Forts

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

First of all there are 2 topics to this discussion.

1. Forts, how they were used historically.

2. Forts, how YOU use them in your campaigns and why the AI doesnt use them as much.

I played another mod...rise of persia I think, and the AI was using them pretty well. I actually used forts in my Hayasdan campaign to slow down the advance of the Grey Beast, just by giving me 2-3 turns to get my main army to the hot spot. And no, I wouldnt garrison entire armies there lol, that would be a waste :S

Ah, and historically, I know of the fort that Julius Ceasar built around that gallic city, but thats about it as far as I know of forts being used historically, can anyone elaborate/enlighten me as to other uses of them?

[Olimpian]

Regarding 2.:I use them at my frontiers as an early warning system,placing them at river crossings,mountain passes,etc as close to the border as possible(on my side).If the enemy wants to attack me he will besiege the fort.This way,I avoid false alarms when they bring a stack or two close to my territories and then just go away...

[stupac]

1- I'm no historian, but it seems to me from reading the Conquest of Gaul, as you already iterated, Julius Caesar made use of forts in sieges, but I was under the impression that they were used even more regularly than that. I think I read somewhere that the Roman camp, often referred to as a castra (but I think that term is more generic in referring to a military fortification), resembled the RTW forts somewhat. A palisade with 4 gates and trenches, etc, and would have been constructed frequently in enemy territory or when holding camp for a long period of time. I wish RTW enabled construction of more advanced permanent fortresses, but alas it is not to be.

Edit: I seem to also remember Julius Caesar's legions encountering similar enemy camps, in which they would have to carry faggots to fill in the trenches and assault the palisades. So this type of fortification isn't limited to the Romans or "civilized" factions.

2- I use them a fair amount when trying to simulate a camp, or if I have a inferior force that is under threat of attack and I need to move up reinforcements. A few times I've used them to fortify frontiers that come under frequent attack, they are incredibly useful for holding choke points such as mountain passes and rivers. In my baktria campaign, I got tired of AS invading Persopolis(sp?) so I built a "great wall" extending from mountain to mountain of forts garrisoned with single units.

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

Haha yeah I use em for chokepoints too, but somehow its really hard to use em as the gauls or anyone who isnt entrenched in mountains ><

[General Appo]

I dot use them much, but in my second Romani campaign I decided not to take anything but the VC&#180;s, and instead put of a great number of forts all along the borders. Every single crossing of the Rhine and Danube was covered with a forts, as well as all exits out from the Tylis/Byzantion area that isn&#180;t in the VC&#180;s. I had a standard garrison with 2 Cohorts Reformata, 1 Antesignani and 1 local auxilia cavalry. In the Alps area I instead used an extra Antesignani, since there aren&#180;t any Roman cavalry within one turns reach. Worked real well against continued Sweboz and Getai attacks, enough to defeat most armies and enough to hold the fort until reinforcements could arrive when really big stacks attacked. Quite historical as well, as far as I can gather.

[antisocialmunky]

I garrison each one with a spy and some levy units. Since I like to play with money restrictions, I basically keep my major armies in the cities and have forts stuffing mountain passes. I sometimes keep a defensive army on a bridge or something too with a fort behind it to retreat to.

[anubis88]

well some roman forts became city's in a while, that's a fact....
I dunno how the other faction's used them but always when an army wasn't on the move they had to make camps-forts.

I use them to hold mountain passes, but in my new campaigns I started to place them on place where there should be important city's but there are none since there is a 199 province limit... It's nice to have a Seleucia Priera as the Seleucid's even though the name doesn't suggest it:laugh4:

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

Haha yeah I use em for chokepoints too, but somehow its really hard to use em as the gauls or anyone who isnt entrenched in mountains ><

[Centurion Crastinus]

I always thought that the forts were supposed to represent the marching camp that the Romans erected daily after their daily march.

[Watchman]

Wasn't just Romans either. You run into mentions of those things all the time in ancient military history; the aftermath of Plataea is one case that promptly springs to mind.

[GodEmperorLeto]

I dot use them much, but in my second Romani campaign I decided not to take anything but the VC´s, and instead put of a great number of forts all along the borders. Every single crossing of the Rhine and Danube was covered with a forts, as well as all exits out from the Tylis/Byzantion area that isn´t in the VC´s. I had a standard garrison with 2 Cohorts Reformata, 1 Antesignani and 1 local auxilia cavalry. In the Alps area I instead used an extra Antesignani, since there aren´t any Roman cavalry within one turns reach. Worked real well against continued Sweboz and Getai attacks, enough to defeat most armies and enough to hold the fort until reinforcements could arrive when really big stacks attacked. Quite historical as well, as far as I can gather.

You must have read Edward Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire.

[Ibrahim]

@ general appo: that's very nice-got to do that.

