Star Forts Useless?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I fought my first battle in a star fort last night, defending with a full balanced British army, against a similar French one. So, I deployed my men around the fort, put Grenadiers on the wooden bridges thinking that would be awesome, and kep the cavalry/artillery in the center.

Now, I expected the French would bombard me with their artillery to break the walls, but instead their army rushed towards me. I thought "great, this will be a slaughter, watch out Paris!". However, few of my Line Infantry actually walked up the wooden steps to fire over the walls. When they did, they inflicted minimal casualties. Similarly, only some of the infantry used the fort's mini-cannons, which were useless anyway. I had wondered how the enemy would get into the fort without a breach, it turns out any infantry unit can throw up ropes and climb up wherever it likes, apparently with no combat penalty on the walls as in M2TW. Worst of all, my Grenadiers wouldn't fire from the wooden bridges, and they couldn't even go into the outer forts, so what's the point in them?

The only useful things were the buildings I could garisson in the centre, they routed a lot of enemies, and I won in the end.

But really, forts seem pretty ineffective.

[Hooahguy]

fort battles are one of the things that needs to be fixed, especially the AI.

[Fisherking]

It was your first fort battle. Let us know how the second and third go since you learned a few things about the mechanics of the game.

It could be that the infantry that didn’t man the guns was already in melee before they could get to them…just a thought.

[Bob the Insane]

I have had some luck with small fort battles (defending)...

you place your troops on the section of wall you want them to defend and must make sure they are stopped. If they are doing anything else they will just stand there. But if stationary they will, on their own, move to man the walls and cannons on their section once the enemy gets close.

You are right that you will cause few casualties. On average I find the small cannons and you defenders will kill around 20 men of a 120 man unit by the time they have the grapples on the wall.

You have to be prepared for a significant amount of melee combat on the walls.

You should view a fort as "better than nothing" and not a means for 4 units to hold off a full stack army...


As a further discussion of the issue I would point out that the fairly easy defence of walls in M2TW put the AI at a serious disadvantage in any siege assault. It could be that the sieges have been specifically balanced this way to give the AI a fighting chance (not that it doesn't still act oddly with it's peicemeal attacks).

[Melvish]

I've found out that the smaller the fort is the easier it is to defend it. There to much wall to cover in a star fort and you can't defend all of them even with a full stack. There so many spot where you can't fire from. I prefer normal fort where you can spare a few unit to garrison the inside building for a last stand and still man all the wall decently. I hope they will improve the star fort in future patch because right now they are indeed a waist of income.

[JeromeBaker]

I agree totally that the smaller fort is easier to defend, but I have had good success with the star fort as well. I dont know why a previous poster was unable to get to the outer 'star' portions of the fort as I was able to get my men across the bridge to the outer area. I tend to spread out my lines thin going around the edge. As long as my men are there before the enemy comes and I keep them from moving they will man all cannons that they are near and will get a couple rounds off on the enemy with their initial advance and my men seem to go to the edge like they should and shoot down. Id say the enemy is losing about 25 to 50 percent of their army from me shooting over the wall with guns and cannon and loose the rest routing after they climb the walls. If you set your troops up correct they should be pretty effective in any fort no matter the size.

[JeromeBaker]

I guess I should also mention that I have typically have had a full stack or close to it when I had sucess defending forts and I had very few calv/artillary units. A star fort is easier to defend with 17 to 18 ground units on the walls. When the enemy throws the lines up to climb your wall, meet them head on with one unit ready for hand to hand and have at least one unit to the side shooting down on the people climbing the ropes and the enemy usually routes before half their troops can attempt to climb up. Also the AI tends to pick one point where they throw most of their forces. Use the advantage of the star fort to triangulate fire on this focus point. I will move men to shoot from every angle possible and this usually starts a route.

[Zoring]

The fort wall sections really HAVE to be garrisonable, at the moment, all your men standing sideways on the walls (cause you cant get them to even face the enemy) cause massive issues, making them fairly silly. If you could just garrison and the AI had simple techniques to deal with it (advance in formation, then attack garrsioned/unmaned sections) would be much better.

[Meldarion]

I usually just forget the walls, garrison the buildings then form a square around the flag in the middle. If he has cavalry deploy stakes and viola. I turned back three full stacks with one of my own.

[hoom]

There should be defense cannon that shoot canister shot paralell to the main walls from the corners.
Standing at the base of an enemy star fort should be a good way to cop lots of balls of lead unless the fort has been heavily bombarded to put much of the defensive cannon out of order & reduce the garrison.

Also, I wonder if grappling hooks should be restricted to certain elite types like Grenadiers who historically led assaults.
That might help reduce the need to actively defend the whole wall because there would only be attacks in a few places.

