Rebalance Fortification - Add some sort of counter to it.

[Ektor (OP)]

Have you tried gauss cannon spam as a bombardment alternative? There are potentially 8 shots per barrel at max tech level.

I tried it, albeit not at maximum level. The way I see it is: a 4-shot 10cm railgun is 3 HS whilst a (at maximum technology) 8 shot gauss weapon is 6 HS. I tried using reduced gauss to increase volume of fire but they couldn't hit a thing, the lowest HS gauss guns literally had around 0.2% hit rate.

Given that firing a thousand shots to hit six times isn't particularly fun, perhaps Fortifications should change from a penalty 'to hit' to an increase in the fortified unit's effective Armour rating.

What do I suggest? Make fortification be a modifier on damage dealt instead of shots that hit or armour value. That way high rates of fire with low damage and penetration would do nothing against fortified troops, but high damage dealers like tanks and super heavies would be able to bypass this modifier, and deal damage, which would force attackers to invest in more expensive armament to deal with fortification, instead of just massing infantry.

Guys, please, at least read my post before commenting.

[Alsadius]

If we want anti-fort units, I think a unit-training option, much like there is with jungle warfare or boarding combat, is the obvious fix.

[MarcAFK]

It seems that perhaps at least MSP cost for orbital bombardment needs reducing.

[Jorgen_CAB]

It seems that perhaps at least MSP cost for orbital bombardment needs reducing.

Indiscriminate bombarding are not suppose to be very effective so I think we should wait and see if the balance is right or not.

[Jorgen_CAB]

In my opinion... the ground combat game have a problem with scaling... and I have said that before.

Using indisciminate bombarding on a world with 5 billion people and 1.000.000t of trooops should be way more effective than on a 100m population colony with 10.000t worth of troops.

Ground combat in general should take these things into consideration as well... a world "War" on a planet with 5 billion inhabitants and a few million tons of troops should take years to complete while a 50m population colony with a single regiment defending it could fall in a dew days.

But there then need to be a mechanic where you can shuttle in troops of very large planets over time without the first ones being wiped on on day one... there need to be limitation on how troops can engage and interact when ground combat grow to silly sizes. Large ground combat engagement end way too fast as it is without intervention of the player in GM and playing multiple faction, then it can be done through RP. But the game mechanics don't support it.

[Person012345]

Remember that an attacker can bring their entire military to one planet whilst the defender has to spread their force between all of their planets. This doesn't seem unreasonable torequire far more troops for the attack than the defense. It's also generally realistic.

[Doren]

Maybe the fortification should decrease over time while in combat. More rapidly if fortification is high. It would make sense that prolonged combat would deteriorate fortification. Maybe one could still keep quite high fortification if they had a lot of construction units as those could still be target of attacks and would eat room and training time from other possible units

[Scorchicus]

Been having a think about this.  I reckon the best solutions might be to let the armour value/health/unit type/breakthrough value of a unit/formation negate part or all of the fortification value of an entrenched unit/formation, have ineffective weapons not make the defensive unit's tonnage count for the purposes of breakthroughs, and/or have breakthrough attacks not count fortification bonuses.

Explanation: Right now, we have a WW1 scenario of fully entrenched everything.  Ignoring the fact that the attackers can choose their landing spot when they choose to invade, how do you beat a massively entrenched position? Go around, be armoured enough that their weapons are ineffective, cause a breakthrough and negate the defensive advantage of the whole position, and bring guns that can break the fortifications.

Drilling down to the core of the problem: I can make a force of nothing but CAP pillboxes, entrench them in a steppe, and stall a heavy tank division for months because the heavy tanks can't hit the pillboxes.  It makes little sense that a HAV weapon can't render fortifications effectively meaningless, but it makes even less sense that the pillboxes are 99% effective in stopping a breakthrough.  Why can't the tanks just steamroll it, or go around? It's not like the CAP can threaten the tanks very much.

Better worded answer: Let the breakthrough value of a unit counteract hostile fortification bonuses, allow support units to increase the breakthrough value of the supported unit to simulate airstrikes/orbital strikes opening holes in a line, perhaps throw in a training for infantry to increase the breakthrough value for infantry units, then make breakthroughs totally ignore fortification bonuses.

Results: Heavy armour now slays steppe pillboxes.  The bigger the tank, the better it is at flattening them.  Entrenching infantry in a field WW1 style now has limited effect against tanks, as it should.  Vietnam can still happen, thanks to the hitrate modifiers for infantry focused terrains making vehicles suck in those environments.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think that the main problem is that of scale... the fortification bonus does NOT have to mean bunkers and minefields... they are simply increased defensive value of whatever forces are entrenched on the planet. It means they fight better as they have prepared the planetary defences to better suite the troops that are there. It can be as much active defences as it can be ways to move around defences to increase its defensive nature in a more mobile setting. Even static units can move around if necessary using prime movers which in this age probably are don through their air or it can be through some elaborate tunnelling system or whatever.

