Forts good defensive idea?

[crpcarrot]

hi all

i am just wndering how affective forts arein a battle.

i'm thinking of blocking off some passes with forts but i've never used forts at all so far so dont really know how they operate. ive read that the fort turns up in the middle of the battlefield and u get a flat map. this doesnt sound very defendable specially if the AI brings along artillery.

what sort of situations do forts come in handy in?

[_Tristan_]

I mainly use forts to delay enemy advance into territories where i cannot field full-time armies...

I generally place them at mountain passes, bridges, fords, anywhere an enemy army is forced to pass to enter my lands...

What I usually do is leave a depleted unit in the fort to maintain it...Generally, the Ai will attack the fort which can resist for a few turns (1 or 2 IIRC) and gives me time to bring reinforcements to the rescue of the garrisoned troops. Most of the times the simple approach of numerous units will send the AI back without a single fight...

Another use of the fort (which I don't recommend... It feels like cheating) is called the fiort exploit that is building a fort on a resource (preferably gold, ivory or amber depending on what faction you are playing) and fill it with merchants, the profit gained will then be multiplied by the number of merchants...

As to forts,in battle, they are IMO a danger to your troops and the solution (if possible) is to lead the attack with a reinforcement thus avoiding the fort battlefield...

[Shahed]

It can be useful as it usually has 2 exits, so you leave a couple of units inside and walk the rest out the back. You can then flank etc. The larger your fort garrison the more probable it is you will have to attack because missile/artillery fire in that confined space will damage you badly. They are useful to block wandering AI armies. Place forts, for example, near Metz, Dijon towards Bern, on the road from Marseille to Genoa, 4 forts along the Pyrenees, on the bridge north of Antwerp, and one more southeast of that and you pretty much close off wandering armies into France.

They are useful to block chokepoints, mountain passes, bridges, river crossings. They also give you 1 turn (minimum assault time without spy) advance warning of an attack on your nation.

Of course you can use them as forward outposts, like this. I'm copy pasting here, please have a look at this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=75540). <-Link.

--------------------------
https://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m78/ShahedK/fort1.jpg

In this image reserve forts replenish the forward forts. No army can come through there into Turkey. One of the forts also serves as an Intelligence HQ (emissaries, spies, asssassins), and a trading post (merchants).

Constantinople, which has been the front line for fighting off Crusades for about 60 years, has 4-5 forts surrounding it.

The Northwestern fort serves as a base for an Infantry army (the Sword of Hussein), which can deploy along the road, south towards Thessalonica, or north towards Sofia. This is mainly an army in training, but serves as the province garrison.

The fort also serves as a trading post, a diplomatic mission and as a secret service HQ.

The Southwestern fort is base to an all cavalry army (The Sword of Suleyman). This army is used for intercepting Crusades and other hostile forces as they are spotted by spies in neighbouring regions. This army is deployed beyond the empire's frontiers from this base, to hunt down hostiles. This army has successfully campaigned as far afield as Bern.

There are two "feeder" bases housing reserve troops for both armies. These reserves are deployed as and when the armies are in the field. The forts are then manned by fresh reserve troops coming from Izmir (Smyrna) and Malazgirt (Caesarea).

The cities have their own militia garrisons.

The same can also be done in hostile territory but since merchants (apparently) make more florins on their own territory, it may be best to do it on you own territory. You can also negotiate military access with an ally and establish this sort of HQ in their territory.

Of course as a superpower, you can also just walk in and push people around.


Sinan, Great discovery. To me it IS historically accurate. The Venetians, Genoese and the Baltic Hansa had fortified trading posts and trading colonies. One of the most famous ones was the Venetian and Genoese fortified trading post Pera (today Galata in Turkish) across Bosporus next to Constantinople.

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

Thanks.

That's an excellent example you gave there. Bravo !
Anyway in game it's a lot of fun to do.
--------------------------------------------------------

Forts can also be placed in between settlements so your captains can stop in them on journeys. This helps prevent desertion and ambush.

[Magraev]

By placing forts in chokepoints you trouble the AI's pathfinding. You can for instance "catch" (or keep out) a lot of agents in north italy by making forts in all the alp passes. They also serve as a "safe" first battle with an agressor, instead of fighting for your nearby cities unprepared.

