Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

i believe manhy core members own ones. assembled, and painted them. here comes the questions

1. What are the materials that made the Bastion itself and the aegis blast wall? GW provide a very COARSE background on this product (while provided a very elaborate background to others, like Leman Russ tank, Basilisks SPG, and... especially a similar product for SM players--Fortress of Redemption). GW only say that "it could be anything that could witstand an orbital bombardment, be they ferrocrete building (like modern-day bunkers), or necron living metals (conversion/kitbask and scratchbuild only). from my observation (using GOOGLE.. of course!), the fact of its construction materials were quite a contradiction. hobbyists saw Bastion and Aegis Blast Wall as it was made of steel (or any advanced metalloids that made Leman Russ). In DoW2: Retribution. the bastion itself is actually a concrete "Blockhouse"... ok I classify the Bastion as Blockhouse following this definition

During World War I and World War II, many types of blockhouses were built, when time allowed usually constructed of reinforced concrete. The major difference between a modern blockhouse and a bunker is that a bunker is constructed mostly below ground level while a blockhouse is constructed mostly above ground level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockhouse#Concrete_blockhouses

In the same game however. there are no referrences to Aegis blast walls. although those walls look like it was based on either medieval Pavises or the modern new jersey traffic control walls. as i'm not collecting Aegis defence line YET (but then again. using Google). each section of the wall has a console/panel thing attached. GW marketed this product as "Instant Fortress".. that means the Aegis defence system is based on a real-life designs (Automated hydra emplacement was more or less based on either US Army's Skysweeper system (forerunner of all unmanned automated turrets), or the modern ADATS emplacement. the blastwalls are. however, fall to the same contradiction as the Bastion. hobbyists painted them as EITHER steel-made (like as seen in STARSHIP TROOPER movie), OR reinforced ferrocrete, however many of them are camouflaged. which made it almost impossible to judge which materials made these blast walls?

for that panel thing. what was its usefulness? is it parts of communications device? or part of any energy shield?

GW didn't even say which materials made this blast wall?

2. What are the interiors of the bastion? it appeared to have loopholes intended for small arms on its first floor, the second floor however (depend on personal taste ), there are a module of four Heavy Bolters. (its mountings looked like if it could be also called Casemate ).

2.1 What are their field of fire for each HB mounts? and for a whole tower, do the bastions REALLY have a full 360 degree field of fire?

i'm not sure if this is a FORBIDDEN information (for some reasons =^.^= ), but i BELIEVE that the layout of the whole bastion required each of those guns to have a 120 degree field of fire. there are a "dead zones" if those guns have 90 degree fielf of fire. (well unless there are some solutions that similar to what that will further evolved into Star Fort in Renaissance era.

2.2 Are those "casemate mount" HB automated or crewed?

3. What are the inspirations of the Bastion? was it German WW2 concrete Flakturm (or anything that formed Atlantic Wall). or early-modern blockhouse? or something else?

some of the blockhouses have small cannons mounted, probably intended to fire grapeshots, the Brits also made masonry blockhouse that supports machineguns usage in South Africa during the second Boer wars, and later on in Ireland, during Irish uprising

4. Is the bastion a prefabricated building? if so, how long does it usually takes assemble a bastion? and can it be disassembled in order to re-deply it elsewhere?

=^.^=

EDIT at 5th June 2011: Originally this thread is about an Imperial bastion and Aegis defence systems products. now it has evolved into Imperial fortresses so i've decided to modify the thread's name

meow

Aegis defence linen? Is that a homage to the old song from WWI about hanging out the washing on the Siegfried Line?

nah. it is an accident of fast typing.

it is Aegis defence LINE

=^.^=

The problem is that you're missing the point used for the Bastion's description in the book. The text you quoted isn't just for the "Imperial" Bastion.

GW only say that "it could be anything that could witstand an orbital bombardment, be they ferrocrete building (like modern-day bunkers), or necron living metals (conversion/kitbask and scratchbuild only).

Bastions are a 'generic' thing for Planetstrike. The 'living metal' example is for a Necron bastion. Just like the idea of a Wraithbone bastion, a giant chitinous structure for a Tyranid bastion, etc.

Every race has access to them. The only thing is GW opted to produce Imperial kits, rather than some ridiculously unfeasible kit mixing every race together.

All those GW IoM fortifications are very much in the style of a mediaeval European castle.



In realistic terms they would be completely useless against modern weapons. That style of tall wall became obsolete in the late 15th century. The taller the wall, the easier it is to hit, and the more likely it is to fall down.

The usual argument of "it could be made out of advanced metalloids" is countered by the argument that so could the attacking weapons.

Successful modern era fortifications, such as the forts at Verdun, have invariably been built mostly underground, with the minimum amount of exposure to enemy fire. Even this kind of fortification would be vulnerable to 21st century weapons like pinpoint smart bombs, earthquake bombs, and the like.