[Liberator]

I have a burning question about forts: How to repair city fortifications?!
My fortification in Bagdad needs some repairs... or is it just possible to uprade them or to destroy them completely and to rebuild them afterwards

I did well defending forts so far, but sieges does not really make fun

- way-finding is a great issue in my game so far: when I want to send a unit from a wall to, say, the centre, it often happens that the unit climbs down the ropes the attackers put on the wall, and so ends up beeing out of the fort and charged by the enemy. Worse, they may continue running to the centre when outside of the fort, and by doing so opening the gate for the enemy.

- the AI often attacks with units who are not able to attack a fort efficiently, meaning a lot of cavalery and pikeman. Also, if the cannons are fixed, it happens that they are out of range so that they can't attack the fort
Battles often ended up in a "draw", meaning that they did not attack me any longer (only cavalery left) and I didn't wanted to counterattack.

[MikeV]

I have a burning question about forts: How to repair city fortifications?!
My fortification in Bagdad needs some repairs... or is it just possible to uprade them or to destroy them completely and to rebuild them afterwards

It's like repairing any city/town structure: on the strat map, selecting the fort will show the damaged "red stripe" next to the building's icon. When you select the '+' widget (assuming your faction has the $$$ for repairs), the icon gets a green overlay.

[IRONxMortlock]

I've found keeping some heavy cav units outside the fort and then charging through enemy units as they attempt to climb the walls really hurts em.

[Polemists]

You should view a fort as "better than nothing" and not a means for 4 units to hold off a full stack army...

He's right, you still can take out more men with a fort then without one but i'm glad to see they are not the be all end all that they were in MTW2.

The biggest problem I see with fort battles is calvary. As the AI calvary dosn't seem to know what to do if you don't have calvary. They just kind of meander around the center and get shot alot.

Forts should be a bit more affective though, I just watched the Old Alamo over the weekend (The one with John Wayne) although slightly different time frame, it is pretty impressive how many they manage to kill. Even if it is a movie.

[Gaiseric]

I agree. Defenders need to be able to shoot more attckers as they climb the walls. Maybee even cut the grapling hooks rope and send attackers falling. Only one unit should be able to climb each set of hooks thrown up and attackers should get blasted with grape if they bunch up near the front of the fort. This will cause the attacker to assult the fort on all sides. Defenders shoot down at attckers climbing the walls, attackers climb grappling hooks and give covering fire to the men climbing. It should even be deadly for the attackers to stand within grape shot distance of the fort. If the attackers make it to and up the walls, they sould be able to fire down inside the fort and across the walls. This would definatly make fort battles more interesting and Alamo like. I hope that a patch or mod can fix it.

[Polemists]

Well this goes back to game mechanics versus reality argument.


I mean in reality your fort has a cannon on almost every flat side of the wall, yet your unit can only seem to man 1 or 2 at a time. In reality you would split up a unit and have one person man each cannon. Especially if they surrounded the fort like they often do.

It does lead to alot of wall fighting and garrison fight which I like, but it just seems, like has been said, that the defender should get in a few more shots.

Of course if the offenders wants to sit back and take cannon shots at you all die he can, but charging a fort with infantry should be at very least, slightly damaging.

[Gaiseric]

Lol, kinda makes me miss the awsome siege battles of MTW2. Somthing needs to be fixed.

[Monk]

He's right, you still can take out more men with a fort then without one but i'm glad to see they are not the be all end all that they were in MTW2.

The biggest problem I see with fort battles is calvary. As the AI calvary dosn't seem to know what to do if you don't have calvary. They just kind of meander around the center and get shot alot.

Forts should be a bit more affective though, I just watched the Old Alamo over the weekend (The one with John Wayne) although slightly different time frame, it is pretty impressive how many they manage to kill. Even if it is a movie.

That movie is more inaccurate than Braveheart which is something to almost be proud of. I wouldn't take anything you see in that movie as an accurate representation of that period.

You're right in a sense though. Forts do feel a bit underpowered.

[NimitsTexan]

That movie is more inaccurate than Braveheart which is something to almost be proud of. I wouldn't take anything you see in that movie as an accurate representation of that period.

It is innaccurate in its sequence of events (and events that never happened).

However, in the sense that it shows the Mexicans suffering significant casualties, it is more or less accurate. In fact it is quite interesting that the Mexicans suffered as badly as they did (around half the attacking force killed or wounded), considering they attacked at night and in fact achieved nearly complete tacical surprise.

Of course, on the other side of it, US Army attacks against Mexican forts/fortified cities, conducted about a decade later, generally carried their objectives with much more favorible casualty ratios while attacking in daylight.