A fort in a chokepoint is hard to reinforce though, so don't place any unit you care about in them. a depleted town militia or peasant is a good bet.

Remember not to build watchtowers near the good chokepoints, that will make it impossible to build forts (found that out the hard way).

[crpcarrot]

dont forts disappear when unmanned?

isnt it expensive having so many huge armies in forts though?

[Shahed]

I've updated my first post.


dont forts disappear when unmanned?
isnt it expensive having so many huge armies in forts though?

No. They don't as long as there is something in them.

No it isn't. In the image I posted, the main armies don't actually STAY in the fort at all time. I'm at war with all Europe those forts are operating bases. From there the armies campaign far into Europe. In any case those are only 2 full stacks. In fact it's cheaper to have fewer stacks and for the Turks that is the best choke point.

I'm not suggesting you do this everywhere. I did this because it made sense to do this in that game at that spot. I do this, sometimes, when I feel it's appropriate.

Since you ask about income, here's the status at that time. Look at the merchant trade, 719 FL, hardly an exploit. Also if you want to cheat there is a list of cheat codes, for example, just type this in console "add_money 40000", this will give you 40K FLs, so you don't have to bother going through all this.

Financial Overview.
https://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m78/ShahedK/MTW2%20General/overview2.jpg


Hope this helps.

[crpcarrot]

yeah it does help

my main worry was about putting my invading armies in forts between turns cos i am afraid they will lose any terrain advantage. plus i want to create some choke points as well.

what i willdo is have some lightly guarded forts within a turns march of reinforcements. and re invading armies i guess it will depend on the terrain weather i use a fort or not.

[Shahed]

if you place them correctly you won't lose terrain advantage. Zoom on the camp map and place them so the high ground is to their back, try to place them so forests are behind them as well. This gives you cover and allows you greater line of sight.

Naturally if the enemy comes from the direction of the high ground, they will then have terrain advantage.

They are not at all like cities, more like a bunch of tents with a wooden palisade. They are easy to break down, but like I said earlier you can use them so that you attract your enemy to them and just sally out from the rear, surround them while they focus on the fort. Specially if you have cavalry it's very effective.

IMO forts are not useful enough, it will be better in the expansion.

The other option you mentioned is exactly like in my screenshot, except vice versa, my main armies are foward deployed (to attack the enemy as they approach, spotted by spies) and the reserves are deployed to the rear.

[Ciaran]

There´s another thing about forts, armies in them don´t go rebel. So if you have to move a lot of tropps headed by captains or characters with questionable loyalty, you can establish a line of forts along your marching route, moving your units from one save haven to the next. To keep the forts on the map simply place some depleted unit in them.

[Magraev]

Forts as bases for general-less armies is an excellent idea. In RTW the presence of forts also cut down on the number of rebels popping up, so that would be an added bonus.

I don't know if that is also the case in MTW2?

[Shahed]

I should also point out, don't use forts against the Mongols as an offensive tactic.

You can use them against the Mongols to hem them into an area before you are at war with them. For example, the valley/pass north of Mosul which leads to Yerevan, is a perfect area to hem the Mongols in.

Once you've hemmed them in and declare on them, you need to immediately get out of the forts and attack. If you stay in the fort they will attack you from multiple directions and should this occur you are S C R E W E D.

The chances are extremely high you will lose that stack, because you no longer have a means to break out. They will be all around you. This is the worst possible scenario against the Mongols.

I would also recommend against using forts as an offensive measure in areas where multiple enemy stacks (which have artillery) are operating, for the same reason. Exeptions are when you have gold chevron armies which might have a chance.

[Shahed]

Forts as bases for general-less armies is an excellent idea. In RTW the presence of forts also cut down on the number of rebels popping up, so that would be an added bonus.

I don't know if that is also the case in MTW2?

Just put one spy in it, you gain line of sight plus fort. At least this way it's worth more than the toothpicks that it is made out of.

Don't know the answer to your question, unfortunately.

[Daveybaby]

I seem to recall that the merchant fort exploit has been partly fixed in 1.2, in that multiple merchants in a fort sitting on a resource will split the value of the resource between them, so they will actually be making you less money than if you put them each on a different resource.

