Forts???

Any use of them???

Dont think so...

I always use them to block choke-points. As the Julii for example, you can seal Italian Gaul off from attack through the alps with a couple of well-placed forts. You only need to man them with a unit or two of militia and the AI leaves them alone every time. I have yet to have a fort attacked by the AI.

(I also managed to completely seal off Asia Minor from attack by land from the east with half-a-dozen forts in the valleys - playing as Pontus.)

I use them a lot to block choke points and to protect my armies when they are advancing into enemy territory.

In fact when opposed to superior numbers of enemy armies my generals usually end each day's march by building a new Fort.

Unlike Parmenion I have had forts attacked, in one case by three full enemy armies. They don't provide as much protection from missile fire as cities but they do keep the enemy cavalry off your back and flanks.

What in case of siege, if they decide to starve u to death....then u must attack them from the fort....

Yes, you need to sally forth from a fort when beseiged to avoid starving - much the same as a small city.
But as I said, the AI has never attacked one of my forts so I wouldn't know for sure.

The sally idea works in exactly the same way as it does for cities.

The added advantage is that siege engines can actually fire from inside a fort much easier than from a city as the walls are lower. You just have to be careful not to position them too close to the walls otherwise they help your attackers by creating a breach from the inside.

The way I usually use forts is to create one in the middle of a mass of enemy armies and use it as a base for launching targeted attacks on individual enemy armies that become detached and vulnerable. Provided you don't march too far from the fort you can then withdraw back into it before the enemy can counter attack.

This strategy is working well in Northern Italy where my field army is operating from a fort to attack and destroy isolated Julii armies trying to reinforce their besieging armies further south.

Also in North Africa my invasion army ends each move by building a fort whilst still driving westwards against three full Scipio armies. Every now and then they try and destroy it by attacking the fort and get shot to peaces.

I place forts to allow 1 army to protect a group of settlements within one infantry move of the fort. They also become a resupply base and assembly point for building new armies.

When I´ve got money in the middle game I use them everytime my army runs out of movement points in hostile territory. Much like the real life roman armies. I build a fort everytime and everywhere I stop. And then I abandon them as long as they are not strategically important (not chokepoints, etc.)

As troops on the field do not suffer any attrition, even if you leave them/just forget them on the map for like ages, you need forts only when you want to buy time (by forcing the AI to lay siege) in a chokepoint. It's up to you to decide if you'll spend the 500 Denarii just to build walls around your army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

The sally idea works in exactly the same way as it does for cities.

The added advantage is that siege engines can actually fire from inside a fort much easier than from a city as the walls are lower. You just have to be careful not to position them too close to the walls otherwise they help your attackers by creating a breach from the inside.
.

---

You should do the opposite mate, put the onagers right up against the wall, their shots are always high enough that they go completely over the wall with no risk of breaching it, you get additional range to boot.

You just have to be careful about enemy archers (which I suppose you should anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

You should do the opposite mate, put the onagers right up against the wall, their shots are always high enough that they go completely over the wall with no risk of breaching it, you get additional range to boot.

You just have to be careful about enemy archers (which I suppose you should anyway).

---

Yes, sorry should have made that point.

You either have to place then right up against the wall as you suggest or so far back that the don't hit it by accident. It just that normally I place the archers along the wall so the former is not an option.

Also of course the former doesn't work in cities as the walls are too high.

Better to put the archers way back to nail the bastards that almost inevitably come right on down to the gate 'under the guns' of your catapults.

With my love of catapults I personally love the little game exploit that allows one to launch multiple sallies in one turn, one can wipe out entire armies just with ones onagers:p

I read on these forums that the AI never attacks forts. How wrong that poster was.

I placed a huge stack in a fort led by a really good general. The AI laid seige to it with a massive army too. I waited for reinforcements, but by time they arrived, everyone in the fort has starved to death. I ended up getting crushed by the gauls and lost the game. Bastards!

Never... Schmever... There has been enough instances where forts have indeed been attacked, but it seems to seldom.

If they wernt there, someone would complain.
They are very usefull, and it just seems right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medieval Assassin

If they wernt there, someone would complain.
They are very usefull, and it just seems right.

---

*looks at Medievals sig*

I don't know man, those forts are a bit smaller than they historically would have been, and there should be ramparts along the palisade wall.

This game is completely ruined!








~D

0_o.

Dude, that is one cool sig. Personally, i like the forts. As people say, they are handy for cutting off choke points. And handy for defending the watermelons.

My sig was different before, it said if I hear anyone bad mouthing RTW again, I would show them the true meaning of Medieval... But yeah, I changed it.


I like forts...alot.

In my current game as the Scipii, I'm using a long chain of forts next to bridges to seperate Parthian provinces from my captured Egypt ones (alas, if only forts could be built right beside a bridge for extra defence). Nice to know that it's impossible for a would be attacker to move anything into my lands without attacking/bribing one of my forts. And each fort has a single unit of equites, three principes, three roman archers, and a unit of onagers. Should keep any attacking force pretty busy. Though maybe I should put agents in them too so they can't be bribed? ~;)

And if they attack the fort, they should at least be tied up until I can field a decent army for defence. I'll admit it's a rather expensive way to defend a border, but hey I have the cash. And it's a very Roman thing to do.

Pretty good defense there Khaine. How close can they be, I mean even if they aren't fully up close to the bridges it could be uncrossable without fighting the fort.

I built them right next to the bridge, so you can't get past without fighting the Fort. But still.. I would have liked the fort on the same map as the bridge! I'd imagine a wall and a bridge together would be a pretty suicidal place to assault.

LordKhaine's technique (fort next to bridge) can be actually very nasty... ~;)

You can avoid attacking a bridge by building a fort just before your enemy (who is on the bridge), then sally from it. The battlefield will be a regular fort sally instead of the bridge. ~D

I am not sure whether this counts as cheating or... just using a feature in the game. Subjective as usual ~;)

I was getting fed up of spending a small fraction of my millions of denarii on retraining units all the time, so i went out and started defending all of the greek mainland. Now no one can get in. Ehehehe!!! I'm going to turn it into the maginot line, and have 4 onagers in all of them, so the romans can burn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maltz

LordKhaine's technique (fort next to bridge) can be actually very nasty... ~;)

You can avoid attacking a bridge by building a fort just before your enemy (who is on the bridge), then sally from it. The battlefield will be a regular fort sally instead of the bridge. ~D

I am not sure whether this counts as cheating or... just using a feature in the game. Subjective as usual ~;)

---

I don't know.... that's pretty sneaky. This should be in the evilman's thread for exploits. Imagine never having to fight a bridge battle again!

Yes but it costs you 500 florins to cross a contested bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Yes but it costs you 500 florins to cross a contested bridge.

---

At least you don't have to answer 5 ehm, no THREE questions. :dizzy2:

Funny how I've still not had a fort attacked by the AI.
I just leave a single unit in there, and consider the path blocked.
They have assaulted a city, though, to go off topic again. I sallied some equites, and the hoplites dropped the ram to fight. Afterwards it seemed they couldn't get to the ram again. They stayed in phalanx, and the spears apparently kept them from reaching the ram.
I think the AI is actually brilliant, and adapts to each individual player. That's why I get horrible AI, while others get slightly more intelligent behaviour thrown their way. :help:

Due to my financial situation during 90% of the game, I'll happily toss the 500 in to the change hopper and drive through! ~:)

Hey guys why not spend all the units you are having sit in forts and taking your money attacking the neighboring provinces???

CONQUER!