Bringing back the fortress

    • Bringing back the fortress

      The research balancing update has made steel more scarce in early game - simple consequence is nobody builds fortresses any more during the first days.
      Later on there is more steel in circulation, but then who wants to build fortresses in mid and late game with wars being highly mobile, long borders to defend, rockets threatening forts and alternatives you might also want to spend your steel on (e.g. heavy tanks and rockets) available?

      Two proposals:
      * Increase the amount of steel a country has at the start of the game and decrease the amount of goods a country has at the start. If that's a difficult change, almost the same could be achieved by modifying the automatic initial offers on the market.
      * Reduce steel build costs for IC level 2/3/4/5 by 500 and increase goods build costs by 500.

      That would bring the value of steel and goods back to balance throughout all game phases. So fortresses would again be an option in early game and less of an option later - just like in reality, where they played a bigger role in the 1930s and only a minor one in the 1940s.

      Yet more steel being available in early game for fortresses means also more steel available for production of mechanized units in early game. Which wouldn't be positive. So also at least one of the following would have to be done:
      1) Reduce the amount of oil a country has at the start of the game and increase the amount of food a country has at the start of the game, and/or
      2) increase oil build costs for infrastructure by 500 and decrease steel build costs by 500.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      The research balancing update has made steel more scarce in early game - simple consequence is nobody builds fortresses any more during the first days.
      before the balancing update it was already quite rare to see a fortress, specially level 2 or above

      i think the only problem with fortress is that they are too expensive, i'd just reduce their steel cost, maybe like:

      Lvl1 - 1500 steel
      Lvl2 - 2000 steel
      Lvl3 - 2500 steel
      Lvl4 - 3000 steel
      Lvl5 - 3500 steel

      and also move their special ability to lvl 2, instead of 3,5
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • Kanaris wrote:

      Horrible idea as no one will use the steel to build fortress they will use it to spam even more light tanks.

      If you want people to consider using fortress then buff their stats, increasing steel for every nation will not get more fortress built.
      stats for fortresses are already quite good, having 55% damage reduction in level 1 is quite high, the problem is that its cost in steel is too high
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • Kanaris wrote:

      humbly I disagree 3k metal is a worthy investment just for the morale benefit!

      besides if you reduced the cost for fortress then you need to proportionally adjust the cost for the rest of the buildings as well for instance it would make no sense that fortress requires less metal than infra lvl2...
      it's not that much about "the sense" but about the gameplay, if fortresses ain't being built, the easiest step is to reduce costs
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • humbly once again I must disagree, before you decide on a course of action as in decrease cost you must answer the question why are fortresses not build?

      Too expensive metal requirements could be just one of many reasons. Even then, too expensive compared to what? What are people doing with metal that they consider more important then building fortress? For instance I build them all the time from early to late game I think they are great as is.

      Unless we take the time to examine what are the reasons we cannot propose a solution that fits
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      just like in reality, where they played a bigger role in the 1930s and only a minor one in the 1940s.
      Erm, scuse me? Maginot? Kursk perimeter? Atlantikwall? Siegfried line?

      The point of forts not being popular, is that this game is all about attacking and expansion. Tactically, it sometimes has a point to defend, but once you start concentrating on strategic defense, you have basically lost already. And yeah, forts are mainly strategic weapons due to build time. To see more in-game use, either build time of existing forts should be reduced, or a "fort-light" (i.e. digging foxholes etc) should be introduced.

      Then again, more forts would lead to a more static game, I wonder if that is what we want...
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • Kanaris wrote:

      Horrible idea as no one will use the steel to build fortress they will use it to spam even more light tanks.
      If you hadn't stopped reading my post in the middle, you would have noticed it includes reducing the amount of free oil in the game (especially at the beginning). So no, it wouldn't lead to more tanks (or ships or planes).


      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      more forts would lead to a more static game, I wonder if that is what we want...
      The role fortresses had in CoW before the research balancing update was perfect: There it sometimes made sense to build a few forts, especially in earlier game phases. That was both realistic and (in my opinion) also good for gameplay.
      Now we hardly ever see a fort, except for those built by Kanaris.
      Going back to the previous (mediocre) role of fortresses is one reason why I wrote my proposal.
      The second is it would smoothen out the variability in resource availability during the game that the switch from goods to food in the research costs has created (now in early game steel and food are more rare/expensive than goods and oil, while in late game it's the other way round - ideally the market prize for all 5 resources should be similar throughout all game phases).
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Kanaris wrote:

      Horrible idea as no one will use the steel to build fortress they will use it to spam even more light tanks.
      If you hadn't stopped reading my post in the middle, you would have noticed it includes reducing the amount of free oil in the game (especially at the beginning). So no, it wouldn't lead to more tanks (or ships or planes).
      Oh I read it, I can address as you insist... The amount of oil was already increased for infrastructure i think a year and a half ago. Already as a result you don't see anyone building infra past lvl1 which makes it a very bad idea to increase oil cost for infra even more.

      Had you said increase oil costs for training and upkeep for mechanized units perhaps thats something I can get behind.

      As for increasing steel starting reserves I fail to see anyone building fortress because of that. Early game a fortress is situational you may not need them at all or you may need them in a few key locations. Mid to late is where you need them much more to control morale.

      Cheers
    • Kanaris wrote:

      as a result you don't see anyone building infra past lvl1 which makes it a very bad idea to increase oil cost for infra even more.
      ??
      Building infra level 3 in all resource provinces of your core as early as possible is fully mandatory if you want to win a map with 10 players or more.
      Anyhow my proposal wouldn't make infra more expensive, but only shift costs from less steel to more oil.


