star forts: why is wall defense so inefficient?

[Slaists]

In the current state of the game, as far as fort wall defense is considered, the following holds:

1. the wooden fort is the BEST for wall defense; cannons are deadly so is rifle fire from the walls.

2. the gun fort is the second best, but worse than the wood fort; player units seem to start to fire when the enemy is at much closer range than in the case of the wood fort; accuracy is worse.

3. the star fort is the WORST for wall defense; player's units fire cannons only at point blank range with almost zero efficiency; rifle fire from the high walls almost always misses the enemy.

So, this progression leads me to suspect, the walls as coded into the game now are too high for the current rifle range, which is pretty short...

The vertical distance of the units from the top of those huge skyscraper walls almost matches the usual 'aiming distance' on flat ground.

:stupido3:

[Vlad Tzepes]

Add to that the horrible pathfinding for units on walls and you'll end up fighting inside the fort, where the AI comes in a bizzare queue after scaling the walls. I would consider it an exploit if it weren't for the pathfinding mess that forbids you to fight on the walls.

[Khorak]

The main problem I find is the absolutely mind boggling lack of any formation control or positioning. Attempts will almost always produce a random, fat lump with a single file line sprouting out of it all the way to Beijing, that will 'automatically' man the walls when the enemy has smashed someone in the unit in the face with a grapnel and run around like headless chickens 'automatically' to retaliate to wall incursions.

I can suspend disbelief in the idea that they didn't expect many of the bugs we all found when the game was released, but nothing screams that the game simply was not finished more effectively, than the state in which they left siege defense. It quite clearly does not work in any fashion one could consider releaseable.

[IRONxMortlock]

Yep big problems with forts. I had a battle against the English last night where I manned the walls with my line infantry and used hidden light infantry to harass their units outside while they attempted to climb the walls. Everything was working wonderfully untill I suddenly noticed that there were Brit troops inside the fort! OMG, how did they get in? It seems some moron forgot to close the gates. Yep, the forts gates were wide open! It was a scramble from there on so I'm not sure why they opened up but it was possibly from having units possitioned directly above them? In any case, it doesn't = fun.

[TinCow]

I find Star Forts easier to defend than Artillery Forts, but it's not actually due to the walls. I completely agree that defending the walls on Star Forts is pretty ineffective and very disappointing. However, the larger 'parade ground' inside allows for a much larger deployment, and the additional buildings are very useful for defense as well. I end up fighting about 3/4 of my fort battles on the parade ground instead of the walls, so for this reason Star Forts are decent. The fact that defending the parade ground itself is easier than defending the walls does pretty much prove that fort defense has been very poorly implemented.

[antisocialmunky]

The smaller forts are more efficient to defend unless the AI tugs along a ton of mortars and howitzers. I just plop 8 -10 units of line infantry in the middle, deploy anti-horse and anti-bullet fortifications, and let the AI take the walls. The small nature of the fort basically allows my men to cover 2 walls while the other 2 lack LOS due to the buildings.

Honestly, the bigger the fort, the bigger the headache so I like to stick to the smaller ones for simplicity's sake.

[NimitsTexan]

One big problem (among many) is the size of these forts . . . it takes a full stack to man even the small wooden forts; for the start forts, there is no hope of adaquate defense. All the forts really should be smaller.

[Marquis of Roland]

I agree with Nimitz, the size of the fort is by far the main problem. Even if all the pathing and troop formation/positioning was fixed, the star fort is still indefensible with a full stack. I also think that the bigger forts should get significantly larger caliber artillery (would default fixed mortars be too much for a star fort? lol), and maybe add in various hot, burning objects to throw down the wall.

I usually just let the AI take the star fort or my city without a fight and then assault the AI in the fort. As soon as the fight begins I'll run my howitzers within range of the center of the fort, and the AI just starts streaming out of the fort to attack, and as they're coming out my infantry are just tearing them apart with timed volleys and aimed fire.

[seireikhaan]

For defending forts, just stay inside, set up a ring on square, and stack up as many troops in the buildings as you can. A puckle gun or two in the square can make for hilarity as well so long as its not getting bombarded by mortars.

[Didz]

I have to agree forts are a bit of a mess at the moment, and hardly worth botheirng with considering the expense involved. I really hate the grappling hook idea for a start, as it reduces all fort walls to little value other than speed bumps. Seiges were handled much better in MTW2 in my opinion.

[IRONxMortlock]

I have to agree forts are a bit of a mess at the moment, and hardly worth botheirng with considering the expense involved. I really hate the grappling hook idea for a start, as it reduces all fort walls to little value other than speed bumps. Seiges were handled much better in MTW2 in my opinion.

I agree. But should spice it up a bit by leaving the grapples for light inf. and alike and perhaps give grenadiers a sapping capability.

[Mr Frost]

I think the origonal plan was to fit more than one stack in the larger forts {probably 2 for artillery forts and 3 for star} but they somehow F.U.B.A.R.ed the R.T.W./M.T.W.2 style multi stack army system {thus we only get one stack each side on the field} which would explain having such large star forts .





I also think that range is being measured {nearly allways} by units purely on the horozontal plane rather than by L.O.S. without reguard for elevation difference yet the ballistic effect of shooting from elevated possition is modeled {as in other T.W. games} .

I got this idea after one custom battle defending a star fort {I wanted to see what the S.N.A.F.U. folk were posting about star forts was actually like for myself} and I noticed the ranges on the unit cards were all increased for units on walls . Line infantry had 115 range , I forget what musket skirmishers had , but I do remember rifles were 175 range !
Their shooting from the walls was still very sporadic and inaccurate , but I kept checking {a lot} the unit cards to make sure I wasn't "seeing things" {I'm dyslexic , and sometimes see written things very differently from what they actually are ; repeated rereading after what I can best describe as a mental reset generally fixes this though} as I had read nothing of this sort on the forums .
To make a long story short , the increased range on the unit cards was definitly displayed {I rechecked the cards obsessivly , and yes , kept doing that "mental reset" thing ;p} however I never saw it happen in any other battle {including the one I fired up immediatly after to see if it would . Even using the same faction which was Prussia} .
One thing I did notice however , was when I took one of those units off the wall , the cards still showed the increased range , instead of the "base" range {on flat ground} which one would expect , and I don't think the effect was at all being appilied {ie , though the bullets could easily reach that far , the troops were not even trying to shoot at any greater range than usual} as rifles have 125 range standard , but were being listed as 175 and that much increase in range should have been pretty obvious yet definitly did not seem to be happening .
Remember , the range listed is merely the maximum range at with troops will actually shoot , not the
maximum range of the weapon .
Again , this hasn't happened to me before or since in any battle .

I believe the troops when aiming are not taking the full ballistic effects of being significantly elevated into account {if your're higher and shooting at a downward angle , your bullet will retain more energy than were you to fire it at a horozontal angle at a target on the same level as you thus you must aim with less vertical lead on your target} and that the unit is also only aiming at one specific plane in the front of the target formation .

What it seems to do is this : draw a line from the center of the shooting formation to the center of the nearest side of the target formation , now draw at the point this line contacts the enemy formation a line exactly perpendicular to the first line drawn . Then it seems to define the target further by drawing a line between the outermost shooters{whom are in both range and arc of fire in relation to the target} and the enemy troops outermost infront of that perpendicular line on either side and then direct all available fire from that unit {this is why sometimes only part of a line infantry unit will fire reguardless of firing drill and time available} evenly along that perpendicular line within the outermost lines .
When firing from artillery and starfort walls , they either miss completely units facing them {they aim for the front ranks , but overcompensate for range and over shoot all three ranks {I also think either bullet velocity is lower than the real life weapons and/or gravity effects and or loss of velocity over range is exagerated ; probably to compensate for such small battlefields and the effects of stray shots which otherwise might reach the edge of the map from the centre or even further} except for "missaimed" shots that hit by pure accident and on units side on to the fire hit one specific rank but given they are aiming downwards , do not continue on to the next rank if missed but rather simply plow into the ground . Units with less rigid fire protocols do seem to get more kills shooting from walls including the usually useless Firelock Armed Citizens .

Basically , I think the method of aiming from walls needs firstly to allow for the increased range of being elevated {when shooting at a downward angle , your bullets will retain their energy -and thus deviate from centre of aim less which is the real limiter of musket range- for a greater distance than were you to be aiming horozontally because Mr Gravity is helping you . This is especially true of heavy bullets such as these weapons used} and fix the calculation used to define how much vertical lead each shooter uses on their target . Then change how the units shoot in this situation {simply tie it into being deployed on a wall ... it would still work deployed behind a farm wall} from the usual system {on a normal battlefield} to simply drawing a box around the bulk target formation within range and assigning each shooter in range with line of sight a somewhat random point of aim within that box biased for where they are in relation to the rest of the unit .

The reason fire from wooden forts seems more efficient than from larger forts seems to me to be simply because the walls are shorter . The taller walls of the larger forts mean the problems the current system has with shooting from elevated possitions become far more of an issue ; if you doubled the height of the walls of a star fort , you would certainly see even less efficient shooting from the defenders .

If what I posted doesn't make sense , make your self a nice drink and read it again because I'm very certain I didn't phrase it all nearly as well as I wanted :dizzy2: {I'm still not sure how to properly explain what I susspect is the problem} .

[al Roumi]

If what I posted doesn't make sense , make your self a nice drink and read it again because I'm very certain I didn't phrase it all nearly as well as I wanted :dizzy2: {I'm still not sure how to properly explain what I susspect is the problem} .

I tried the drrrrrink thnggg but it's not workking.

Diagrams. They would help -if you can be arsed.

[Didz]

Actually the problems with the star forts begins with the model of the fort itself.

The whole principle of the star fort (and I suspect the artillery fort) was NOT that it had walls, but that it had ditches and glacis. The objective was not to create a wall but to create an obsticle and to make it as hard as possible for attackers to reach the fort or to hit it with their own guns.

To this end the profile of the defences were kept as low as possible, so that defending guns could fire on a relatively flat trajectory right across the glacis and sweep it effectively with cannister at close range.

https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9990/starfort.jpg
[Profile of a star fort, if one imagines trying to take this with an ETW army you realise you would need a bit more than a few grappling hooks.]

The glacis itself would be almost as high as the gun positions so that enemy artillery could not hit the face of the wall and so that incoming shot would merely bounce off the glacis straight over the defenders. Finally, between the glacis and the wall would be at least one deep ditch, covered by guns in special emplacements that could sweep it with cannister and musketry.

None of this is modelled in ETW, which means that the forts don't actually work properly.

BTW: My apologies for the poor quality of the diagram. I was forced to scan it from one of my books as I could not find a single on-line reference with a diagram explaining the principles of Vaubin's fortifications. It seems that like CA, the online community is fixated on the 'Star' part of the name and chooses to ignore the fact that it was also a fort. Also starforts are always photographed from the air simply because viewed at ground level there is practically nothing to see, so its difficult to get a picture to demonstrate the principle that made them so hard to take.

[Mr Frost]

I tried the drrrrrink thnggg but it's not workking.

Diagrams. They would help -if you can be arsed.

I'll need a good nights' sleep :Zzzz:

I'll try to remember tomorrow and see if I can cobble together some sort of diagrams to illustrate .
If it doesn't appear though , it won't be deliberate : the warranty on my memory ran out years ago :yes:

[Sheogorath]

Forts should also come with a basic garrison crew that mans the guns. While I'm delighted that CA put guns on the walls, having your line infantry man them is pretty silly.

To paraphrase the ever-relevant Mr. Pratchett, "There is one way to load a cannon correctly, and about a hundred ways to do it explosively wrong."

Somehow, I don't think line infantry of the 18th century were overly adept at practical artillery usage. By my knowledge, even garrison artillery crews were regarded as semi-elite and had to be fairly intelligent fellows in order to A) Avoid blowing themselves up and B) Actually hit something.

Although this might explain why (for me, anyway) fort cannons are so spectacularly incapable of hitting anything.

[Didz]

Forts should also come with a basic garrison crew that mans the guns.
That would be very sensible. The cost of every fort should include a basic garrison detachment. Even if CA stuck with the rule that the walls had to have another unit near them to operate as they did in MTW2.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, if free militia unit actually scaled with infrastructure, we could have that modded in but as it stands. I'm not sure. Its a decent representation nonetheless.