Just a quick poll question re: forts

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'm just curious, I don't use them often, but I'm wondering do EB fans or members use them much. Would be interested in knowing the results, so why not put a poll up. :2thumbsup:

[Warlord 11]

Nope

[Kralizec]

Lots :yes:

You're not thinking of removing them are you? :help:

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'm just asking. I don't use them much and am curious about whether others do.

[paullus]

Is there something cool you could do if they weren't in? Or are you just asking to distract people from that forum game thread?

I like to use them in passes, or in open, vulnerable areas away from a major settlement, I think of them as military settlements (too bad I can't get taxes from them, but oh well).

[Antagonist]

I use them occasionally if I'm in hostile territory with a small infantry army, or to defend a position, and sometimes if I'm in a role-playing mood I'll put any active field armies in a fort during the Winter turn, but other then that not much.

I still think they should be there though, forts and watchtowers are a good addition to the strategic game even if they aren't perhaps fully fleshed-out as a game mechanic.

Antagonist

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Was lt's revision of the roman forts in the .074 build? He worked on them a good deal - but I don't know if the ones in 074 (roman ones) look like vanilla or were the adaptations he made.

[Conqueror]

Forts don't have much value to me. They tend to be more like deathtraps than useful defenses: You can be besieged while in a fort and sallying out could be much more difficult than actually facing the enemy on the field, especially so since you'd be the attacker instead of the defender. And since a fort will only keep your troops fed for 4 turns there's a good chance that the enemy will just wait it out. If they could be upgraded to have better walls, forts might become a bit more useful. As it stands, I only use them for the purpose of slowing down approaching armies (manning them with cheap, expendable units) to buy time for myself to make preparations.

[Clovis]

I play pontus a lot, and I use them in mountain passes - with a small garrison, they enable me to delay the never ending selucid hordes in order to bring my main army up.

[orwell]

I expand to naturally defendable borders, then line it with forts. I tend to man them with a army that can deal with rebels or the smaller invasions, if by combining the forces of other outposts. Usually a calvary unit, 4 infantry, and some missile troops. Maybe a fifth infantry unit to hold the fort while the rest go to attack.

[soibean]

I rarely ever use them... the only time off hand that I can recall constructing one in a recent game was playing as the romans when a rebel army with 6 Gaesatae (sp?) appeared close to Bononia (I think thats what its called) and I had no army in Northern Italy. I built three forts to block the passes into the peninsula but the rebels ended up marching away as it was.

[Reverend Joe]

All the frickin' time, especially as Rome. I build them everywhere in enemy territory, I use them to block passes, as a delaying method, I even use them in friendly territory as a place to store a legion that I am building (I say legion because this is generally useful only as Rome; but it may be occasionally useful for such faction as the Seleukids when building a very large army.) I also find them to be rather useful if I am besieged in one with a notable army; it works well with my main tactics, which are essentially to force the enemy to attack first, and then to hold, divide, and conquer. I always "sally" as soon as I am besieged, and pour my soldiers out of the sides and, mainly, the rear; this often forces the enemy either into a defensive position, or to divide up his forces. Either way, victory tends to come more easily than in a field battle. Of course, if I am moving and I see an enemy army, I won't build a fort and wait for him to come to me- that would be cheating. I will go after any army I see that I think I can defeat.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

i use them once or twice for when i am at war with some province and then i block off a route to my main cities forcing them to either attack the fort which i could afford to lose or go another route where i've got a few stacks waiting for them :2thumbsup: and Lt's forts did make me start using them more as the romans in SPQR

[Joeokar]

I love them

[Teleklos Archelaou]

That's a perfect distribution so far actually. :grin:

[paullus]

Probably one of the most even distributions ever on any poll on the EB forum...

But I'm still curious as to why you asked. Do tell!

[soibean]

what were Lt's forts?
clearly Im missing out on something

[Simmons]

Not that much really I tend to win field battles and usually have an advantage in numbers if not I will pull back so as not to risk my shiny Kataphraktoi

[Dayve]

I use one to keep in my rebel killing army, which usually consists of Samnite spearmen and swordsmen and leves.