Aegis defense line sections are probably made out of Rockcrete and are easily assembled.


they provide excellent cover against small arms fire, but arn't great against heavy ordinance.


Bastions are made out of Ceramite, Rockcrete, and high grade steel.


they are also easily raised and deployed as an instant strongpoint.


that is their purpose. to create a quickly assembled defensive position, or as a quick fix to a damaged position.


permanant imperial fortresses are more practical in that they are often underground and low profile.

meh. a new lingo for me to headache. Rockcrete. what is it? how does it different to concrete or ferrocrete? (steel core concrete casting, commonly seen in modern day civil engineering)

If you say that Imperial bastion and Aegis defence system are prefabricated thing (All Hail the Machine God!). then could it be comparable to either 17st century Blockhouse and modern day Hesco concertainer products (which is currently used in Afghanistan)?

Kilkrazy wrote:All those GW IoM fortifications are very much in the style of a mediaeval European castle.



In realistic terms they would be completely useless against modern weapons. That style of tall wall became obsolete in the late 15th century. The taller the wall, the easier it is to hit, and the more likely it is to fall down.

The usual argument of "it could be made out of advanced metalloids" is countered by the argument that so could the attacking weapons.

Successful modern era fortifications, such as the forts at Verdun, have invariably been built mostly underground, with the minimum amount of exposure to enemy fire. Even this kind of fortification would be vulnerable to 21st century weapons like pinpoint smart bombs, earthquake bombs, and the like.

You don't need the "it could be made out of advanced metalloids" argument actually.

Why?

Important Imperial fortifications(aka, the ones that are usually huge and look like castles) have void shield generators within the premises that create an 'umbrella' of cover for the fortifications.

Impractical, antique style fortifications with void shields are more vulnerable than practically constructed fortifications with void shields.

Attacking forces would simply use some kind of anti-void-shield weapon, if attacking a void shielded position.

There's no "anti-void shield weapon".

All you can do is batter the shields down or employ orbital/titan-killing weaponry.

I'm confused...
What is the point of this thread?
Oh wait... got it.

It has got general castley-ness, it looks vaguely formidable and castley so it works.
I mean from a selling point of view...

Kanluwen wrote:There's no "anti-void shield weapon".

All you can do is batter the shields down or employ orbital/titan-killing weaponry.

So that's what you would do.

Rendering the fixed fortress defence pointless.

They are nice to have though...
Better than just standing out in the open... sort of...

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:There's no "anti-void shield weapon".

All you can do is batter the shields down or employ orbital/titan-killing weaponry.

So that's what you would do.

Rendering the fixed fortress defence pointless.

And that fixed fortress defense is usually built around direct fire cannons that will be pounding your titan-killing weaponry as it comes into play, with ground-to-orbit defenses in play as well.

The Imperium isn't stupid when it comes to fortresses.

With that statement made, there eventually comes a time where weapons have far exceeded defenses and it's stupid to have them period. With 40k and the fact that all these weapons were thought of before the defenses, we've got that issue.

A bastion is too small to use void shields.


http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Void_shield

zilegil wrote:A bastion is too small to use void shields.


http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Void_shield

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.

The 'bastions' for Planetstrike are meant to represent relatively unimportant, small outposts. You can tell that simply because they're not bristling with cannon and ramparts.

On a 'real' fortress--those kinds of things would be a simple defensive tower.

the bastions in planet strike are prefabricated structures.


you basically drop them down and unfold them.

they provide protection only against small arms fire and medium heavy weapons.


they won't stop any super heavy weaponry like Turbolasers and Plasma blastguns, but for their purpose they are quite good.



cheap to manufacture and easy to deploy, thats the imperium for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_tower

These may also have contributed to the idea of Bastions.

yup,

elevation is critical for direct fire AA defenses. especially if there are trees or other buildings around.

Kanluwen wrote:There's no "anti-void shield weapon".

All you can do is batter the shields down or employ orbital/titan-killing weaponry.

Also got to stop you there Kan.

In the Siege of Vraks triology, the fortress of Vraks (a conventional Imperial fortress) had massive void shields and macro cannons that defended from orbital bombardment and landing. The Imperium however just moved Earthshakers and other artillery under the Void Shield curtain and started pounding the fortress.

You can't just rely on Void Shields in the lore, while powerful, they don't make a fortress invulnerable. The fortress on Vraks was thought to be unbreakable, that's top level defence that probably matches the fortresses on Cadia and even that went down with enough firepower. Killkrazy's point on fortress design also plays a huge part in Ordnance and bombardment.
That's why we started to see a massive change in fortress design in the 20th century when cannons/artillery became more potent which led to the star shaped fortresses and citadels that were more effective against bombardment.