I think the exploit that protects your merchants from aquisition is still there though. Bit of a shame really. IMO forts should cost, say, 100 or 200 per turn in upkeep once theyre built, which goes some way towards balancing out this unfair advantage.

[Shahed]

That's good so now my merchants can share the 719 FL exploit, in that example.
A single merchant can make more than that in 1.10.

I would have liked to see the concept expanded, and the AI use this as well. I've hardly ever seen the AI use a fort.
I mentioned already if someone is using this as an exploit why don't they just change other factors in the simple text files to suit them. Modify the stat file...etc. This is a lot simpler way to cheat.

Besides if anyone needs exploits to win this game, well, then they obviously have a lot more pressing issues to worry about.

[Daveybaby]

I would have liked to see the concept expanded, and the AI use this as well. I've hardly ever seen the AI use a fort.
I mentioned already if someone is using this as an exploit why don't they just change other factors in the simple text files to suit them. Modify the stat file...etc. This is a lot simpler way to cheat.
Fair enough i suppose - i never use them myself, in any capacity, though it is still very tempting to put merchants in there to protect them - i've managed to resist... so far. :sweatdrop:

I agree that it would be good to see the AI use forts more, but if was to start using the merchant protection 'exploit' as well then merchant aquisitions would become almost impossible. Hence i think forts should be limited in some way, either by costing upkeep, or by requiring at least one (full strength) military unit to be in there at all times - strategic agents shouldnt count.

[Shahed]

Fair enough i suppose - i never use them myself, in any capacity, though it is still very tempting to put merchants in there to protect them - i've managed to resist... so far. :sweatdrop:

I agree that it would be good to see the AI use forts more, but if was to start using the merchant protection 'exploit' as well then merchant aquisitions would become almost impossible. Hence i think forts should be limited in some way, either by costing upkeep, or by requiring at least one (full strength) military unit to be in there at all times - strategic agents shouldnt count.

I understand.

I have to say I'm happy that it's not being called the "Sinan exploit" anymore !

I never used it as an exploit. If you click the link provided earlier it has a basis in history (not that it's a justification just a FACT). I used it as something constructive, to make the game more fun for me. I even built it on approximately the same location as the link provided, you can actually go there to the Bosporus and that building is standing right there, today. It used to have soldiers, spies and traders, even naval personel in there.

I play very long games, building everything up, Just look at the Turcomans there, that took forever to get at gold chevrons. They die like flies. Look at the income summary, this is not the game of an exploiter/cheater. Took me forever to get that income up there, Antioch was making 7-8K IIRC, and I did'nt even know at that time what to do to increase my Governor stats.

So I find it annoying that people started exploiting it, because I did'nt disclose it to be exploited. I disclosed it because I thought that it would add to the enjoment of the game for others as it does for me.

I agree they should cost something, but I would like to see them being more useful. Forts should be useful to hold an area, to really dominate it. As they are right now it's useless, the only way I can make them at all worth something IMO is to use the method I have described. Otherwise what's the point, as a defensive structure they have little purpose. They serve to prevent desertion but who cares about desertion when you have 20k profit per turn (screenshot above), 100k in the bank, more than 50000 troops etc etc. In fact desertion is GREAT, you get to farm some exp. Does'nt matter if you lose all your army to deserton you can just retrain it in 5 turns, with ease. The only purpose it serves for me is to limit the absurd wandering armies of 1 HRE Peasant arriving in Novogrod looking for vodka and blini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blintz) ! (<-Link) And of course, merchants should never have protection anywhere on the map, for gameplay reasons. Historically (not justifying) we all know very well how the colonial empires (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Colonisation2.gif) (<-link), were formed. Merchants, traders. spies, priests and soldiers.

I think forts will be better in the xpack. However, I don't know if you will be able to demolish them and move them.

Have you seen the video on IGN ?

[Monsieur Alphonse]

The fort exploit with merchants still works.


Now for something completely different. Only for mean leaders.

