Use Your Forts Properly!!!!

Reading on Forts and the disgruntled remarks on them in the Guides Forum has led me to remark the following and hopefuuly amen dteh guide to what a fort is used for without saying it isn't worth it:

YOU AIN"T USING THEM RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Okay here is my spiel: A fort is an early warning speed bump! What they serve is meant to be for you the opportunity to muster, march and engage the enemy before they are in your province. You do not want the enemy outside your settlement gates. The Enemy usually will not march by a fort to attack your city they veer toward it, especially nice if it blocks an area from passage. Throwing out a fort between myself and the enemy settlements within the enemy province have caused enemy troops to veer toward them. The fort is not really meant to defeat a large enemy, but merely to delay them. I suppose an Army standing in the same spot would work also, but walls give an advantage in my opinion. Garrison it with 1-2 town guard and some missle. Remember a castle was not meant to do more than put troops behind enemy lines if bypassed or cause the enemy to halt while a counter attack was prepared to the invasion. You could even rebuild Hadrians Wall by building forts next to each other....I presently have six forts manned by 2 town guard and 1 Archer in a loose wall, not next to each other, but basically apart by a forst with or what appears to be one inch or so when I am zoomed in on the map if that helps you see it. They are within the enemy provinces of Aquitania and Lugdibesis is a loose fan pattern. Behind them garrisoned at the town of Narbo Martius is my legion..sort of the fan handle. When the Gauls attack/besiege my forts the legion marches out and usually defeats them, though it has been close and not without losses. This way I keep my north secure and the enemy in their territory while my other three legions subdue Iberia aka Spain. I also have one legion at Mediolanium in the north of Italy securing four forts in those mountain passes. Yes, I am Julii.

In closing, a fort is good to delay or halt enemy movement in their own territory so you can counter attack. Other wise I'd be marching helter skelter attacking warbands enroute to my town or going by and also allows me to somewhat exercise more control in that sector.

Closing Note....Rome had never more than 28 Active Legions with support....Are you good enough to conquer and control RTW with 28 Armies? Try it! And no cheating with big town garrisons. One Town Guard per Settlement Level, with maybe 1-2 Other troop type substituting the town guard so maybe 3 Town Guard, 1 Legionary Cohort and 1 Siege Unit in a Level 5....Then see if a fort with 3-5 units helped you control a region any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ericostermann

You do not want the enemy outside your settlement gates.

---

Actually, you do want this. The AI is horrible at sieges. Absolutely terrible. And if that wasn't bad enough, the game is slanted to make them even worse.

Case in point, The Macedonians were sieging one of my cities. I waited a turn or two before attacking them because I wanted to get some reinforcements into the battle.

I check their stack with a spy (in the city) before I sally. They are listed as having 9 battering rams (which seems impossible, but I guess the computer might have different rules). Anyway, I sally forth. Does the AI have any battering rams? Nope.

This means that the AI absolutely will not try and take your city. Short story from a long battle - I took about 300 losses, killed about 1100. I could have cut down on the casualties a lot but I was getting tired of it, so I rushed them.

Another example: Again, Macedonians are sieging Byzantium. I've got about 350 men inside, they have around 600. I sally. I inflict about 100 casualties, take 10, retreat to city. Sally again. And again. And again. I ended up doing 5 different sallies. Each time I took very few losses and did a lot of damage.

What's the point of these examples? Sallying from a besieged city (or even when the AI army is next to your city but hasn't sieged it yet) is almost always going to give you a much better victory than you'd get in a straight-up fight. Wasting armies in forts to "slow down" the enemy is pointless, you're throwing away lives (and money) that you don't need to lose. Let the enemy attack, counter-attack, and kill them all. As an added bonus, if you chase them from the field, they almost always completely disband, so you don't have to worry about them regrouping.

Bh

if you sally, the seige equipment that gets built on the seige menu is not displayed. it shows up only if the opponent attacks the city (without you sallying).

as to forts: i practically never use more than a town militia unit in any of those (the upkeep cost of having more units in a "deterrent" seems excessive to me). nonetheless, i've used them in deterrent function quite successfully. especially, if narrow mountain passes or river crossings/bridges are involved.

I never use Forts - it gives me this advantage the AI never has. I'm having to handicap myself in these kinds of ways so that I don't always walk all over the enemy; it's disapointing, really.

Maybe, but if I am sieging, and the defender sallies, all my siege equipment is not only displayed on the map, but manned. I've got to scramble to get units to drop the rams/ladders/towers and hustle into some kind of formation.