In terms of forts in game, it does not really matter how you deploy them (in terms of facing, etc.) Just put the soldiers at a section of wall, and they will man it the best the can.

[Forward Observer]

It is innaccurate in its sequence of events (and events that never happened).

However, in the sense that it shows the Mexicans suffering significant casualties, it is more or less accurate. In fact it is quite interesting that the Mexicans suffered as badly as they did (around half the attacking force killed or wounded), considering they attacked at night and in fact achieved nearly complete tacical surprise.

Of course, on the other side of it, US Army attacks against Mexican forts/fortified cities, conducted about a decade later, generally carried their objectives with much more favorible casualty ratios while attacking in daylight.

In terms of forts in game, it does not really matter how you deploy them (in terms of facing, etc.) Just put the soldiers at a section of wall, and they will man it the best the can.

The Alamo was a pretty poor excuse for a fort, and was almost impossible to properly defend--given the layout and the sparse number of defenders. I have the DVD's of both the John Wayne version from 1960 and the more recent 2004 release with Billy Bob Thornton in the Crockett role.


If you can, rent the later version for comparison. It is by far the most accurate depiction of the battle (massacre would be more descriptive) from all the accounts I have read. The later movie accurately depicts Santa Anna's final and only real attack beginning in the dark well before day break along with Travis being killed at the very start to showing Bowie pretty much in a coma during the attack. It also the depicts the controversiol Mexican record of Crockett possibly surviving and being executed after the battle. Of the 1800 or so Mexicans troops actually involved in the final attack, most historians estimate that 400 to 600 were killed, or roughly a 3rd of the force.

Unfortunately, the 2004 movie was not nearly as entertaining as the John Wayne version, and it bombed at the box office. Originally, Russell Crowe was supposed to play Travis, and at least one other big name was on board to play Bowie plus Ron Howard was to have been director. However due to budget cuts and other conflicts, Billy Bob was the only one of the original choices that made the final movie plus Howard became one of the producers. Thornton as Crockett and Dennis Quaid as Houston were the closest to big name stars they could get and they just couldn't carry the movie. It also did not help that the movie released opposite Mel Gibson's "Temptation of Christ"

On the other hand---with veteran stars like John Wayne, Richard Widmark, Lawrence Harvey, and Richard Boone, the first Alamo had plenty of star power plus many popular character actors for the era like Chill Wills and Ken Curtiss,

While the Duke's version is typical 60's cowboy action B.S., filled with so many inaccuracies that most Texas historians threw fits at the time, it is by far the more entertaining of the two movies. ---And even knowing it's total Hollywood BS, I would always rather watch it if I had to choose between the two.

Back on subject:

The star forts in the game, or more correctly as Superteal mentioned, fortifications built in the Vauban system style, are missing one important component and it is the same component that was missing in Medieval 2. All of these forts had moats and/or ditch systems---sometimes wet, sometimes dry, and sometimes a combination of the two; especially if there was more than one concentric ditch, which was the case most of the time.

Also, the whole purpose of the geometric designs of these forts was so that there would hardly be an exposed wall that could be assaulted without subjecting the assaulting forces to fire from the flank or rear from one of the other walls of the fort. Attack by infantry without first establishing a breach through either artillery bombardment or mining would be suicidal. Army mobility and artillery technology advances are what eventually made such forts obsolete sometimes even in the same eras that they were built.

The French military didn't figure this out until after the Germans had simply danced around their magnificently obsolete Maginot Line

The game designers evidently just could not implement the feature of moats or the accurate use of intersecting fields of fire from the walls of such forts into the game. I can understand time and money constraints on game design, but to leave these features out makes such forts hardly anything more than window dressing, and almost not-functional compared to how they were in real life.

IMHO, If they could simply improve the defending armies' proper use of the walls in future patches it might go a long way to correcting this. An attacking army would simply have to use artillery or mining before attempting an assault or it would be a slaughter.

[Dayve]

After well over 10 battles in forts, i've noticed two useless things. Defending the walls first of all is utterly pointless. When your units fire a volley the bullets always go over the top of the enemy units heads and hit the ground behind them. And second, the cannons on the wall never hit any enemy soldiers. I always fire them in every battle and have literally never seen a cannonball hit or kill a single enemy, even when all are fired.

Kind of pointless that forts even exist as the game is now, what with the wall cannons and the ability to fire a volley from great height behind the main selling points of even building a fort.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I fought a similar fort battle to my first one (well a bit of it until if CTD'ed on me). Abandoning the walls, and instead garissoning the buildings and forming a circle around the centre is much more effective, especially when your units can deploy their defences.