Forts used to defend are deathtraps. If you want to have fun place a fort with one unit in it and let the enemy take it. Then attack with your relieve army. Because the AI will stay in its fort the best relieve army consists manly out of trebuchets (or artillery). Surround the fort with your trebs and start with WoMDs (cows). Next attack with fireballs. Because the space inside the fort is limited every shot will cause lots of casualties. Bring some cleaning ladies with you to clean up after wards

Who said that war was an exchange between brave and noble men? He He He :skull:

[Shahed]

It woud be hilarious to see that happen to a Mongol army. :laugh4:

[bggeneral]

In the Kingdoms expantion will be Stone forts. Looks amaizing :-) Watch the Englang movie.

[crpcarrot]

i agree forts should ahve some value other than what they have now. if they can be steam-rolled over why have them. and generals chose good defensible positions when building forts not just a flat area he could find. I think forst in the game depict the Roman fort that was constructed at the end of each days march rather than the medieval idea of a fort.

if the Ai is stupid enough to stick inside it when surrounded by artillery it is a bug that needs to be fixed. but thatnk you for the pointer though.

Edit: hey cool so kingdoms expansion will update from roman forts that i mentioned lol. will the be available to the normal campaign??

i get the feeling this is another feature that couldnt be finished and has been moved to the expansion :D

[Daveybaby]

I never used it as an exploit.
Hey i wasnt pointing any fingers! :grin:


I think forts will be better in the xpack. However, I don't know if you will be able to demolish them and move them.

Have you seen the video on IGN ?
Yeah, the video looks interesting. I just hope that any new features like those forts get carried over to the full campaign as well as the new ones.

[dopp]

The plan for Kingdoms is that forts will become mini-castles that have free upkeep for at least some of the garrisoned troops. Sounds good to me.

EDIT: Another excellent use for forts is as a place to park troops under a captain without any risk of them going rebel.

[Vladimir]

That's good so now my merchants can share the 719 FL exploit, in that example.
A single merchant can make more than that in 1.10.

I would have liked to see the concept expanded, and the AI use this as well. I've hardly ever seen the AI use a fort.
I mentioned already if someone is using this as an exploit why don't they just change other factors in the simple text files to suit them. Modify the stat file...etc. This is a lot simpler way to cheat.

Besides if anyone needs exploits to win this game, well, then they obviously have a lot more pressing issues to worry about.

If you're not cheating you're not trying. If you get caught, you're not trying hard enough. Seriously though, in VH/VH, you're already being cheated against by EVERYONE. Try to maintain merchants in northern Italy. You'll either use forts or a whole lot of assassins.

I'm pretty sure watchtowers are cheaper than spies. I like to place one ahead of my forts for the extra visibility.

I would like to see the option for more than one kind of fort. From a simple fortified field camp to something meant to hold the pass. Forts are really great in more open terrain. I love the reinforcement system in M2. It's now possible to attack a bridge from both sides (as Venice).

[Daveybaby]

Try to maintain merchants in northern Italy. You'll either use forts or a whole lot of assassins.
Managing to monpolise the textiles resources in northern italy very nicely thanks. The key is to build their stats up elsewhere first.


I'm pretty sure watchtowers are cheaper than spies. I like to place one ahead of my forts for the extra visibility.
Yeah watchtowers are great. The first thing i do when ive conquered a territory is build watchtowers along my new borders. You still need spies to see whats going on beyond that though, and to see whats in cities.

[TinCow]

Before people get all excited about the new forts in Kingdoms, my understanding is that they are pre-placed on the campaign map and the player cannot build new ones.

[Shahed]

Yeah. Unfortunately that is the case. Well at least they have some purpose... I hope.

[Vladimir]

Managing to monpolise the textiles resources in northern italy very nicely thanks. The key is to build their stats up elsewhere first.



Sorry, no deal. If you set up shop anywhere near civilization your chances of being bought out are extremely high. If you can spare the navies to float your people out to Timbuktu that’s great, chances are you’ll soon be at war and need every ship defending your coast. Everyone with a ship will be after you and you’ll loose trade agreements.

I’m trying an experiment of cutting loose from everywhere but northern Italy early on to reduce my surface area. Hopefully this will avoid a naval confrontation with the Byzantines and leave me with just Sicily to worry about. Your army defending your five cities (four and a castle) will be sucking up enough cash to ensure you that you don’t have too much left over for merchants. Quick cash via mines may be the best option.

[Shahed]

Actually, that is why I mentioned the 719 FL, because I was not trying to exploit.