If I had the money to build forts and to train & upkeep the garrison, I would (1) send a diplomat to bribe out all their smaller units (2) field a better army to kill all of the remaining. ~;)

Maltz you can bribe if you have the cash but you could role play and build forts as ericosterman does, to each hes own i guess

I'm with Colovian. I'd like to use forts but it would make the game (more unfair) unfair and would lose challenge because the AI never does. Maybe if they started using forts properly I would use them also. I hope CA can improve this AI in patches, they did a decent job doing that with MTW, and the release AI in RTW is at least better than the MTW 1.0 AI, so there's hope.

Only used forts once before, when I used a couple of forts to secure a mountain pass. I haven't used any since, but that's probably due to my faction choice. Forts don't make much sense if you're Parthian...

Yet to see a fort battle. I'm assuming they have pretty naff wooden walls and no archer towers?

I use forts fairly regularly in Northern Italy and Spain when playing the Gauls.

They work very well and there is a major positive side benefit. The Romans or Spanish or Carthaginians will not attack until they generate large armies. When they do finally attack, you are facing very large armies that are a bit of a challenge. You end up with less battles but when they occur, they are more challenging and interesting.

I've seen several ai forts, mostly placed strategically smart (like just across from a river crossing).

I've seen some silly ones too (one in the middle of nowhere by an armenian general called Arxes the Mad comes to mind - he stayed there until he died of old age by the way).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magraev

I've seen some silly ones too (one in the middle of nowhere by an armenian general called Arxes the Mad comes to mind - he stayed there until he died of old age by the way).

---

Did he get the name before or after he constructed the fort? ~D

lol well he was living there (under the same name) when I saw it first, so I dunno.

He was in his mid thirties, so potentially he could have lived there for 15 years by that time.

My theory is, that his very madness is what got him exiled. I don't mind telling you, that he had a nasty and somewhat scary look about him too.

Edit: I can just see it:
"Arxes my son, we need this mountainside guarded - It may be in the middle of nowhere, but that is exactly why it's so important"
"Sure daddy-o, but I need my silver hat then"
"Sigh... sure son, take the hat with you"

Quote:

---

I'm with Colovian. I'd like to use forts but it would make the game (more unfair) unfair and would lose challenge because the AI never does. Maybe if they started using forts properly I would use them also. I hope CA can improve this AI in patches, they did a decent job doing that with MTW, and the release AI in RTW is at least better than the MTW 1.0 AI, so there's hope.

---

From what i can see, there is a quirk in the ai which means that they don't use forts until they are a) under attack and b) don't have many towns

I think that the AI is quite expansionist and therefore never bothers with securing it's lands... I have occasionally seen AI forts so there must be a trigger for them in there somewhere, but what it is I can't even guess at...

It could be a difficulty related thing...

Personally I when playing the Romans I will send a large army deep into the enemy territories to attack their Capital and largest settlements, I will build forts at the end of each movement because it sort of fits with the whole Roman theme.... ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

I never use Forts - it gives me this advantage the AI never has. I'm having to handicap myself in these kinds of ways so that I don't always walk all over the enemy; it's disapointing, really.

---

I have seen the AI use forts... So the AI does make them :)

(seleucids, in my first brutii campaign... They built a fort in a mountain pass.. perfect location for defending their capital..)

I obviously need to play on hard..
(is that what it takes for the AI to assault a fort?)
I'm playing Pontus (all factions+trivium mods), and have sealed off lots of passes and river crossings. I usually put a "depleted" merc unit in each fort, and they have never been assaulted. I once sallied from one, though, when the enemy was next to it. At least I know the forts can be visible on the battlefield...
The AI (Macedon, I think) has built a few forts, but I don't think they are very cleverly placed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

Actually, you do want this. The AI is horrible at sieges. Absolutely terrible. And if that wasn't bad enough, the game is slanted to make them even worse.

Bh

---

On my Greek campaign I found the Roman/ Macedonian Ai to be very good at seiges. Was twice seiged and assaulted in Syracuse, the 2nd time the Scipii brough 3x Triarii, 6X Hastatii, 3X velites, 1X principes 1X archers and the General. I had the General, 2X Militia Hoplites, 1X Cavalry Militia, 1x Cretan Archers and 1X Peltasts. They used 2 seige towers, 1 ram and two hastatii on ladders. Long fight but they took the city. Disabled the towers ram but couldnt stop the hastatii on the walls.