I also use one to build a legion in. I recruit the units from all over Italy and one by one send them to the fort which i see in my fantasy RTW world and a camp where they will train and learn discipline before they are sent out into the field to bring lots of bad news to the enemy, or get surrounded by gestae and never see their homeland again.

Also obviously if my field army gets raped in battle but still wins but with very few men left, i'll put them in a fort if i can't bring them back to the peninsula or send reinforcements straight away. If you're going to fight to the death, easier to do it in a small fort where the enemy can be choked up at the gates that in the field surrounded getting cut down in seconds.

[Keba]

I use them in chokepoints, mainly to slow down an enemy advance until I can prepare my response army. They also serve well when retreating from a raid into enemy territory, preventing pursuit.

Otherwise, I use cities in strategic locations and store armies there, with watchtowers and the occasional fort on the borders.

I mostly use them as the Gauls or the Romans.

[AngryAngelDD]

i use a lot of forts on strategical positions to block enemy/rebel movement.
they are perfect at the alps to cover the italian peninsula.

it´s interesting that there are different forts on the battlemap.
in italy there are the classic vanilla one´s with the rectangular tents. in illyricum for example there are round tents in it.

(spoken only for roman forts.)

[Cheexsta]

I use a fair few, usually:
- Place them on the tiles that brigands usually spawn on and they'll mostly stop appearing.
- I have a fort for every army near the capital. When the army is not in need, they retire to the fort to represent the army being temporarily disbanded before being levied again when required.
- On the frontier, my armies are not permitted to garrison cities unless the city is in danger of being besieged. When not required, they sit in a fort.
- Forts are sometimes used to coax the AI into moving in a particular manner and attacking a specific spot. Particularly useful in organising ambushes.

Why do I do these? Because I can...

[Jolt]

I use them much more often in EB then I have in vanilla. I normally build them when I'm building up an army in the outskirts of the city I want to besiege. If they come to siege it, I normally just bring the units that were to join in the fort to fight them.

[Trithemius]

I use them near my depot settlements since these usually fill up and I find it weird to have units just kinda standing around the place.

I also like to put my police detachments in them when they are not rolling around the countryside chasing aphistamenoi.

If I am advancing into enemy lands as part of a major campaign I will also use forts to "stage up" my garrisons, so my main armies can keep on the offensive - although this sometimes does not work as the towns are too large to garrison easily and I am loathe to exterminate people and give my generals nightmares!

Hm, it seems like I use them a lot, but mostly I try to keep the ones I build rather than adding lots more of them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I use them to block passes, say, can they block trade on roads? I'll have to check into that.

[Kralizec]

I think that any enemy army sitting on a trade road will block traffic, so you don't need forts for that.

I find that they're particulary useful for blocking acces to landbridges, but that's just one of the ways I use them.

[the_handsome_viking]

I like to use forts in war time and well sometimes just for defencive reasons.

It would be cool to have celtic brochs as forts.

[tk-421]

I put them at strategic river crossings near enemy territory every now and again but that's about it. Once I had a half stack army surrounded by two full stack rebel armies of superior quality troops in Wales. I built a fort and made them attack me there instead of in the open field. I still lost, but I killed way more of them than I would have out in the open.

[vizigothe]

I use them if I get caught in the field during the winter. Like in the mountains where trying to get to some far off rebel city takes forever and my general gets sick and then out of nowhere 4 full stacks of rebels.

The I go into a fort and hide while my general decides he doesn't want to be sick and on his deathbed anymore.

Edit: I also used them to block passes to prevent pesky horse arhcer armies from invading me and terrorizing my lands.

[TekcoR]

I maintain a few forts, mostly along my border with the Getai. It is the only way I can assure a peaceful order between civilization and the barbarians!

[Scott]

Forts don't have much value to me. They tend to be more like deathtraps than useful defenses: You can be besieged while in a fort and sallying out could be much more difficult than actually facing the enemy on the field, especially so since you'd be the attacker instead of the defender. And since a fort will only keep your troops fed for 4 turns there's a good chance that the enemy will just wait it out. If they could be upgraded to have better walls, forts might become a bit more useful. As it stands, I only use them for the purpose of slowing down approaching armies (manning them with cheap, expendable units) to buy time for myself to make preparations.
I sometimes use forts so that emeny can't immenditally attack my forces. So that way I can give reinfrocements some time.