I use a different system, also from the romans, but from the 4th century; I make forts and man them not with cohort and high quality troops, but crappy ones (like the limitanei), just enough to hold the area while the field army moves in to do the actual fighting (like the comitatenses)-that way, the loss of a castra and frontier army group is not that disasterous on my army's fighting ability, in case of a breach.
I know it's late antiquity in style, but it's actually quite good, especially for AS, where I can't afford to spread the good one's too thin.

[Apgad]

Historically, I thought that the romans built a fort every night when in enemy territory. I suppose the EB equivalent would be building every turn...

I seem to remember something about a lazy general on campaign thinking that he could do without, as it was getting dark, he was tired etc etc. Anyway, the army was attacked and suffered large losses, and the general had strips torn off him when he got back to Rome.

I'll see if I can find where I read that...

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The trouble with forts is that they are always besieged when attacked. Which means the garrison is immediately trapped. And it can be costly to sortie out of the gate under enemy missile fire.

Whereas an army in the open has the option to retreat, and join up with reinforcements, or if it fights, can deploy as normal before the battle.

So with forts, you either have to have very strong garrisons that can fight off almost any attack, or the garrison has to be regarded as expendable and must stand and die to buy time for another army to be formed.

With this in mind, sometimes I find forts useful, sometimes not. Usually not useful at all in the early game when money is tight, since I don't regard any unit as expendable at that stage.

[Dubius Cato]

As an idea, what about stationing archers in forts? It is possible to destroy the rams with missile fire. A larger attacking army builds more rams and you need more archers.

Archers are generally cheap. They might be the perfect way to defend forts. I am not sure at the moment what happens when all enemy siege equipment is destroyed. I remember instances where the AI simply left the battlefield, but also situations where they just sat there forever. What happens when you leave the battle via ESC and they have no rams left? In EB I play without the battle time limit.

[zooeyglass]

As an idea, what about stationing archers in forts? It is possible to destroy the rams with missile fire. A larger attacking army builds more rams and you need more archers.

Archers are generally cheap. They might be the perfect way to defend forts. I am not sure at the moment what happens when all enemy siege equipment is destroyed. I remember instances where the AI simply left the battlefield, but also situations where they just sat there forever. What happens when you leave the battle via ESC and they have no rams left? In EB I play without the battle time limit.

the no time limit thing is thus the problem - i wondered about quitting the battle mid fight - esp if you have taken less casualties etc....

but yeah, with a time limit it means you can defend, as the attacking army is forced to withdraw/fails to breach the walls. which is grand!

[Tiberius Nero]

The only use of forts in RTW is to guard narrow mountain passes, with just one cheap unit as garrison (if it is a depleted unit of 2 soldiers you wont bother to retrain, its ideal). When the fort gets besieged, move a real army to attack the besiegers. Having a large force of your own caught in a siege inside a fort is more of a trouble for you than the attacker, because the only thing to do is sally and you will have to organize your army just in front of an already organized one, which is likely to attack you as you deploy.

Even if you end up defending against an attack to the fort (which is unlikely, since tha AI always wastes a turn when besieging, builds equipment on the second and attacks on the third, if it has enough equipment, and a fort can only withstand 3 turns of siege), even then you are at a disadvantage as opposed to an open field battle, as siege battles are brutal for both sides, little maneuvering is allowed in the bugged alleys of forts and it practically boils down to man-to-man combat, with little flanking. Cavalry is also useless in fort battles.

Just my tuppence.

P.S. just play with time limit, there is really no reason not to; if a battle takes more than the time limit it is more likely that something has gone wrong, like you having basically won and being unable to catch that skirmisher cavalry unit which just won't sit still, or that the AI decides not to attack the walls or sally after all, and similar stuff.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Assaulting a bigger city can last more than 45 min, sadly. Especially if the damn bugger won't die!

[GodEmperorLeto]

Even if you end up defending against an attack to the fort (which is unlikely, since tha AI always wastes a turn when besieging, builds equipment on the second and attacks on the third, if it has enough equipment, and a fort can only withstand 3 turns of siege), even then you are at a disadvantage as opposed to an open field battle, as siege battles are brutal for both sides, little maneuvering is allowed in the bugged alleys of forts and it practically boils down to man-to-man combat, with little flanking. Cavalry is also useless in fort battles.

Forts are good to winter in, though, it seems. I've found that my generals are less likely to get sick in a fort during the winter.

It would be awesome if you could build permanent forts of stone, though. Which the Romans did do on their borders. Stone forts with long siege-times would make building forts more advantageous.

The great thing is they'd become strategic locations that could be captured by an enemy, adding an interesting little layer of strategy.

[Tiberius Nero]

I am not saying they don't have their uses, but their uses don't include garrisoning them with anything else than a couple of janitors. Another use as you said is to send a FM to winter there, if no attack on the fort is immanent.

