Just a quick poll question re: forts

[Scott]

Forts don't have much value to me. They tend to be more like deathtraps than useful defenses: You can be besieged while in a fort and sallying out could be much more difficult than actually facing the enemy on the field, especially so since you'd be the attacker instead of the defender. And since a fort will only keep your troops fed for 4 turns there's a good chance that the enemy will just wait it out. If they could be upgraded to have better walls, forts might become a bit more useful. As it stands, I only use them for the purpose of slowing down approaching armies (manning them with cheap, expendable units) to buy time for myself to make preparations.

I sometimes use forts so that emeny can't immenditally attack my forces. So that way I can give reinfrocements some time.

[GodEmperorLeto]

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.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well, it doesn't look like we'll be doing anything any different with them, so fear not. But there was a very interesting idea that O'Etairos had that would have been attractive if not for the fact that forts would be 'replaced' entirely (i.e., there is only one type that can be built in game).

[edyzmedieval]

Forts are useful when you are a small faction, such as Pontos. Also, if you play as Epeiros, Koinon Hellenon or Makedonia, forts are very useful to guard key positions, such as the mountains, because space in Greek is very restricted.

[Megas Methuselah]

Yeah, I find building forts in the restricted areas of Greece is very helpful.

[Hax]

..Methusaleh, put that Necronomicon on a place where I can see it.

[The_Brittunculi]

I use them to block land bridges and mountain passes mainly. I also sometimes use them to hold out while on the defensive for another turn if reinforcements are far off.

[IrishHitman]

Occasionally.

I find Macedonia lacking when it comes to siege warfare, I prefer open battles a lot more.

[Ibrahim]

long time no see Archelou.

but yeah, forts are frequently used by myself. not all the time, but when able to, or when necessary.

[Sarkiss]

Well, it doesn't look like we'll be doing anything any different with them, so fear not. But there was a very interesting idea that O'Etairos had that would have been attractive if not for the fact that forts would be 'replaced' entirely (i.e., there is only one type that can be built in game).

i use them pretty often, but if there is an interesting idea it could be worth replacing them imo.

[Visitor13]

Not at all - the AI doesn't use them, so they're an unfair advantage.

That said, doing anything that a total moron wouldn't do is an unfair advantage over the AI, so maybe I'm exaggerating

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Wow, what a necro. I'm not sure I was even on these forums when this thread was started.

[LordCurlyton]

Where's the zombies?
Klaatu Barata Nic*cough cough*

[Reverend Joe]

All the frickin' time, especially as Rome. I build them everywhere in enemy territory, I use them to block passes, as a delaying method, I even use them in friendly territory as a place to store a legion that I am building (I say legion because this is generally useful only as Rome; but it may be occasionally useful for such faction as the Seleukids when building a very large army.) I also find them to be rather useful if I am besieged in one with a notable army; it works well with my main tactics, which are essentially to force the enemy to attack first, and then to hold, divide, and conquer. I always "sally" as soon as I am besieged, and pour my soldiers out of the sides and, mainly, the rear; this often forces the enemy either into a defensive position, or to divide up his forces. Either way, victory tends to come more easily than in a field battle. Of course, if I am moving and I see an enemy army, I won't build a fort and wait for him to come to me- that would be cheating. I will go after any army I see that I think I can defeat.

Holy shit, it's me from two years ago! Hey, past me!

[QuintusSertorius]

When I get really bored of fighting the same battles over and over again, I sometime drop strategically-placed forts to deter the AI for a while.

[everyone]

oh no if only there was a zombie among the long list of smilies that we can use

I just place them at certain places to make it look good, like I'm trying to defend it. Although I used some forts at the beginning of my hayasdan campaign to block the AS. and it would be interesting if that feature could somehow be modified.

[Tyrfingr]

As I'm currently playing a semi-observing game with Baktria controlling only the Indian provinces (thus forming a Greco-Indian Kingdom), I use forts to keep the pesky Seleukids at bay.

[penguinking]

I generally don't bother using forts.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

I use forts as settlements and town that the game cant represent.

[LordCurlyton]

Braaaaaiiiiiinnnnsssss.............
*munches on two-year old thread instead*

[Megas Methuselah]

Please stay on topic, Curly. The EB Team has a zero-tolerance policy towards spam.

@Olaf Blackeyes: That sounds interesting. But wouldn't that decrease your income level by a considerable amount, as well as occupy units which could be better used for garrison duty in major cities, or serve on the front?

@Marcus: Heh heh, sorry. I forgot I was using the search function at the time. Btw, Reverand Joe is funny.

[Gatalos de Sauromatae]

Just use at the choke points like river cross or mountion pass.
Put 2-4 good archer units there and kill the attacker at least 5-10 times of them.

[Maion Maroneios]

I use them quite frequently, especially when I am underway a military campaign. It's the only way to avoid bad traits, or at least you have a better chance to do so. I also use them to fortify northern Hellas, placing forts manned by small garrisons blocking all mountain passages.

Maion

[a completely inoffensive name]

I only use them to block off rivers and mountain passes.

[Ca Putt]

i have some forts arround syria, with only one noob general inside, not to realy to defend my borders but to uy myself 3 extra turns to react on a Seleukid/Ptolemai attack and to prevent those buggers to seige Antiochia^^. Oh, and sometimes when i ventrue arround with several armies to ensure they are not crippled one after an other.

[gamegeek2]

I use them to mainly guard mountain passes, but watchtowers, despite toggle_fow, are good for stopping random rebels.

[cmacq]

I like to use forts in war time and well sometimes just for defencive reasons.

It would be cool to have celtic brochs as forts.

Actually, found only in Scotland the broch was an adapation of the British Iron Age Roundhouse. The Roundhouse far predates the Britons or anything remotely Celtic in the Britian. They were residential and defended more against the elements than men. Also structurally, more like a keep than a fort. Now a small fenced enclosure, Dunn like, would be the same as an informal fort, and appears to have been used very often in Gaul in the 1st century BC.





CmacQ

[theoldbelgian]

well i must say this is quite a nice pyramid poll:)
I use them to stop armies from besieging the city's and to lure armies

[kekailoa]

They're kind of deathtraps, like someone said earlier. The enemy will just wait you out rather than assault, and sallying out just makes a battle more difficult.

[cmacq]

When placing forts its very important that they’re used as part of a defensive system, wherein the garrisons are composed of well balanced combined-arms teams. Make sure they are positioned to be mutually supporting. Also when you organize your reserves, provide that they are mobile and well positioned to react to a possible point of contact within one turn. That means you position the fort in such a way that you don’t block a potential relieve force from being able to engage the enemy. If you don't use these little guide lines, one could lose several rather large garrisons very quickly, with little recourse.




CmacQ