      Kanaris wrote:

      Mid to late is where you need them [fortresses] much more to control morale.
      Point taken. You're right with this one.
      More precisely: If you build a fortress in early game, it's in most cases for their real purpose (defense of a key location). While if you build a fortress later in the game, it's in most cases for its fantasy CoW purpose (morale bonus).

      I have to admit I had missed that in my analysis - yet it's another argument for my proposal (making fortresses more attractive mainly in early game).
    • Building infra to 3 is not mandatory to winning the game albeit it makes resources more abundant. Although I do this routinely every game I never accomplish it before late game as resources are tight and the cost of infra is already very expensive. Hence making infra even more expensive doesn't make sense.

      Oh and just because something is sound strategy NEVER assume that everyone is doing it or that its mandatory in everyone's way of thinking. The proof is in the pudding as I routinely see active players core provinces not upgraded in late game as in beyond day 40.

      Finally for fortress early game I do not think it should be easy to do. You should not be able to build them everywhere early game. It should be a hard choice just having to build a few in key locations and it must be hard to juggle between upgrading economy, building troops, or building fortress.
    • Kanaris wrote:

      making infra even more expensive doesn't make sense.
      Yes, true - and that's why nobody suggested to make infra more expensive 8| :D . At least not in this thread.


      Kanaris wrote:

      Finally for fortress early game I do not think it should be easy to do. You should not be able to build them everywhere early game. It should be a hard choice just having to build a few in key locations and it must be hard to juggle between upgrading economy, building troops, or building fortress.
      Yeah, right; for sure that's also my opinion.
      And at the moment it isn't hard to decide between the three. Fortresses are hardly an option, because there isn't enough steel in the game. At least not at the beginning.
    • If you quote somebody, do it correctly. That was my quote:

      Hans A. Pils wrote:

      2) increase oil build costs for infrastructure by 500 and decrease steel build costs by 500
      Please stop taking parts out of my entire proposal and criticizing them. If you take only parts, of course it doesn't make sense any more. You have to read my entire post (the top one in this thread).
    • The way I see it building fortresses never makes sense. I never build them except later in game if I have plenty of resources and want tot control morale to move my capitol from my core.

      Early game I'd rather spend the metal on LT's that can actually move and form a defence wherever I want. The way I see it spending 3000 metal on a static defence is a bad idea. Especially since core provinces already give a 15% buff.

      For ease I count the other way, if I have 2 units somewhere with 55% damage reduction, I count them as if I have 3 units there. So if I really need to defend 3 provinces, that will cost me 9k metal if I were to build fortresses there. That means that if I put 4 units in those 3 places, their protective count need to be bigger than the amount I could build with them.

      So say I can put 4 units in every one of those 3 provinces. That means 12 units total with 55% protection = around 18 units worth of defence thanks to the build of my 3 fortresses. Can I build more than 6 units with 9k of metal? Yes I can. I can build 1 LT for every one of those provinces and have 3750 metal to spare to spend on other units. So my metal is better spent on units than 3 fortresses in this case.

      The only way it could work in my view is if I put enough units in 1 single province. Say I put 20 units in 1 province at 55% protection. That means they function as 30 units. Can I build 10 units for 3k metal? No, probably not. BUT, this gives another problem. Then I have 20 units in 1 province, meaning the enemy, if he is smart enough will just go around it. Meaning my 20 units would have to leave the province the fortress is in and once again, I find myself rather having more units instead of having built a fortress.

      So in my experience, the use for forts is very, very small. I am always a little happy when I see an enemy build forts. Knowing exactly where not to go or what to bomb with either artillery or rockets.
    • Edepedable wrote:

      The way I see it building fortresses never makes sense. I never build them except later in game if I have plenty of resources and want tot control morale to move my capitol from my core.

      Early game I'd rather spend the metal on LT's that can actually move and form a defence wherever I want. The way I see it spending 3000 metal on a static defence is a bad idea. Especially since core provinces already give a 15% buff.

      For ease I count the other way, if I have 2 units somewhere with 55% damage reduction, I count them as if I have 3 units there. So if I really need to defend 3 provinces, that will cost me 9k metal if I were to build fortresses there. That means that if I put 4 units in those 3 places, their protective count need to be bigger than the amount I could build with them.

      So say I can put 4 units in every one of those 3 provinces. That means 12 units total with 55% protection = around 18 units worth of defence thanks to the build of my 3 fortresses. Can I build more than 6 units with 9k of metal? Yes I can. I can build 1 LT for every one of those provinces and have 3750 metal to spare to spend on other units. So my metal is better spent on units than 3 fortresses in this case.

      The only way it could work in my view is if I put enough units in 1 single province. Say I put 20 units in 1 province at 55% protection. That means they function as 30 units. Can I build 10 units for 3k metal? No, probably not. BUT, this gives another problem. Then I have 20 units in 1 province, meaning the enemy, if he is smart enough will just go around it. Meaning my 20 units would have to leave the province the fortress is in and once again, I find myself rather having more units instead of having built a fortress.

      So in my experience, the use for forts is very, very small. I am always a little happy when I see an enemy build forts. Knowing exactly where not to go or what to bomb with either artillery or rockets.
      Actually, I build forts a LOT. Especially in occupied provinces far from home, and especially for core cities, and especially for 1939 Soviet Union. Forts are still a viable investment, they just take skill to use. They are fantastic at defending capital cities, naval locations, there's a lot of uses really. Long story short, forts actually have tons of use, your style of play just doesn't call for them.