[GodEmperorLeto]

I tend to agree that forts can be deathtraps. As a strategy, they are only really useful if they are assaulted, but instead, most enemy forces simply choose to wait you out. As a Roman, I usually put them in mountain passes with an accensi unit as a delaying action, but their cost is somewhat preventative in building them. In addition, once you leave them, they are gone.

What the forts are really like are simply Roman camps. I think you should be able to build the wooden-walled camp-forts, but also upgrade (or build) forts with stone walls that are permanent, like many of the forts we've found in England and Germany. Granted, however, those are later constructions from the imperial period, and weren't around when the game began, but Rome isn't the only civilization that had the capability (and tendency) to construct stone fortresses at strategic points.

I honestly think, if it is possible, there should be an option to build a stone fortress that will last at least two years if besieged (i.e. 8 turns), maybe more. That way, the forts can be starved out, but it'll take a while. Also, stone fortresses can be smaller and easier to defend than cities, but also perhaps easier to overcome with engineering (less walls means every breach is more severe). No streets = no streetfighting, so once the enemy is in the fort, it's going to be harder for the defender to recover.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well, it doesn't look like we'll be doing anything any different with them, so fear not. But there was a very interesting idea that O'Etairos had that would have been attractive if not for the fact that forts would be 'replaced' entirely (i.e., there is only one type that can be built in game).

[edyzmedieval]

Forts are useful when you are a small faction, such as Pontos. Also, if you play as Epeiros, Koinon Hellenon or Makedonia, forts are very useful to guard key positions, such as the mountains, because space in Greek is very restricted.

[Megas Methuselah]

Yeah, I find building forts in the restricted areas of Greece is very helpful.

[Hax]

..Methusaleh, put that Necronomicon on a place where I can see it.

[The_Brittunculi]

I use them to block land bridges and mountain passes mainly. I also sometimes use them to hold out while on the defensive for another turn if reinforcements are far off.

[IrishHitman]

Occasionally.

I find Macedonia lacking when it comes to siege warfare, I prefer open battles a lot more.

[Ibrahim]

long time no see Archelou.

but yeah, forts are frequently used by myself. not all the time, but when able to, or when necessary.

[Sarkiss]

Well, it doesn't look like we'll be doing anything any different with them, so fear not. But there was a very interesting idea that O'Etairos had that would have been attractive if not for the fact that forts would be 'replaced' entirely (i.e., there is only one type that can be built in game).

i use them pretty often, but if there is an interesting idea it could be worth replacing them imo.

[Visitor13]

Not at all - the AI doesn't use them, so they're an unfair advantage.

That said, doing anything that a total moron wouldn't do is an unfair advantage over the AI, so maybe I'm exaggerating :wall:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

:dizzy2: Wow, what a necro. I'm not sure I was even on these forums when this thread was started.

[LordCurlyton]

Where's the zombies?
Klaatu Barata Nic*cough cough*

[Reverend Joe]

All the frickin' time, especially as Rome. I build them everywhere in enemy territory, I use them to block passes, as a delaying method, I even use them in friendly territory as a place to store a legion that I am building (I say legion because this is generally useful only as Rome; but it may be occasionally useful for such faction as the Seleukids when building a very large army.) I also find them to be rather useful if I am besieged in one with a notable army; it works well with my main tactics, which are essentially to force the enemy to attack first, and then to hold, divide, and conquer. I always "sally" as soon as I am besieged, and pour my soldiers out of the sides and, mainly, the rear; this often forces the enemy either into a defensive position, or to divide up his forces. Either way, victory tends to come more easily than in a field battle. Of course, if I am moving and I see an enemy army, I won't build a fort and wait for him to come to me- that would be cheating. I will go after any army I see that I think I can defeat.

Holy shit, it's me from two years ago! Hey, past me!

[QuintusSertorius]

When I get really bored of fighting the same battles over and over again, I sometime drop strategically-placed forts to deter the AI for a while.

[everyone]

oh no if only there was a zombie among the long list of smilies that we can use

I just place them at certain places to make it look good, like I'm trying to defend it. Although I used some forts at the beginning of my hayasdan campaign to block the AS. and it would be interesting if that feature could somehow be modified.