The AI sometimes does assualt well ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lismore

The AI sometimes does assualt well ~:cool:

---

I find the same thing that the AI can assault quite well. You can see it do odd things, like the enemy troops are pushing the ram and it almost make it to the gate before the ram is destroyed and then they just stand by the destroyed ram until the tower archers kill them all...

It really comes into focus if you try sallying against the AI, it is really easy to tempt them into range of your archers and wall towers and they just stand there taking casualties until they lose enough to withdraw...

I have once seen the AI move their whole army back away from a wooden palisade after losing almost a whole unit of hoplites to the little wood tower archers, so it is in the realms of possiblity for the AI to act right, but whatever triggers this defensive activity appears a little broken....

I put a fort once on the road to a city and AI had to go through the woods where my army was waiting to ambush heh..thats how i got my first ambush.

Forts can also provide a rally point for retreating armies needing a safe haven in enemy territory . This is very useful if your guys are far from home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lismore

The AI sometimes does assualt well ~:cool:

---

I don't think I ever said they don't assault well. I said that if you sally, they can't assault. As I pointed out in my example, the sieging army had built 9 battering rams. But when I sallied, they had none of them. With no siege equipment, they cannot break into the city. Ergo, as long as I don't lose all my units, they can't win. This gives me the opportunity to sally multiple times, and keep doing it until I win.

Bh

I don't have RTW myself so I'm curious about how the movement is dealt with in the strategy map and that forts can be located precisely with regard to the geography (as opposed to the province system in STW/MTW).

By way of a historical note, I gather that, when on the march through land they didn't fully own, a Roman force would construct an overnight encampment and even go to the trouble of constructing a ditch and earth embankment around it. Odd that they would go to such trouble, given that the whole place would be dismantled the following day as they moved on to their destination. Not that an earth bank would stop people simply walking in but it would be sufficient to baulk horses and blunt the impact of an attempted cavalry charge, say. An army needs to sleep, after all and the defences buy enough time for those not on guard duty to wake up, equip themselves and attack whoever it was trying to catch them napping.

So, to me, the fort is just an extension of this principle, only a permanent structure. Men, equipment and food stores are safe from attack and theft at night, it can't be taken by surprise and the garrison can tackle any roving enemies in the local area at their leisure. If outnumbered, they can sit things out in a siege until backup arrives.

Where the local population is at least partially cooperative, forts attract commerce and settlements often spring up nearby. Cue the need to upgrade the strategic defence into something more substantial, to defend the new town.

I agree with the original poster, that Forts can be very helpful, *IF* used properly, AND, according to one's style of play. I think we are all aware that with the TW games there are at least 2, probably 3, styles of play.

There are the Warmongers, for whom Forts propbably have little value, in terms of the goals of the game. Forts are defensive entities, by nature, and as Warmongering is inherently Offensive, Forts and *Forting* have little purpose.

---

The second Player Type, is more the Strategist/Micro Manager, for this player it is important to *Secure* his Lands, for *Development*. Forts can player an effective part in this, serving as *Trip Wires/Stop Gaps*.

If you're playing in a manner which leaves your Income Stream, on the meager side, for instance you forego Extermination, ignore the Senate and so recieve no significant monetary rewards; then, any *Disturbance* of the Income Stream of your Cities could lead to Castastrophy.

The loss for a single turn of a One city under siege; or, from a Govenor having to take his Garrison forth to deal with an oncoming Invaison, can lead to significant Income drops, sometimes Castastrophic.

Consequnetly, allowing an Invaison force to Approach and/or Besiege one of your Cities, isn't a good idea, even if, as one poster states, there's some *military* advantage to "Salling Forth*.

A Fort can give the enemey Pause, and the Player enough time (given adequate funds and cities capable of training decent troops) to gather up (Train) troops to deal with the oncoming force.

Forts *could* also serve as bases for Expansion, but, unfortuantely, the Map is too tightly packed with civilizations; AND Forts too limited in their capabilities.

It all depends on how you Play The Game.

All that being said, I agree with, Bob the Insane:

Quote:

---

I think that the AI is quite expansionist and therefore never bothers with securing it's lands... I have occasionally seen AI forts so there must be a trigger for them in there somewhere, but what it is I can't even guess at...

---

and

Quote:

---

...when playing the Romans I will send a large army deep into the enemy territories to attack their Capital and largest settlements, I will build forts at the end of each movement because it sort of fits with the whole Roman theme....

