UPDATE: v1.1 C3C_fortress (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/terrainbuildings.zip)


here is a new fortress for the modern age: (based on a mod by ukas)

here is the terrainbuildings.pcx

and here is the file:

An application! Great job! :goodjob:

I feel like: "There goes my baby in the big world!":love:

is that a fortress or a fence around a farmfield??

Nice job :) Looks a bit small for my tastes but it's better than that green monstrosity the game provides. Ossiric is right though, on the cow square it looks quite a bit like a farm ;)

Looks good:goodjob:

Heh... it looks like a concentration camp. Or a Jail.

Nice ;)

In modern warfare troops are so mobile that there isn´t a need for strong defenses. Remember the french defenses in WWII which the germans bypassed without any problem. So modern defense lines are mostly used to supply troops.

Taé Shala - There were large fortifications in the Soviet/Finland border during WW2. It turned out to be quite useful. ;)

Has anyone managed to draw trenches, perhaps linked together like roads... or is that not possible?

Stormbind, why don't you ask in the right place? I e the main Creation & Customization Forum, your question hasn't really got anything to do with Tae Shala's work here, now does it? :)Regarding your question, I don't think it's possible. :(

Tae Shala, is it possible to put guard towers in the corners to avoid the farm effect? Or is there a way to make the fortress graphics cover the cow? The idea is great though because that wire fence arrangement is just like real modern day forts.

mrtn, I think the stormbind dude just wanted to ask the people using this thread.

Resources will always be on top.

I tried to add new towers in the corners, but the results are to ugly to post. I´m sorry. :(

Hey Tae, nice to see you used the tent from American Conquest I uploaded before. I am gonna use yours actually from now on since it is so much better than mine. :(

Would you be interested in making great-plain Indians cities with some graphics I have ? If you are, send me a PM.

Originally posted by Taé Shala
In modern warfare troops are so mobile that there isn´t a need for strong defenses. Remember the french defenses in WWII which the germans bypassed without any problem. So modern defense lines are mostly used to supply troops.

Actually they did not really bypass the defense line in a traditional way.
The Maginot line did not cover Blegium so the Germans took that highway to France. Had they attacked the defense line directly, the results could have hurt them a little.

Originally posted by LouLong

Actually they did not really bypass the defense line in a traditional way.
The Maginot line did not cover Blegium so the Germans took that highway to France. Had they attacked the defense line directly, the results could have hurt them a little.

The Germans did attack the maginot and line and went through it like a hot knife through butter. It was a 2 prong invasion so one attack drew the defenders away from the other and caused confusion. :p

Originally posted by aaglo
Taé Shala - There were large fortifications in the Soviet/Finland border during WW2. It turned out to be quite useful. ;)

If you mean the Mannerheim Line, it was not really fortifications. Really nothing more than some foxholes, nothing an army under duress couldn't set up in about 2 days. Mannerheim Line really didn't affect the Finnish campaign in any case. The Soviets took a nosebleed much further north, the problem being that the Finns had good rail network parallel to the border, where the Soviets had a single rail terminus horizontal to the border and some 100 miles from it. Not only this but the Finns were using well-trained and professional ski troops, whereas the Soviets were suffering from severe CnC problems due to the loss of so many experienced junior officers due to Stalin's meddling in the mid-30s.

Originally posted by unscratchedfoot


The Germans did attack the maginot and line and went through it like a hot knife through butter. It was a 2 prong invasion so one attack drew the defenders away from the other and caused confusion. :p

False. There were, as you say, different areas of attack, but all of them were within Belgium. The main attack came through the Ardennes, the diversionary attack was aimed north towards Rotterdam - allowing the Ardennes group to bypass the flow of force the British and French sent north to assist against the German advance in the Low Countries. This force would eventually become encircled with the British evacuating out of Dunkirk.

At no point did the Germans engage along the Maginot line, although some forces were moved to the German equivalent of the Maginot (the Siegfried Line) to prevent a counterattack coming through in the region around Saarbrucken (which would have isolated German forces in a way similar to how they isolated the British and French)


As for fortifications being useless in modern warfare, this is equally false. One word: Kursk.