[Tyrfingr]

As I'm currently playing a semi-observing game with Baktria controlling only the Indian provinces (thus forming a Greco-Indian Kingdom), I use forts to keep the pesky Seleukids at bay.

[penguinking]

I generally don't bother using forts.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

I use forts as settlements and town that the game cant represent.

[LordCurlyton]

Braaaaaiiiiiinnnnsssss.............
*munches on two-year old thread instead*

[Megas Methuselah]

Please stay on topic, Curly. The EB Team has a zero-tolerance policy towards spam.

@Olaf Blackeyes: That sounds interesting. But wouldn't that decrease your income level by a considerable amount, as well as occupy units which could be better used for garrison duty in major cities, or serve on the front?

@Marcus: Heh heh, sorry. I forgot I was using the search function at the time. Btw, Reverand Joe is funny.
:strawman3:

[Gatalos de Sauromatae]

Just use at the choke points like river cross or mountion pass.
Put 2-4 good archer units there and kill the attacker at least 5-10 times of them.
:rtwyes:

[Maion Maroneios]

I use them quite frequently, especially when I am underway a military campaign. It's the only way to avoid bad traits, or at least you have a better chance to do so. I also use them to fortify northern Hellas, placing forts manned by small garrisons blocking all mountain passages.

Maion

[a completely inoffensive name]

I only use them to block off rivers and mountain passes.

[Ca Putt]

i have some forts arround syria, with only one noob general inside, not to realy to defend my borders but to uy myself 3 extra turns to react on a Seleukid/Ptolemai attack and to prevent those buggers to seige Antiochia^^. Oh, and sometimes when i ventrue arround with several armies to ensure they are not crippled one after an other.

[gamegeek2]

I use them to mainly guard mountain passes, but watchtowers, despite toggle_fow, are good for stopping random rebels.

[cmacq]

I like to use forts in war time and well sometimes just for defencive reasons.

It would be cool to have celtic brochs as forts.


Actually, found only in Scotland the broch was an adapation of the British Iron Age Roundhouse. The Roundhouse far predates the Britons or anything remotely Celtic in the Britian. They were residential and defended more against the elements than men. Also structurally, more like a keep than a fort. Now a small fenced enclosure, Dunn like, would be the same as an informal fort, and appears to have been used very often in Gaul in the 1st century BC.





CmacQ

[theoldbelgian]

well i must say this is quite a nice pyramid poll:)
I use them to stop armies from besieging the city's and to lure armies

[kekailoa]

They're kind of deathtraps, like someone said earlier. The enemy will just wait you out rather than assault, and sallying out just makes a battle more difficult.

[cmacq]

When placing forts its very important that they’re used as part of a defensive system, wherein the garrisons are composed of well balanced combined-arms teams. Make sure they are positioned to be mutually supporting. Also when you organize your reserves, provide that they are mobile and well positioned to react to a possible point of contact within one turn. That means you position the fort in such a way that you don’t block a potential relieve force from being able to engage the enemy. If you don't use these little guide lines, one could lose several rather large garrisons very quickly, with little recourse.




CmacQ

[Megas Methuselah]

Thanks for the advice on combined arms, cmaq. However, I hold your concern of losing garrisons in scorn. What's the value of a few lazy, conscripted peasants? Not much, I can tell you that, especially if they're foreign auxiliaries. Acceptable loss.

[Cbvani]

I use them alot, especially as the Romans. They are good for defense in enemy territory.

[Chris1959]

Playing as the Romanii I use them a lot, as a trip wire defense at chokepoints and a place to garrison my legions outside settlements and when I get Imperial reforms I will build serious frontier defences with them!

[Hooahguy]

used them a bit ago to box in an enemy army who was in my territory. ill post a pic later on.... :laugh4:

[Reno Melitensis]

It seems that every one playing as the Romans use forts more often than other players do. So do I as the Romans. I built forts in mountain passes, river crossings and at bridge heads, first to control the AI movment around my territory the second to protect conquered territories. Generally I like my forts to be permanent, even if no garrison is present, so I send a spy to occupy the fort.

Cheers.