[Si GeeNa]

I've only used forts as speed bumps and to prevent intrusion.

When I was playing Milan, I used a number of forts to prevent the HRE from coming down and to generally impede movt by the Venetians, French, Sicilians and the Papal. The units within the forts, IMO, were written off. They were usually staffed by the lowest militia unit avail.

When hostile contact is made, I usually have that extra 2 turns to organise to meet the threat. That 2 turns for 1 militia unit is a profitable exchange.

I do not see the tactical advantage of forts, only the strategic/ operational advantage.

[bggeneral]

Sounds disapointing :(
What is the problem to make it the same as now, but just with stone wall? This was done allready in Rome. My be they expect we to modd it?

[TechStrider]

I use forts and watchtowers quite a bit.

Watchtowers are much cheaper than spies and in the large land areas like the far northeast and the middle east they are very valuable. I have found them to be very useful on some of the coastlines as I can then see farther out to sea as it were and observe the movement of fleets without having to maintain fleets in the open.

I use forts along the long roads that I may want to move reinforcements along to avoid the occasional troop desertion. Again, this is particularly effective in the large land areas where a reinforcing stack of one-two-three units can be moved safely to an area of trouble.

I have learned to place them to provide excellent positioning for specialty troops for several settlements in an area. For example, there is a hill SE of Leon, NE of Toledo, somewhat S of W from Pamploma and a bit N of W from Zaragoza. I leave a depleted unit of something in there all the time and maintain 4 units of mixed cavalry in the fort. I can reach each of those four locations in one turn and this way do not have to maintain cavalry in those settlements. Cost is much lower and the incidence of bandits seems to either go down or is so easy to handle with the mobile SWAT team that it becomes fun rather than a several turn pain do deal with. Another easy geographic example of this tactic is Northern Italy.

I also use the forts to force a neutral faction to play its hand while a least a few squares from a city. I would much rather have them strike a fort with a rather small depleted unit than dramatically reduce my income from a city with a quick attack.

I make powerful use of the forts to handle the Mongols and the Timurids. I am sure there have been posts on this, but I will spend a bit of time on this subject.

The obvious use of the forts at a choke point isn't just to slow down an attacker, it is to make them extend a stack out of a group. We all know the Mongols and the Timurids like to stay bunched up and that as a group they are very difficult to deal with. When they are faced with a fort in a natural choke point that does not allow them to attack with multiple units at the same time you have that one turn to back up the fort with a stack of your choosing - or more than one - and you have not exposed that primary unit to a multiple stack slaughter. There are several places where you can have a primary stack centered on an area with passes. You keep small depleted units in the frontier posts. You keep a strong cavalry force in the primary. When the posse of Mongols clusters up behind the fort, you march up on your side. To attack, ONE of their stacks has to make the move and it is without cover from their buddies. Even when they serially hit the fort, you have the momentary breather to do the VERY important replenishment of missile weapons. If you take on two or more stacks in the open and it is all one big battle, it is very hard to keep from using up all your ammunition.

Done well, you can often have two stacks behind a fort with several real units in it. I have been able to withstand multiple attacks on the same fort in the same turn from the Mongol Horde in this manner. It really breaks up their stacks into more manageable armies. At this point, your forts now serve to restrict their movement options. I tend to follow along just behind their horde and continue to bottle them up ever tighter in the passes or between crossings. You can take on all twelve stacks of the Mongols, for example, in those passes with substantially fewer stacks and total units in this way.

This works extremely well in the passes centered between Edessa, Caesarea, Trebizond, Tblisi and, Yerevan. Play around with individual units and you can find places where you can put more than 1 reinforcing unit behind the proposed fort site and that an attacker can only line up serially. Even if you can only get 1 stack behind it, when it becomes obvious that they are moving down a specific valley, you can fill the fort and have a full stack behind it. If they hit you more than once, which they will, you will maintain an advantage through multiple attacks since they are still hitting you 1:2 or 1:1.5 or 1:1.3.

