Fort building question

[Hohenlohe]

Dear fellows, I miss the possibility to build any forts in the game. Okay, I know, that there were historically only Fortified Camps, but that could be made available as ingame choice and it should be possible to extend it to a Fort.
So my suggestion is the following:
Building of a fortified Camp as Fort Lvl1 with one Artillery and two supplywagon
then a possible extension to a Fort(fortification lvl2) with two artillery and one supplywagon.
As I remember the Prussian often use fortified camps like the ones at Maxen and at Hochkirch. As a base of operations eventually built in occupied area it could improve the situation for the army especially in winter condition or after some heavy battles.

greetings

Hohenlohe

[PhilThib]

We could easily implement the level 1 you suggest, fortified camp... I am a bit more reluctant on the level 2, this does not sound so much historical and don't seem to be a real instance when it occurs...but could be up to players

[squarian]

Great idea, Hohenlohe - and thanks for taking up the suggestion, Phillippe.

[Hohenlohe]

We could easily implement the level 1 you suggest, fortified camp... I am a bit more reluctant on the level 2, this does not sound so much historical and don't seem to be a real instance when it occurs...but could be up to players

Dear Philippe, thank you for your support.
My promised AAR will start tomorrow with the first Turn. I have already written some Prequel-Stories.

http://www.si-games.com/forums/showpost.php?p=602685&postcount=1

I hope it is well enough to satisfy the fans. To my excuse, because all is written in German, my English is not good enough and to bring the AAR to this forum is at the moment too much work for me, because its my first AAR at all.

greetings

Hohenlohe

[rogs]

building lvl1 fortified camp is a great idea; both sides used extensive entrenchments late in the war, especially in western silesia

maybe constructing a fortified camp should be less expensive in mountains or hills and more expensive in clear terrain?

lvl2 fortifications seem outside the scope of a temporary entrenchment; most of the permanent forts and cities in the game are lvl2 - it should take a year or two to build such fortifications from scratch ( . . . is this an option?)

[caranorn]

Yes to level 1-forts, no to level-2 fortifications. I only just noticed yesterday that level-1 could not be built when I considered fortifying one of my field depots. Not that it mattered, in the following month the column I'd intended to hold that position through winter starved to death ;-) ...

[PhilThib]

I'll discuss with the rest of the team implementation of the lvl1 fort construction (i.e. fortified camp). My main worry about this one is that, in the game, assaults without breach are not allowed....that would make those fortified camps impossible to take by assault in the first battle (they would not to be sieged and breached)...

The alternative being that the fortification level of these is 0. This is simple to do, but creates a problem for the AI in the 1756 scenario (as it tends to systematically assault Pirna fortified camp, which is why we set it as a level 1 fortification instead of level 0)... running circles here

[lodilefty]

Maybe we can bring back the 'entrench' command, that will speed up the 1 level per non-moving turn automatic entrenchment???

[Nikel]

+1 to fortified camp only. Besides there is a nice graphic for it


Except for graphics I never know the details of the mechanics of the game, but if they are created with supply+artillery, they should provide supply, defense and attack bonus.

Sappers, engineers,... should be present?


And why is not allowed to assault without a breach? Napoleonics wars, Badajoz, but why not in the SYW

[Hohenlohe]

I'll discuss with the rest of the team implementation of the lvl1 fort construction (i.e. fortified camp). My main worry about this one is that, in the game, assaults without breach are not allowed....that would make those fortified camps impossible to take by assault in the first battle (they would not to be sieged and breached)...

The alternative being that the fortification level of these is 0. This is simple to do, but creates a problem for the AI in the 1756 scenario (as it tends to systematically assault Pirna fortified camp, which is why we set it as a level 1 fortification instead of level 0)... running circles here

As I understand that there will be a problem, but it seems that you have brought up a solution with the new patch so I will therefore wait a little to bring the next update for my AAR.
I would suggest a solution by my own:
As you have implemented the attribute *assault* with the latest patch it would be a good idea to make just a step more. Why not add the attribute *assault* to Sappers and Grenadiers which would help to do the assault as I can imagine. Simply seen the Grenadiers were the elite of the infantry in that era and often used for such tasks. Only using the Sappers would become a main problem for the players, especially the Prussian one because the Austrians have two full units from start and the Prussian only one and the cost to recruit a new one is immensely high.
I have a little solution for that.
I simply copy the common models data from patch 1.01e over the data from patch 1.01g.
So it is a good idea to give the fortified camp a fortification level 1. Most of the camps of that time had earthen walls if not palisades and good trenches so that an army commander needed good trained infantry like grenadiers and additionally sappers to assault such a camp.
Until now it seems that the cost for artillery, supplywagons and sappers are definetely too high so it would be better to decrease the costs.
As I understand you need with patch 1.01g just around 50 conscript companies for the sappers, but the unit consists only four elements aka companies, even the materiel costs are too high. The sappers of that era for example were equipped only with carpenter axes and spades, so the cost implemented seems too high. Only the pontooners need more materiel aka warsupplies for building purposes(bridging equipment).
I would be happy if you consider the prerequisites for the unit building anew and change some data slightly.
Just my six pence for this discussion...

greetings

Hohenlohe, who have some ideas...