Also have to agree with Grey Templar that Imperial Fortresses, while flashy and big, usually are described in the background as having massive underground caches and bunkers, so even if you knock down the walls, you've still got one hell of a fight to capture it.

Snarky wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:There's no "anti-void shield weapon".

All you can do is batter the shields down or employ orbital/titan-killing weaponry.

Also got to stop you there Kan.

Welcome to try.

In the Siege of Vraks triology, the fortress of Vraks (a conventional Imperial fortress) had massive void shields and macro cannons that defended from orbital bombardment and landing. The Imperium however just moved Earthshakers and other artillery under the Void Shield curtain and started pounding the fortress.

You can't just rely on Void Shields in the lore, while powerful, they don't make a fortress invulnerable. The fortress on Vraks was thought to be unbreakable, that's top level defence that probably matches the fortresses on Cadia and even that went down with enough firepower.

There are no "fortresses" in the general sense on Cadia. They have large fortified structures, yes. But the majority of their fortifications are underground with the surface being the "main line of defense".
And we're not talking about "Oh, there's 50 foot walls". We're talking about dug-in revetments with void shields overlapping, artillery batteries nestled into the countryside, 'tank bunkers', automated sentry nests, etc.

And that's before you even get within range of the fun, gooey centers.

Even Cadia's cities are built with siege warfare in mind, with no direct route available between one ward of the city and the next. Eisenhorn described the cities as being a "maze" and mentioned that there were records of sectors of Kasrs being held for years at a time.

Killkrazy's point on fortress design also plays a huge part in Ordnance and bombardment.
That's why we started to see a massive change in fortress design in the 20th century when cannons/artillery became more potent which led to the star shaped fortresses and citadels that were more effective against bombardment.

I'm aware as to Kilkrazy's point on fortress design. You also missed my point of "there comes a time when weaponry far outstrips defensive measures".

The world of 40k is, in my opinion, at that point. Teleportation, drop pods, warp rifts, et al all make defensive fortifications a bit outmoded don't you think?

The best you can do is force the enemy to expend stupid amounts of resources to get to you--and then the real work begins.

Also have to agree with Grey Templar that Imperial Fortresses, while flashy and big, usually are described in the background as having massive underground caches and bunkers, so even if you knock down the walls, you've still got one hell of a fight to capture it.

You're going to have one hell of a fight to get in under the Void Shield in many cases anyways. And it's important to remember that not all void shields are 'umbrellas', with many being more in the realm of 'spheres' that extend in such a way that there isn't anywhere to slip in under.

Using Necropolis by Dan Abnett as a reference it seems to be bloody difficult to get past a void shield without something really heavy.
It is possible, it seems, to walk under it and start shooting from within the shield itself, the shield also seems to be perpetuated by pylons which can be destroyed tough they are likely heavily armoured.

Snarky wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:There's no "anti-void shield weapon".

All you can do is batter the shields down or employ orbital/titan-killing weaponry.

Also got to stop you there Kan.

In the Siege of Vraks triology, the fortress of Vraks (a conventional Imperial fortress) had massive void shields and macro cannons that defended from orbital bombardment and landing. The Imperium however just moved Earthshakers and other artillery under the Void Shield curtain and started pounding the fortress.

You can't just rely on Void Shields in the lore, while powerful, they don't make a fortress invulnerable. The fortress on Vraks was thought to be unbreakable, that's top level defence that probably matches the fortresses on Cadia and even that went down with enough firepower. Killkrazy's point on fortress design also plays a huge part in Ordnance and bombardment.
That's why we started to see a massive change in fortress design in the 20th century when cannons/artillery became more potent which led to the star shaped fortresses and citadels that were more effective against bombardment.

that means Void shield systems are mainly designed for STRATEGIC level of defenses, (i.e. protection against orbital bombardment, SSM, Cruise Missiles (Deathstrikes?)...), and it works rather like an umbrella where the shield will be useless should the attacker lay siege JUST INSIDE the area of protection?

about Vraks trilogy
1. it looks like DKoK had developed their very own prefabricated fortification systems (which evolved from their skilled Trench Warfare, and in my opinion, the system looks quite more practical than the high profile Imperial Bastion) if you say that they advanced into the area of the shield itself and start shelling. then they're required to set up those gunpits and trench systems IN MATTER OF MINUTES (or more possible. Hours). right?

This is quite a British army thing when they introduced prefab (?) concrete pillboxes and deploy ones in the frontlines in the late 1917. right?

