is all about sticking it out - choosing when to evacuate a position and husbanding troops.

Downside is not many CM players (in my experience) are likelty to have the patience or dedication to play such a game to completion.

(OK he's starting to get bored/distracted now - time to say goodbye before he turns this into a dissertation or rips it all up just through frustration)

 

[Nemesis]

Yeah--it is too bad, but fortifications are under-modelled in CM. I learned the hard way using lots of fortifications in my early CMX2 games.

-Foxholes and trenches should offer way better cover than they do. They should not be so easy to spot if they are in a forest, for example.

-Mines and barricades should cost less. You should be able to tell the different mine types apart too.

-TRPs are absolutely lethal if you know what you are doing. These should probably cost more.

-Note that bunkers offer better protection if you add experience, morale, and leadership to the bunker. Weird, I know. But I have tested it and it is true for MG bunkers at least.

-Log bunkers should be more resistant to artillery.

But fortifications can be misused if they are made too cheap. In my CMX1 days, for example, I put a barbed wire fence across an entire map except for one opening. Many guns were pointed at that opening and the killing was truly horrific.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah--it is too bad, but fortifications are under-modelled in CM. I learned the hard way using lots of fortifications in my early CMX2 games. .....

Agree yes. I also believe (from posts over YEARS on BF forums by BF staff) that much of this is an engine limitation and may not be fixed/improved much until/if CM3 arrives.

However for the purposes of this discussion (assumming Zinzan got what @coolbreeze was getting at) I think we need to operate within the limits of the current engine.

So this is just some ideas blatted out at random for discussion.

Soooooooo Howsabout
TLDR : Attack/Defend House Rule - boost Defenders points with proviso that they must be spent on Fortifications ONLY.

Lots of variables/issues would need to to be fine tuned.
E.G. DEFENDERS
i) Deep maps and long game time (min 60 turns)
ii) Several lines of VL's with defender getting points for holding each line for set length of time. (Dunno how this works but is possible I believe)
ii) TRP's are overpowered - max number 1 per Full company of Inf Deployed.
iii) Limit starting troops to Regular and make them understrength (can't remember the term)
iv) Any armour be reinforcements arriving 25-60% through time limit. (Forces use of AT weapons at start)
v) Off board Arty only arrives after at least 15 mins.

E.G. ATTACKER
i) Must spend minimum 15% of points on Attack troops - Hvy off board arty, Engineers, etc
ii) 1 TRP per off board arty
iii) Off Board arty end 25-50% way through battle.

 

[coolbreeze]

@Zinzan
Some interesting points! I agree that Deep maps and a long game time are important aspect in making fortifications worthwile, as well as forcing the attacker to race the clock, instead of beating the enemy. However, I am not sure it would be possible to implement touch objectives of VLs or holding them for a certian amount of time for the defender for stock QBs. Furthermore, limiting the starting troops to regular and delaying armour reinforcements might be too hard to implement as a house rule, or be viewed as too restrictive.

I guess it really depends on the map choice and wether or not the players agree to artificially reduce the attackers (therefore boosting the defenders points), in order to make fortifications viable. If any of y'all would be happy to playtest the different variations on house rules, in order to balance and test the viability of fortifications on defense, I would be happy to experiment with y'all.

 

[Bulletpoint]

urthermore, limiting the starting troops to regular and delaying armour reinforcements might be too hard to implement as a house rule, or be viewed as too restrictive.

I had good experiences with limiting troops to regular +0. No problem finding people who agree to play like that, and only one opponent so far "forgot" the house rule

 

[holoween]

I had good experiences with limiting troops to regular +0. No problem finding people who agree to play like that, and only one opponent so far "forgot" the house rule

There is no point going above regular except with specialists like snipers and forward observers. Unless youre playing very small battles anything above regular is just too expensive. Fire support doesnt care if your men are green or veterans.

 

[Bulletpoint]

There is no point going above regular except with specialists like snipers and forward observers. Unless youre playing very small battles anything above regular is just too expensive. Fire support doesnt care if your men are green or veterans.

Yes, I only play small battles, where the focus is on infantry tactics. I find that the bigger the battle, the more it becomes a game of duelling support weapons. But my house rule of only regular +0 troops also means that less time is spent cherrypicking and min/maxing soft factors of key units.

In addition, it makes artillery arrive a bit slower, which I find is good for gameplay. Without the house rule, I doubt you will ever see an observer who's not a +2 elite.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL I never jack up the skills of my FOs. I should start doing that. I just set things to typical and relish in the randomness of my units.

I have been known to add a few top notch snipers to the mix but that's about it.

 

[Meat Grinder]

x

 

[coolbreeze]

I agree that making troops regular is the way to go. I typically have my troops set to regular, high motivation, and fit, and 0 leadership. I feel like this make a great cookie cutter infantry situation, that can handle themselves well. Other specialists or vehicles can get different stats. (Does a Elite Forward observer with +2 leadership have better call in time than an Elite, 0 leadership observer?).

However, as @Zinzan pointed out, fortifcations are often manned by understrength and poorly trained and motivated troops. In QBs where I like to use bunkers, it makes sense to have the people manning the bunker be weakened or unfit (fitness stat), as they are going to die in that bunker, and won't be walking around. I think limiting troops to just being regular 0 leadership, can be a little too stringent, specially in house rules that are supposed to emphasize the force multiplier fortifications can be. Additionally, as A Canadian Cat said, there is something fun about having variance among your troops. Should I hold my company full of conscripts back to reinforce a weakened section? Or should I set them up as picket forces and hold back my regular and veterans? Can I fool my enemy into thinking this flank is stronger than it is, while it is actually held be weakened conscripts? It adds another dynamic to the battle for subterfuge and command decisions.

 

[Meat Grinder]

Unhelpful post removed (by myself).

 

[coolbreeze]

Sorry @Meat Grinder, which part are you asking for more information on?

 

[Meat Grinder]

Sorry @Meat Grinder, which part are you asking for more information on?

Nothing. Ignore the cranky old guy in the balcony.

 

[coolbreeze]

@Meat Grinder,

Well I still have room in my docket for some more games! But honestly, didn't mean to put anyone off or lecture. I just disagree with a house rule that troops should only be regular and 0 leadership, and was trying to illustrate the reasons why.

 

[Meat Grinder]

Well then, far be it from me to interfere with anyone's freedom of speech. ;-)

As for house rules, anything beyond "no pre-planned arty/air for the defender and no dropping arty/air into the attacker's setup zone" is almost always unnecessary, IMO. Exceptions exist, of course, such as if you want to have a game with no fully tracked vehicles, etc.