---

I also very much agree with, Colovion:

Quote:

---

...it gives me this advantage the AI never has. I'm having to handicap myself in these kinds of ways so that I don't always walk all over the enemy; it's disapointing, really.

---

Sigh, its still early yet, but, as we all become fully acquainted with the game, Forts are destined to be on the "HardCore Rules" hit list. Makes you wonder what's the design philosphy CA is using.


Anyway, I started a new thread on thoughts I have in order to make Forts more relevant check it out (didn't want to hijack this one):

The problem with forts in this game is that there is not much difference between leaving an army out in the open and in a fort at the end of a turn. You can actually guard a strategic position well without building one. So I don't see much reason for player or AI to build a fort unless there is a threat of immediate attack by a bigger force.

One way to make forts more important is to add somekind of fatigue or negative morale factor to an army marching out from settlements. What I mean is if the game can be programmed so that if an army isn't encamped in a fort or stationed in a settlement at the end of the turn it will get a penalty then there will be more incentive to build forts. The penalties can be, for example, increased fatigue if attacked at the end of the turn or less morale or both. Adding this feature to the game will make it more realistic and challenging I think.

"Closing Note....Rome had never more than 28 Active Legions with support....Are you good enough to conquer and control RTW with 28 Armies? Try it!"

I'm confused - what is an army? A full stack? You need less than 28 in that case.

But if an army refers to, say, a hastatiti-triari-principes triplet then that might be difficult.

Plus the 28 legions was the establishment set by Augustus after he assumed permanent power after Actium.

i've got one other use for forts that i've seen work quite a few times. i was playing spain and was trying to set up a scenario for this faction, and to get it just right i kept starting all over again. in each of these attempts i noticed that the julii would come over by boat with an army and start 'exploring' my land. it was sometimes a small force, but usually a fairly large army for that early in the game. i usually would not be attacked and also used this to estrablish diplomatic things like trade rights and so on. but it was annoying to have that roman army marching across my lands or just standing in one spot on my turf.

so, in another re-start i decided to put a fort right where the roman army landed each time and stuck a couple small units there to defend. the julii army showed up as usual, but this time, they stopped at the fort and did not proceed further into my territory and eventually even marched on to other regions. now, what i took all of this to mean was, boundaries in the old world were unclear. i was not buying or selling map information to very many, so the julii had no idea who owned this land they were standing on and so they felt free to explore. with the fort there, there is a clear indication that someone is claiming this dirt. if you proceed further you will be tresspassing, and oddly enough, this seems to be the case every time i erect a fort. i've had the gauls come up to forts in the spanish mountain passes and do the same thing. they come, they stop, and they either siege the fort or go away. so, the forts do seem to deter those wandering armies you get on your lands at times, and for that, they are well worth the cost.

i've now got myself a bit curious as to whether watchtowers might have the same effect, perhaps not as pronounced, but i'll have to watch for this.

K.

Kraellin,

I'm noticing something similar in my present campaign as the Juii. I got tired of having the Gauls roam thru my lands, as well as other factions. I also got tired of being surprised.

So, I built Watch Towers at all the mountain passes leading to my lands. I did this after taking Patavilum (sp?) and the other city begining with "M". So now Moutains surround my terriroty, but there are several passes. I also built a Fort near the Junctions of the two western most passes where the largest armies would come from.

Up until quite recently, well actually, I haven't seen any "roaming" armies from anyone. In recent turns, the Gauls must have smelled some weakness, plus they got a two Ports going, consequently, I believe, they've started to send a couple of invaison forces. One stopped at the Fort and besiege it, actually two of them did.

So right now, I'd say that your Therum has merit.

I'm still trying to figure out precisely what benefit is gained from WTs. I *think* you can see an extended range, though not as far as Spys. Also, I suspecting, that they can extend the Range of Spys and Diplomats. Maybe also Generals?

This game is frustrating!

