Forts

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The trouble with forts is that they are always besieged when attacked. Which means the garrison is immediately trapped. And it can be costly to sortie out of the gate under enemy missile fire.

Whereas an army in the open has the option to retreat, and join up with reinforcements, or if it fights, can deploy as normal before the battle.

So with forts, you either have to have very strong garrisons that can fight off almost any attack, or the garrison has to be regarded as expendable and must stand and die to buy time for another army to be formed.

With this in mind, sometimes I find forts useful, sometimes not. Usually not useful at all in the early game when money is tight, since I don't regard any unit as expendable at that stage.

[Dubius Cato]

As an idea, what about stationing archers in forts? It is possible to destroy the rams with missile fire. A larger attacking army builds more rams and you need more archers.

Archers are generally cheap. They might be the perfect way to defend forts. I am not sure at the moment what happens when all enemy siege equipment is destroyed. I remember instances where the AI simply left the battlefield, but also situations where they just sat there forever. What happens when you leave the battle via ESC and they have no rams left? In EB I play without the battle time limit.

[zooeyglass]

As an idea, what about stationing archers in forts? It is possible to destroy the rams with missile fire. A larger attacking army builds more rams and you need more archers.

Archers are generally cheap. They might be the perfect way to defend forts. I am not sure at the moment what happens when all enemy siege equipment is destroyed. I remember instances where the AI simply left the battlefield, but also situations where they just sat there forever. What happens when you leave the battle via ESC and they have no rams left? In EB I play without the battle time limit.

the no time limit thing is thus the problem - i wondered about quitting the battle mid fight - esp if you have taken less casualties etc....

but yeah, with a time limit it means you can defend, as the attacking army is forced to withdraw/fails to breach the walls. which is grand!

[Tiberius Nero]

The only use of forts in RTW is to guard narrow mountain passes, with just one cheap unit as garrison (if it is a depleted unit of 2 soldiers you wont bother to retrain, its ideal). When the fort gets besieged, move a real army to attack the besiegers. Having a large force of your own caught in a siege inside a fort is more of a trouble for you than the attacker, because the only thing to do is sally and you will have to organize your army just in front of an already organized one, which is likely to attack you as you deploy.

Even if you end up defending against an attack to the fort (which is unlikely, since tha AI always wastes a turn when besieging, builds equipment on the second and attacks on the third, if it has enough equipment, and a fort can only withstand 3 turns of siege), even then you are at a disadvantage as opposed to an open field battle, as siege battles are brutal for both sides, little maneuvering is allowed in the bugged alleys of forts and it practically boils down to man-to-man combat, with little flanking. Cavalry is also useless in fort battles.

Just my tuppence.

P.S. just play with time limit, there is really no reason not to; if a battle takes more than the time limit it is more likely that something has gone wrong, like you having basically won and being unable to catch that skirmisher cavalry unit which just won't sit still, or that the AI decides not to attack the walls or sally after all, and similar stuff.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Assaulting a bigger city can last more than 45 min, sadly. Especially if the damn bugger won't die!

[GodEmperorLeto]

Even if you end up defending against an attack to the fort (which is unlikely, since tha AI always wastes a turn when besieging, builds equipment on the second and attacks on the third, if it has enough equipment, and a fort can only withstand 3 turns of siege), even then you are at a disadvantage as opposed to an open field battle, as siege battles are brutal for both sides, little maneuvering is allowed in the bugged alleys of forts and it practically boils down to man-to-man combat, with little flanking. Cavalry is also useless in fort battles.

Forts are good to winter in, though, it seems. I've found that my generals are less likely to get sick in a fort during the winter.

It would be awesome if you could build permanent forts of stone, though. Which the Romans did do on their borders. Stone forts with long siege-times would make building forts more advantageous.

The great thing is they'd become strategic locations that could be captured by an enemy, adding an interesting little layer of strategy.

[Tiberius Nero]

I am not saying they don't have their uses, but their uses don't include garrisoning them with anything else than a couple of janitors. Another use as you said is to send a FM to winter there, if no attack on the fort is immanent.

[Hax]

I avoid sieges whenever I can. Yes, I siege the city, but I wait for a sally. Realistic, historically accurate, and that stuff.

Furthermore, I hate, I DESPISE those bleeding towers, that shoot AP ballistas every 1/2 second. So, I wait for them to sally. Should the 45 minutes be over, I have the town anyways (seeing as the AI only sallies on the last turn)