Forts, any point?

[rancor]

Okay, I know they have benefits in line of sight and deterring rebels. However, is there any point strategically if say you have a city with epic or other advanced walls very close by? I know that sometimes it can be a good choke point but theoretically wouldnt it be smarter to just let the enemy come to your city and take them on behind the better fortifications?

I guess I am saying I find it more and more pointless to build lots of forts. I do build some when I want a semi-permanent way-point but find myself doing this more often. can someone argue the pros of forts for me, minus the pluses i listed above? thanks

[Drusus Magnus]

If a fortified city ( decent walls, good garrison ) is nearby it should be enough to defend that region, yes. Either the army passes your city, without conquering it, thus leaving it's back open, and making it probable for itself to be surrounded, or the AI assaults your walls and good garrison.

I think we all know what happens when it does that...

[gardibolt]

In BI, hordes seem scared of forts, so putting a fort at a bridge or mountain pass can block them pretty effectively. But that's the only really good use I've found for them.

[Avicenna]

You can't afford large garrisons in every city, so just keep one army in each region. The forts can stall the AI, and the army can travel to attack the AI, while boosting its numbers with the city garrisons.

[professorspatula]

Aside from cutting down on brigand appearances (something some people aren't convinced about), there are 2 main uses for forts.

1) Protection / Buffer.
2) Luring Enemy into action

I tend to use forts extensively. I place them on roads between settlements so that an infantry unit travelling from one settlement to another can reach the relative safety of a fort at the end of each turn before reaching their destination. It's not always possible to wait until you have a large stack of units to move, and when there possible dangers nearby, giving small numbers of units a chance to hide behind walls between turns isn't a bad idea. A single unit of miltia, or some other depleted unit is enough to maintain the forts when they're otherwise not in use. Forts can also be used as rally points: keep sending units to them until you have a large enough army to move on. When brigands show up in large numbers in the middle of your empire where you have only small garrisons, the network of forts once again comes into play, providing a safer means to move your reactionary force to meet the invaders.

The AI is also regularly intrigued by forts and will attempt to besiege them whenever it thinks it can take them with a larger army. You can use this to your advantage by luring the enemy to attack your fort, and then you send a prepared army from another fort or nearby settlement to take on the besiegers. Quite often the enemy will have several large stacks close together in a region, and leaving your army in the open or directly attacking the enemy leads to a battle against many stacks at once. A manned fort often draws a single enemy stack away so you can fight one stack at once.

In my Julii campaign, civil war had erupted and I held Carthage with a single army and a few mercenaries in another fort. The Scipii held the surrounding settlements and had several large stacks not far away. To prevent being overrun as reinforcements would be slow and piecemeal in arriving from the sea, I built a fort to the West of Carthage to slow down the Scipii coming the west, and another I built north of the bridge below Carthage to prevent Carthage being assaulted directly from the south. I beat a few Scipii forces, then moved my army further south towards their own settlement and built a fort there. The army in the fort was regularly attacked by the Scipii, but it easily beat off army after army of the blue clothed Romans. Replacements were moved every turn from Carthage to the nearby southern fort, and then on to the fort held in hostile territory. When the main army wasn't attacked, the other forts were, but reinforcements could come from either Carthage itself, or from other forts not currently under attack. Using this tactic, one army took the nearby Scipii settlements and killed several stacks of Romans and Carthage never came under direct assault. The one time I didn't use the forts for cover, I ended up being forced back. Forts in hostile territory can really aid your survival rate - especially if you make sure you have some onagers and archers in them!


(Btw: The AI is so atrocious during sieges that I don't build large or epic stone walls, and having them attack forts at least gives them some hope instead of suiciding themselves at stone walls like the stupid cretins they are.)

[scorillo]

I use forts all the time...I never get besieged...because i want to protect the landscape of the region ,keeping it clean and not black...all my troops are within the forts and in the towns i use 2-3 units garrison only

[Celt Centurion]

Forts keeping away rebels is good.

My main purpose for forts though, is much like Professor Spatula.

It gives a place for units to be protected on moves;

and it serves as a great place for assembling and equipping an Army to send out to take another territory.

One fort, roughly equidistant between 3-5 settlements, gives an ideal place for infantry to come from one location, archers from another, and cavalry from yet another, and they can be set to automatically go there.

Also, if one of the cities has a foundry, I can look in the fort and find the ones who can get an armor upgrade.

In this manner, I can usually build up a full stack in about 4-6 turns, depending on where the fort is and what cities it is near, and actually send them all with the best upgrades in armor and weapons.

This will take a little longer of course if one uses Praetorian Cavalry, Urban Cohorts, and heavy onagers, but I am sure you get the picture.

Strength and Honor,

Celt Centurion

[Taurus]

Using forts seems to deter warring factions somewhat, or at least make them take a different route in some cases, so I place forts in what I feel are strategic locations on my borders with other factions etc.

[Ciaran]

I´ve never used forts so far, since I didn´t know they keep rebels down. Otherwise, what´s the point? I can place an army in the open field - or preferably on a bridge - just as well, since I don´t think that it makes any difference of whether the army just stands about in the landscape or camps in a fort, and it can´t be besieged (losing men each turn without any gain - besieging units don´t lose men) or get trapped within the fort in battle.

[x-dANGEr]

I really only used forts once, and that is as Sassaidns at the bridge west of Hatra (Of course at that time, I didn't know about the one above or the one south of Ctespion (Sp?)), and I really don't think they effect rebels. I think the main factor of rebels spawning is the tax rate of that city, and of course another fixed percentage for each province.

[Barbarossa82]

As far as I can tell, placing an army in a fort limits the amount of devastation it causes to the local landscape to one "block" on the city details screen at the capital of the province it's stationed in. So if you have a field army made up of lots of troops positioned in a wealthy province, it makes sense to build them a fort to stop them ruining the landscape with footprints/discarded weapons/empty cig packets and ruining your economy

[Severous]

I used several in my last H/H Brutii campaign. I used them when pushing forward into enemy territory. My forward stack resting in a new fort in enemy territory. If the enemy came to my fort to beseige it I now had the choice of engaging(sally) or not.

Once my forward line moved on I let the forts fall into disrepair and dissapear.

[Avicenna]

I´ve never used forts so far, since I didn´t know they keep rebels down. Otherwise, what´s the point? I can place an army in the open field - or preferably on a bridge - just as well, since I don´t think that it makes any difference of whether the army just stands about in the landscape or camps in a fort, and it can´t be besieged (losing men each turn without any gain - besieging units don´t lose men) or get trapped within the fort in battle.

Well for one, you can just put in a rubbish peasant unit which will hold out for years.. more than enough time to mobilise an army to combat the threat. It saves money, and allows you to increase your military if you're currently weaker than your enemy. Also, a single phalanx unit can hold out for ages during a siege when defending, a massive advantage.