[The historian]

I actually find the star forts pretty useless I've had more success defending the city as is without the fort. With a fort you have to hold the damn center and of course since the walls and the cannons are useless almost every fort battle is a huge melee. They should be fixed

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't know what the problem is, because my guys man the cannons and the ones who arent on the cannons are musket-firing the living dog crap out of the people coming to and up the wall. Even if they arent facing the wall or evenly distributed they still do this, although the longer the line the more muskets that fire.

Deploying in the star segment is tricky there are only a couple small spots you can do it and it must be a small, squarish formation. Otherwise you have to run them in.

When the attackers breach the top of the wall all nearby units will leave the guns and move in to fight if you change to melee. MAke sure fire at will is back on before you put them back on cannons.

I'm actually having the exact opposite problem as you.... they aren't coming up my walls, they are running their horse artillery up close and battering down a door or wall and coming through in a giant horde of melee while i still have people defending on the walls. My last few defenses i've actually run my horses outside to get away and made them take the walls from the inside out, which makes for some pretty intense stairwell fights

[Marquis of Roland]

After well over 10 battles in forts, i've noticed two useless things. Defending the walls first of all is utterly pointless. When your units fire a volley the bullets always go over the top of the enemy units heads and hit the ground behind them. And second, the cannons on the wall never hit any enemy soldiers. I always fire them in every battle and have literally never seen a cannonball hit or kill a single enemy, even when all are fired.

Kind of pointless that forts even exist as the game is now, what with the wall cannons and the ability to fire a volley from great height behind the main selling points of even building a fort.

Yea the cannons and your guys on the walls will shoot over the head of any unit running full speed at the fort. Once they stop though, they start causing big casualties. How do you make them stop? put a few cannon fodder infantry units right outside the wall so they can't climb up until that unit is defeated. You'll generally see a bunch of their units bunch up right under the wall and those cannons, while it won't cause many casualties when firing at the line of men, WILL kill alot of men bunched up in a big ball.

Keeping cavalry outside the fort works if you outclass/outnumber enemy cavalry.

Another thing: once the enemy gets on the walls, you can micromanage your infantry on unengaged parts of the wall to shoot that breached area. I also like to keep some light infantry in the courtyard, they shoot any enemy on the walls, and usually get a lot of kills if you can keep them out of the courtyard for a good amount of time.

[Superteale]

Vauban style forts of this time period were formidable obstacles and extensive sieges were often the only way to defeat them. At least the attacker of a fortification should be forced to wait a couple of turns to prepare an assault or suffer severe penalties. These fortifications were very effective and hard to conquer, right until it was more common to avoid fixed defensive positions and simply bypass them.
So please make them more effective, at least in stalling the enemy`s advance.

[geala]

I can only assist my previous speaker. Contrary to CAs descriptions sieges formed a large part of 18th century warfare and fortresses were considered very important tools of defence also by the most battle adjunctive persons (Frederic II. of Prussia f. e.). Defence battles should be a bit more easy or, better spoken, a bit more historically correct (because defence is easy if you don't use the forts defence facilities but instead the buildings inside and square up in the middle). No rushes with ropes please. Fortresses should however be more expensive and need longer building time.

[Superteale]

One suggestion to a simple solution would be to only allow light infantry to scale the walls, while line infantry should need at leat a turn to prepare ladders and other siege equipment like in MTWII. I find it to be totally unrealistic to be able to storm a fortification without preparation or siege artillery. An all infantry army should only succeed if the fortress is poorly garrisoned.

[Jazzy]

It should be possible to deploy field artillery at least on the side-bastions. Louis XIV demanded field pieces to be installed on fortresses and did not allow the type naval artillery we see now.

[MikeV]

Vauban style forts of this time period were formidable obstacles and extensive sieges were often the only way to defeat them. At least the attacker of a fortification should be forced to wait a couple of turns to prepare an assault or suffer severe penalties. These fortifications were very effective and hard to conquer, right until it was more common to avoid fixed defensive positions and simply bypass them.
So please make them more effective, at least in stalling the enemy`s advance.

I agree, although the consensus opinion seems to be that making all the 'TW titles more realistic (by making sieges much more necessary) would be too boring ...

Even Napoleon's Italian campaign featured a few key sieges, and quite a few casualties from disease during them.

A nice feature of the R:TW system (lost in this release) was being unable to assault a settlement -- only being able to lay siege -- if your attacking army didn't have any bombardment units -- you were forced to spend a turn or two building the necessary equipment before being able to assault. It would be nice to see this return (not the siege equipment construction, but the need for bombard units), to slow down region conquest a bit. Currently, it's possible to steamroll region after region in continental Europe with a force of all dragoons ...