"The battle of Kursk was monumental for numerous reasons but will almost always be remembered for being the largest clash of armour, certainly during W.W.II and would not be rivalled until the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1960's and 1970's. The vast area around the city of Kursk presented itself as a target with a salient being formed in the Russian line of defence. Hitler needed a victory that would regain the initiative in the east and declared that Operation Zitadelle as it was known" would shine like a beacon to the world" and would avenge the crushing defeat at Stalingrad earlier in the year, but even he had misgivings about the whole affair .... These defences were of a scale never seen before for a battle and the Russians immediately put the military and 300,000 of the local civilian population to work laying a massive array of tank traps, minefields, anti-tank guns and dug in tanks and other defensive positions in anticipation of the German attack. The minefields were specially designed to channel the armoured formations into dug in antitank defences and it was hoped that the Germans would burn themselves out trying to break through the defences ... Zitadelle had proved a costly gamble which, if one analyses the battle, had a very slim chance of success and one from which the Germans would never fully recover their losses."

http://www.forces70.freeserve.co.uk/Waffen%20SS%20Text+Images/The%20Battle%20of%20Kursk.html

okay to clear both of you up 17 divisions attacked the maginot line at strasbourg, and 29 divisions which were spread out in many different thrust were used in belgium while there were 45 divisions in reserve, this is coming straight out of a hitler book "hitler as military commander", but on a side note the fortifications of trench warfare was the technology of wwi and throughout history this has always been the problem people fighting the style of the last war, which in the case of wwii is why trench warfare was so bad germany realized and went around this previous war style

Originally posted by Incubus0223
okay to clear both of you up 17 divisions attacked the maginot line at strasbourg, and 29 divisions which were spread out in many different thrust were used in belgium while there were 45 divisions in reserve, this is coming straight out of a hitler book "hitler as military commander", but on a side note the fortifications of trench warfare was the technology of wwi and throughout history this has always been the problem people fighting the style of the last war, which in the case of wwii is why trench warfare was so bad germany realized and went around this previous war style

Yes, the Maginot line was eventually attacked and breached ... from the rear, though. Before this some artillery attacks etc were made against the Maginot but no serious assaults, just some shelling to keep the defenders occupied.

Illustrated below are the various plans considered, with (d) being the one eventually adopted. As you see, the First, Seventh and Sixteenth armies merely held the line on the German side facing the Maginot, and the entirety of the attack came through the unprotected Belgian sector.

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/dhistorymaps/images/WW2Europe/wwiie9.jpg

whoa thats almost exactly what the book shows kewl man

Here, you can see that the attack on the Maginot forces comes as they are fleeing the defences to reinforce Paris and the rest of France which is falling already to the attackers pouring out of the undefended Ardennes. Guderian's armoured group intercepts them as they head west while the First and Seventh cross the now unmanned Maginot and pursue them from the rear.

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/dhistorymaps/images/WW2Europe/wwiie15.jpg

In other words, they had to take out the entire rest of the country before the Maginot Line fell.

UPDATE: v1.1 C3C_fortress (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/terrainbuildings.zip)

First off, what if anything does ww2 have to do with todays modern warfare. sure ww2 was the birth of rapid offensives and the first time fortifications became largly obsolete but the funny thing is that as rapidly as offensive weapons develop defensive weapons arn't far behind. the three major weapons that make fortifications a bad idea right now are Missiles, aircraft, and unbleivably devestation artiller barrages, but within the next 20 years two of these (with Aircraft being the exception) will become largly ineffective. Anti-missile weapons are getting better all the time, take the Phalanx or the patriot, and the radar controled chemical lasers are just starting to shrink to battlefield size, (they are uesed to track and destroy incoming artiller shells). And who knows what else is being cooked up behind the prying eyes of the public. Anyway my piont is that i'm betting that in ww3 if and when it comes there will be a huge ues of strateagic fortifications, the likes of whick we can only imagine, compare the maginot line to oh lets say a sandbag wall. So will the forts of tomorrow be compared to the maginot line.

Oh and sorry for rampling on

NEAT!

Very nice