First time through the game the surprises are great. It becomes harder to keep the freshness if you behave with too much foreshadowing. First repeat of the game I allowed myself to anticipate the Hordes. I did not enjoy that. By operating this way I do not prebuild stacks in anticipation of the Hordes. I admit to briskly taking the frontier areas so that I can build up the settlements and get to the point that their open recruitment slots are going to be sufficient to meet the need and that I have improved the roads and added forts along the obvious reinforcement paths. This way I do not feel I have cheated with a crystal ball as to the arrival of the Hordes. I do this same treatment throughout whatever empire I am helming as you eventually have to to deal with bandits. As I noted before, done this way, the bandit issue is fun and training exercise rather than a big pain. I end up feeling that it is good management rather than using those astrologers or pagan magicians.

Another fun area to cover is the plains to the west of Bulgar. There are several river fords to cover. You can place forts behind those with depleted units and center a fort or two with a good stack. Bulgar can produce some more troops before the Hordes are upon it and Ryanzan and even Moscow and beyond can get troops over to help fairly quickly. Add multiple frontier posts between Sarkel and the larger settlements to the west and the stacks you need will be available just in time. I do find that the Hordes will often dither about more if they are faced with good opposition which gives even more time to bring in the right units.

Practically this means that Generals must be allocated in all of your operation regions to go out and make these forts and that a number of depleted units will need to be kept in their understrength condition to allow you to cheaply occupy the forts. In other words, do NOT -as a reflex- combine after every battle. If I am using a fort for bandit control or reinforcement housing, I will be sure to ALWAYS have a very small unit left behind. Do NOT select all and discover that because you had to chase the bandits down you cannot quite get back to the fort. It will go away if you leave it unoccupied for 1 turn. Quite the pain if you have moved all you Generals on to other areas. It is easier to remember when you are just moving units through.

These details have been noted in different posts but here is the info in one place anyway: You CANNOT make a fort or watchtower within ONE square of another Fort, Watchtower, UNIT, or Settlement. They have to be TWO squares off. I have not had the 'Natural Disaster' problem yet but it is supposed to work like this: a flood or similar affects an area. After it has occurred the area on the map holds a memory and will not allow you to build a fort or WT in that area. Supposedly if a SECOND disaster occurs, it may clear the issue. I HAVE had the issue that I could NOT build for no apparent reason: no adjacent structure and no visible units and no map feature that appeared to prevent me. In those cases, when the next turn came around and I now had movement points to spend I discovered that there was a hidden unit or a hidden spy literally under my feet. I have also had wilderness areas where I could not build WTs. I specifically see that in the wide open desert areas. Obviously there are some areas that you cannot even go, but I am not sure why some areas just seem to be off limits. I do sometimes reload on those issues as I feel that my scouts would likely have been able to advise their general before getting into an area of that nature. So if you are in a questionable area building a string of WTs or forts, you may want to do a quicksave before committing yourself to a build location until you get a feel for where the can or cannot be built.

One side note. You will lose forts to the Hordes sometimes. (I will often back them up with an additional fort two squares down the valley.) I have found that having had a spot of trouble at this point, the entire horde will not necessarily charge through the gap. One stack may occupy the fort for a turn and then head off after the Horde that has turned off a different way. At this point the fort is not occupied but it is still 'theirs'. If you reoccupy the fort, you tweak their noses and they will respond by resieging the fort. It is a great way to make them waste another turn or two while you are bringing in the reinforcements or moving troops in the new direction that they will likely go back to.

A bit of a long post, but I have been reading posts over the last few days on how to handle the Hordes and then this one on forts, so I thought I would bring the two together.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

if you ask me they should have at least made the forts have "wooden walls" (the ones they can stand on) rather than the "palisades", that would make forts defendable,(especially in the early period) at least to an extent.

[Kobal2fr]

I've never used forts that much, because they have one huge drawback : just like a siege battle, the defenders are all killed should they lose.
Plus, I'd rather defend even a small city (which at least has towers) than a mere wooden palissade...

Mostly I use them in mountain passes, manned with a single spy (and a peasant unit if I can spare its upkeep) to deny the AI a way into my lands, as we all know the AI loves to take quick strolls through your territory even when they weren't give the right to do so, not to mention spies...I'm a watchtower junkie though, and any land I own soon looks like a Stalag :)

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

yeah I like forts too, its too bad they arent of any use on the battle map. for the enemy its like shooting fish in a barrel, quite literally