I tend to agree that forts can be deathtraps. As a strategy, they are only really useful if they are assaulted, but instead, most enemy forces simply choose to wait you out. As a Roman, I usually put them in mountain passes with an accensi unit as a delaying action, but their cost is somewhat preventative in building them. In addition, once you leave them, they are gone.
What the forts are really like are simply Roman camps. I think you should be able to build the wooden-walled camp-forts, but also upgrade (or build) forts with stone walls that are permanent, like many of the forts we've found in England and Germany. Granted, however, those are later constructions from the imperial period, and weren't around when the game began, but Rome isn't the only civilization that had the capability (and tendency) to construct stone fortresses at strategic points.
I honestly think, if it is possible, there should be an option to build a stone fortress that will last at least two years if besieged (i.e. 8 turns), maybe more. That way, the forts can be starved out, but it'll take a while. Also, stone fortresses can be smaller and easier to defend than cities, but also perhaps easier to overcome with engineering (less walls means every breach is more severe). No streets = no streetfighting, so once the enemy is in the fort, it's going to be harder for the defender to recover.
Bookmarks