Note, I'm playing the Total Realism Mod 2.2, plus the Shield change mod (name?), so, not sure how much the change I'm noting is the Mod, and how much is a result of the WTs and Fs.

i find forts quite useful.

i use them to build up armies, i.e. if i have an army that i feel is insufficient, or took heavy losses, i'll plunk them down and build a fort. and bring up reinforcements.

i use them to launch attacks from.

if i'm marching towards a city (with siege equipment ususally) and only make it half or part way there, i always build a fort. this way, my plans of sieging an enemies' city are not put off because of an ambush or counter-attack.


troop station/garrison. especially in places of bad/long terrain where nearby units cannot make it far out from a city in one turn. i'll send all the built units into a fort, to move on to various other positions later on. sort of like a mobile-cp or waystation type deal

I find myself craving for effective defensive structures for securing my borders, unfortunately the forts in RTW just can't fill this role. Their biggest weakness is that they don't really give much protection against large, powerful armies. In fact, against long range elite archers and artillery they probably put you at disadvantage since your troops will be easy pickings while they are all concentrated inside the little fort and take time to sally out. If there was an option to upgrade forts with stone walls then they'd actually become effective chokepoint defenses. As it is, I'll rather just leave an army standing there, then I can at least take advantage of terrain when deploying my units if attacked.

I find forts very useful indeed. Playing Romans in RTR I block the 4 passes through the alps, playing Iberians I block the 3 entries through the Pyrrenees and playing Pontus I block the 3 passes towards the Kaucasus and the Levant and northern Greece has some really good chokepoints. Garrisoning a fort with 3-4 archers and 2-3 very strong defensive troops will keep army unpon army at bay. On the border between Tripolitania and Libya I usually bild a chain of forts which makes this narrow strip of land unpassable. Same goes to the narrow straits of Sinai. My general startegy is to let the enemy lay siege to a fort and let them do so until they assult. This will buy you time and you get the benefits of still being inside your fort when assulted. I´ve actually never lost a defensive fort assult this way. Another positive side effect with this is that you´ll get a lot of "men of the hour" spawned this way.

I have noticed a lot more AI forts after 1.2....

I had a fun time as Scythia with an army that was equipped almost entirely with bows (other than the general and 3 onagers), sieging a Julii fort just north of Rome, and just sitting outside the walls loosing a storm of arrows over the walls at the poor sitting duck garrison.

Forts are pretty much just a disadvantage for the defender. In the early stages of the game when you don't have any stone walls they are very useful (and you can't afford them then!) but when you get stone walls around your cities, they become useless.

Well leaving aside any personal suggestions for improving forts, I find them useful and they add to the strategy of the game.

As Thracia I had only one active army in the field, I was at war with the Brutii and on my way to Salona to take it from them (after already taking Thermon and Apollonia), then the Macedonians declared war on me and laid siege to Apollonia with its small garrison of militia.

So I quickly built a fort on the coast road to block the way south for the approaching Brutii armies and keep them busy whilst my main army did a U turn and headed back down south to engage the Macedonian army that was besieging Thermon.

Dealing with them I was then able to swing back north again and engage the Brutii army attacking my fort.

A good use of interior lines if I do say so myself:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ericostermann

Use Your Forts Properly!!!!

---

What if I don't want to. I like using forts improperly :hide:

I just use my forts as staging posts (Particularly good to stick one on the mouth of a bridge).

Apparently they reduce the number of rebels appearing too

Why is it good to build a fort next to a bridge? Do you still get to play a bridge battle if a hostile army tries to cross? If not then it's definetly not a good idea since bridge battles are by far the easiest types of battles for the defender, especially when you have phalanx units. And if you do get to deploy your units on the bridge map, then what is the point of the fort?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conqueror

Why is it good to build a fort next to a bridge? Do you still get to play a bridge battle if a hostile army tries to cross? If not then it's definetly not a good idea since bridge battles are by far the easiest types of battles for the defender, especially when you have phalanx units. And if you do get to deploy your units on the bridge map, then what is the point of the fort?

---

Bridges are a good choke point.

Planting a fortress in the middle of a wide open plain out in the middle of nowhere isn't going to stop anything, unless your enemy is obliging enough to divert his attack on your cities to take care of a small fort and its piddling garrison.

Stick a fort on a bridge end and an enemy must take the fort before he can cross, you can hold off a full stack of enemy units with just a cheap single militia unit.

Sometimes one can also rush up a relief army and stick it right next to the besieged fortress and the AI army will lift the siege so it can attack the neighbouring army of yours, so you can still get a bridge battle.

Its sure as hell more cost effective than actually stationing an army capable of holding a bridge against a determined opponent on all your river crossings and its a perfectly intelligent usage of a fort. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

...and the AI army will lift the siege so it can attack the neighbouring army of yours, so you can still get a bridge battle.

---

Didn't know about that, sounds pretty good if a bit of a dirty trick. Another case of a dumbass AI then ~:handball: