Moronic Fort Placement

[ptolemyauletes]

I have been playing this game for many years, and one thing has always bothered me. Who designs where the forts are placed? What drooling idiot determined their locations? Not on the strategic map, but on the battlefield level. I mean, I am no general, but why are the forts inevitably placed in a valley surrounded by steep hills? Even I could take a look at the lay of the land and choose better than the positioning of the forts in this game. Forts are at a huge disadvantage in this game. I have a besieged army right now that I simply cannot extricate from their doom. They are in a great position on the strategic map, cuting off the access across a mountain range, but in the battlefield there they sit in a valley, with an enemy army ahead of them on a hill, and another to the left flank. No matter what strategy I use, I lose massive casualties before I even get close to them. What general would choose this site to make a fort? Why not place it on the hill, giving strategic command of the area? It makes no sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gollum]

Welcome to the org ptolemyauletes, enjoy your stay
:bow:

Often enough its hard to tell the topography of the battle map from the strategic map, especially the slope locations, unless one has faught many times before there, so i feel your pain.

I personally abstein from using forts for more than a turn, as the player can exploit the feature and be virtually untouched from AI attacks especially in areas that have few access routes, like Anatolia, Armenia, Media.

In that way i am more on an equal footing with the AI.

:bow:

[Weebeast]

It's just how the map generator works. Nine tiles of campaign map means one battle map. If couple of those campaign tiles are near mountain then you get a fort in a valley. There's a work around. All you gotta do is make the campaign map less "realistic" as in not trying to make it look like real 20th century topographic world map.

[gollum]

You mean this work around involves modding right?

[ReluctantSamurai]

It's my understanding that the tactical maps are hard-coded for each point on the strategic map?!? If this is so, it's too bad a feature wasn't included for viewing the battle map prior to engagement (perhaps some control button in the lower-left world map that changes it to the tactical map you are currently standing on).

It's often frustrating to choose what appears to be a commanding position on the campaign map only to find yourself in terrain that puts you at great disadvantage......

The only time I ever allow myself a reload is to find the map that lets me have at least a semblance of the battlefield I'm looking for......

[ptolemyauletes]

Exactly!!

[ReluctantSamurai]

ptolemyauletes...just do what I do....save & reload. I don't expect to be looking down on my opponent from towering heights every time. If I'm screwed on the campaign map, so be it...I'll have to fight my way out. I just look for a balance in the terrain I'm required to fight in....and not always at the south end of a northbound kangaroo..........

[Guyus Germanicus]

I'm a little late to this thread. I have to agree there is a definite disconnect between the campaign map and the actual combat landscape. It can be frustrating as army positioning can mean the difference between victory and defeat. The high ground is important, especially to give your archers and artillery the killing edge over your opponent. Fighting uphill can be suicide, especially against phlalanx units.

Concerning forts, I use them primarily as physical blocks, and not just for blocking out enemies. And, . . . I seldom use them for any faction except when I'm playing the Romans. And in this case, primarily to keep the armies of my fellow Roman allies out of my territory. The AI loves to send your allies into your territory. Then once there, they stand around on bridges or in well-traveled lanes of communication. I remember the first game I ever played several years ago, the Brutii sent a bazillion little 2, 3 and 4 unit armies into my territory (I was playing the Julii) and they just stood around making my own unit movements next to impossible. Otherwise, I haven't found them much use for any strategic reason.

When playing the Julii now, I have made it pretty much a standard procedure to build four forts between my main cities Arretium and Ariminum, and Rome/Brutii territory. The Senate doesn't typically float into my territory for strolls. But the Brutii and Scipii will. And as the Civil War time comes closer, I prefer to fight the Roman factions on their territory or around Rome, rather than having to fight a dozen combats all around northern Italy.

The AI uses them for blocking, primarily, or to force you to have to take the fort by assault before you can move on your real objective which may be a city, etc.

[King Flambard I]

I have to say that I have never come accross this problem with forts. To use Rome as an example I usually take upto the Alps then block the passes with a fort or two. Mountains on either side, valley floor behind and infront. I can only presume that sometimes this is the case when you use up your movement points in hostile lands then just throw down a fort to keep you alive through the night.