[Hax]

I avoid sieges whenever I can. Yes, I siege the city, but I wait for a sally. Realistic, historically accurate, and that stuff.

Furthermore, I hate, I DESPISE those bleeding towers, that shoot AP ballistas every 1/2 second. So, I wait for them to sally. Should the 45 minutes be over, I have the town anyways (seeing as the AI only sallies on the last turn)

[Horst Nordfink]

Edit: I seem to also remember Julius Caesar's legions encountering similar enemy camps, in which they would have to carry faggots to fill in the trenches and assault the palisades. So this type of fortification isn't limited to the Romans or "civilized" factions.

Can you explain what the word "faggot" means? I have no idea what you are trying to get across with this word!

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

That kinda confuses me...the word faggot...back in roman times..oh god let me not go there

Anyways yeah, what you mean they took faggots? Was that some kind of special...man...that did the job or just another name for slaves?

[Tiberius Nero]

faggot or (N Amer) fagot: noun 1 cookery a ball or roll of chopped pork and liver mixed with breadcrumbs and herbs, and eaten fried or baked. 2 a bundle of sticks, twigs, etc, used for fuel, fascines, etc. faggoting or (N Amer) fagoting a kind of embroidery in which some of the cross threads are drawn together in the middle.
ETYMOLOGY: 19c in sense 1; 16c in sense 3; 13c in sense 2: from French fagot bundle of sticks.

Online Dictionary is your friend, for god's sake.

[Dubius Cato]

I really can't believe what I'm reading here. :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

I wonder how much comparable misunderstanding the expression "gay Paris" creates in the same circles... :beam:

[General Appo]

Yeah, gay Paris really made me wonder the first time I heard it.
Anyway, as for permanent forts, you can basically do that just by holding a fort for a long time, and if you lose it and the enemy abandons it, you can always rebuild a fort at the same spot later and pretend it&#180;s the same.
Several of the forts along the Rhine in my Romani campaign have been there for over 30 years, that&#180;s got to count as pretty permanent.

[Chris1959]

In parts of Britain a faggot is a savoury meatball made from offal, and contrary to the description is very tasty!
Otherwise in the context above a bundle of sticks or a fascine.

[sgsandor]

Historically, I thought that the romans built a fort every night when in enemy territory. I suppose the EB equivalent would be building every turn...

I seem to remember something about a lazy general on campaign thinking that he could do without, as it was getting dark, he was tired etc etc. Anyway, the army was attacked and suffered large losses, and the general had strips torn off him when he got back to Rome.

I'll see if I can find where I read that...


I think that was during the spartacus revolt? And the general was the garrison commander of rome... Or atleast that was i remember or maybe imagined it which could very well be...:beam:

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

aint a fag a cigarrette or a cigar in england too?

[Tiberius Nero]

aint a fag a cigarrette or a cigar in england too?

A cigarette. Sometimes I 've heard it refering to cigarette butts, smoked cigarettes, but I am no native speaker, so nuances of slang might occasionally escape me.

[johnhughthom]

I believe a cigarette butt is actually a "fag end"

[Morte66]

2. Forts, how YOU use them in your campaigns

I mostly use them as spoilers, to buy time, like a lot of people on this thread.

I do sometimes use them as serious defensive positions on a choke point that I mean to hold against sieges. The AI will usually assault a fort in the end. An army that's heavy on levy pikemen will do some serious slaughter at a wall breach, it's the next best thing to a river battle.

When placing forts, I don't put them up against the border if I can help it. They act as temptation for armies that you're not yet at war with. I think it's better to put them as close to home as you can get them whilst still blocking the strategic approach. That also means you can reinforce them quicker.

A fort with a big garrison in the right place is a tool of peace, because the AI is less likely to randomly attack strong opponents. E.g. I've played the Getae with a twelve stack army sat in a fort in that pass north of Serdike. Every turn or two the ~20 stack Macedonian armies would sniff at it and move off. A 12 stack army was expensive, but cheaper than a war with Macedon. OTOH my little "tripwire" fort with 18 men east of Patavium got attacked by the first Roman army that came within sight. This deterrence strategy works especially well if you're also giving occasional gifts through diplomats.

[stupac]

That kinda confuses me...the word faggot...back in roman times..oh god let me not go there

Anyways yeah, what you mean they took faggots? Was that some kind of special...man...that did the job or just another name for slaves?

lol. Well, I don't know how I let that slip in there. Yes, I was referring to a bundle of sticks or brush. I remember it from when I was reading the Conquest of Gaul which the translation I had must have been written by a bunch of stuffy Oxford alumni, and they frequently used such terms. No, I understand that it can refer to a cigerrate as well in some places, as well as "other" things here on the west coast of the United States. I'm sort of glad I did put it in though, it certainly led to some golden discussion.