The fortification does not have to mean static formations and defences only, even if static fortification probably is part of it. But advanced shield system also can mean that static defences actually can be easily moved when a battle shift in character.

This is why I'm sceptical that we necessarily need something that reduce the fortification level just to complicate matters. The system is on a strategic operational/theatre level not tactical.

The important thing is to make defences so strong that it does require considerable forces to take them out, otherwise they are rendered entirely moot and pointless from a strategic consideration. If the defences can't possibly hold an enemy at bay long enough for reinforcement to arrive they make no sense to build in the first place. Defences should even be able to repel most attempts of invasion if you focus enough, for example if you create a huge fortress world.

[Bremen]

Yeah, I have to agree. The system as it is works fine. A way to reduce fortification really doesn't accomplish anything other than being an overly complicated way of making fortification weaker, and personally I think fortification is already balanced reasonably well.

[Father Tim]

The important thing is to make defences so strong that it does require considerable forces to take them out, otherwise they are rendered entirely moot and pointless from a strategic consideration. If the defences can't possibly hold an enemy at bay long enough for reinforcement to arrive they make no sense to build in the first place. Defences should even be able to repel most attempts of invasion if you focus enough, for example if you create a huge fortress world.

No, the important thing is that conquering a colony via ground assault causes less collateral damage than orbital bombardment.  Otherwise, why (would an empire)* even land troops in the first place?

- - - - -

*Sure, we'll do it at least a few times 'cause fighting is fun.  But after that?

[Jorgen_CAB]

The important thing is to make defences so strong that it does require considerable forces to take them out, otherwise they are rendered entirely moot and pointless from a strategic consideration. If the defences can't possibly hold an enemy at bay long enough for reinforcement to arrive they make no sense to build in the first place. Defences should even be able to repel most attempts of invasion if you focus enough, for example if you create a huge fortress world.

No, the important thing is that conquering a colony via ground assault causes less collateral damage than orbital bombardment.  Otherwise, why (would an empire)* even land troops in the first place?

I would not say that is the main reason... but it is another good reason I did not think of as an important one... 

[Droll]

The important thing is to make defences so strong that it does require considerable forces to take them out, otherwise they are rendered entirely moot and pointless from a strategic consideration. If the defences can't possibly hold an enemy at bay long enough for reinforcement to arrive they make no sense to build in the first place. Defences should even be able to repel most attempts of invasion if you focus enough, for example if you create a huge fortress world.

No, the important thing is that conquering a colony via ground assault causes less collateral damage than orbital bombardment.  Otherwise, why (would an empire)* even land troops in the first place?

- - - - -

*Sure, we'll do it at least a few times 'cause fighting is fun.  But after that?

Its not even about collateral damage to installation and population - for me its about keeping the planet useable/habitable. Missiles already completely nullify ground units completely, they just also turn the planet into an irradiated wasteland while doing so.

Honestly if you lose the space war, no amount of ground forces and forts are going to help you. Maybe thats okay for people but it does make ground combat a bit of an opt in feature.

[Person012345]

The important thing is to make defences so strong that it does require considerable forces to take them out, otherwise they are rendered entirely moot and pointless from a strategic consideration. If the defences can't possibly hold an enemy at bay long enough for reinforcement to arrive they make no sense to build in the first place. Defences should even be able to repel most attempts of invasion if you focus enough, for example if you create a huge fortress world.

No, the important thing is that conquering a colony via ground assault causes less collateral damage than orbital bombardment.  Otherwise, why (would an empire)* even land troops in the first place?

- - - - -

*Sure, we'll do it at least a few times 'cause fighting is fun.  But after that?

If the planet is so heavily fortified that it isn't worth taking except as a blow to the enemy, 1. they will have no doubt invested quite heavily in it and happened to make use of the strategic advantages in terrain and 2. this isn't necessarily unrealistic. Turtling to the point where the only reason for the enemy to attempt an invasion is simply to crush you should be a thing you can do, in the best traditions of the imperial guard. It should of course be expensive and only feasible in certain locations with certain terrains, but the idea of being able to negate fortification would simply make fortification worthless really. If you think it isn't worth the fight, then don't attack.

[Ektor (OP)]

As I said, I don't mind fortifications being hard to take, what I mind is heavy artillery and such being useless against it.