Personally I believe that those fortresses do have Void shields systems but I don't think they're solely rely on those systems alone,

Also have to agree with Grey Templar that Imperial Fortresses, while flashy and big, usually are described in the background as having massive underground caches and bunkers, so even if you knock down the walls, you've still got one hell of a fight to capture it.

of ones say that a practical Imperial permanent fortress is an underground complex with its entrances and defensive systems visible on the ground. then Which of the military geometry theorem did those "modern" imperial fortress build on (or which of those geometric shapes did each fortress usually looks like when seen from above)?
- Star fort
- Flankless Palmerston fort (aka. polygonal fort, well fortresses of this style usually looked much like an orient hand fan)
- none of above (then please say the geometry shapes)

I'm not sure if a star fort can still be effective even in the 40k environmental warfare? and i'm not sure whether does "Bastion Aeternum" an official Imperial design?


image courtesy of www.warphead.de

what is the name of a big cannon mounted on the center? if the four smaller ones mounted on each corner of the Keep are the famed Earthshakers. and do you really think that this design can still be effective? if the star-shaped rampart is designed to maximize cannon shots and deny attacker a cover.

zilegil wrote:A bastion is too small to use void shields.


http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Void_shield

Not according to Planetstrike.

the design is still incredibly effective.


all avenues of approach can be covered.


the main reason the Starfort isn't used any more is because modern artillery has such rediclously long ranges and is incredibly accurate. you don't want to stay in one place very long.

and most conflicts today arn't taking place on large scales. we don't have thousands of men clashing and attempting to capture land. we have realativly small forces fighting cat and mouse games in urban enviroments. confrontations last for short periods of time(hours at most)


the last time Starfort type defenses were used was in WW2 in the maginot line(yeah, i can't spell it)

it was so formidible, the Germans actually decided to avoid it completely instead of taking it head on(and typical french brilliance of leaving a critical, and fatally obvious, flaw in the defense )


if the line had extended accross the entire border(would it have killed em to add another 100 miles to the thing?) WW2 might have ended alot sooner.

It wasn't just the French, Grey.

Look up "Fort Eben Emal". It was considered virtually impenetrable and a major obstacle to the German blitzkrieg.

The Falschirmjager took it in a manner of hours. First example of an airborne assault and it was performed almost flawlessly.

If not for the miserable showing at Crete, the Falschirmjager likely wouldn't have been shifted to light infantry.

then again, that fort wasn't exactly designed with Air assaults in mind.


still, its one reason i love my Fallschirmjagers so much

Nobody had air assaults in mind. They'd never been done before.

They'd been theorized about, but nobody ever really considered it 'practical'.

Grey Templar wrote:the design is still incredibly effective.


all avenues of approach can be covered.


the main reason the Starfort isn't used any more is because modern artillery has such rediclously long ranges and is incredibly accurate. you don't want to stay in one place very long.

and most conflicts today arn't taking place on large scales. we don't have thousands of men clashing and attempting to capture land. we have realativly small forces fighting cat and mouse games in urban enviroments. confrontations last for short periods of time(hours at most)

1. suppose that the construction material and armarment (including AAAs ) are of the same period, which designs of the forts are more effective in the modern day and 40k settings? (against ground assault and air assault, respectively) between the Star fort and Palmerston flankless designs?
2. When the modern conflicts are reduced into skirmishes. it comes to the new military innovations (chronoligically.... ).. the Firebase!, if the common definition of the Firebase is referred to field fortifications (or maybe to greater extense. the prefabricated fortifications like Hesco products and.. p'rhaps .. Imperial bastion and AEGIS defence systems) that mainly consisted of the following (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebase#Components_during_Vietnam_War )
- A battery of (6-8... maybe 9) Howitzers (or equivalent artillery pieces. let's say MLRS)
- series of pillboxes and foxholes, usually linked together with trench networks and/or tunnels
- A platoon of engineers (I'm not sure how can I represent engineers platoon? can a normal IG infantry platoon do this?)
- A helipad (or for 40k Equivalent, Skyshield landing pad)
- A company of infantry
- Tactica
- Medicae station

.. basically the firebase could be a direct descendant to WW1 Trench systems with helicopter pad built in. I'm not sure if there's any official record of the utilization of Prefab bastion, skyshield, and Aegis defence systems to form a firebase? for Imperial standard. How many Basilisks/Earthshaker guns form one BATTERY? 3, 6, or 9? (and its minimum size on the tabletop, answer in inches or feet please )

and in your opinion. does firebase supplant the larger fortress systems of the past?



=^.^=

I think you completely missed my point Kan, I'm saying that Void Shields are not the end all point of defense, and even the toughest Imperial Fortresses have been described as been breachable. My comparison to Cadia was probably a bad example, since the entire planet is just one big strongpoint.

Also it doesn't matter if the Void Shield is a sphere and slips underground as well as above, you can simply walk through it. This is represented many times in the fluff (read IA5 and 6) and in game rules (you can slip under a titan's void shield to melta/punch it to death). This is exactly what they did in IA5, they went under the Void Shields and started pummeling the fortress. To say that Void Shields are the only key principle to fortress design is clearly wrong.