Watchtowers & forts - any thoughts, experiences, or tips?

[Monarch]

I personally don't bother with forts. 90% of the time if the ai enemy is in my province it heads to a city. Cities have much better defences that forts. So I just let the ai be in my procince for a turn or so until it attacks.

Watchtowers...well in my current Egyptian campaign I've got Imams all over the place, lifting fog of war around my enemies as they go.

[Lochar]

The few times I have used forts is usally when I am on my way to attacking/sieging a town and in enemy territory. I figure it may help if they decide to attack me along the way.

So far they just been wasted 500 coins

[USMCNJ]

The few times I have used forts is usally when I am on my way to attacking/sieging a town and in enemy territory. I figure it may help if they decide to attack me along the way.

So far they just been wasted 500 coins

you should never use forts for a place to keep your full army.
-If anything it is the worst place you could be. If besieged you will be starved out in 3 days.
-If you sally forth you have to fight the besieger on their terms
-if you loose the battle you lose the whole army, you cannot retreat.

forts are great for one thing and one thing only.
-being speed bumps for invading armies.

[hoom]

Never use forts at river crossings!
1: You can't build it at the actual crossing square so the river provides no protection
2: That means that if you are under siege in a fort next to a river crossing with the enemy stack sitting on the crossing, and raise the siege with another army, the AI gets to defend the crossing!

Much better to just sit your army on the river crossing itself.

[USMCNJ]

Never use forts at river crossings!
1: You can't build it at the actual crossing square so the river provides no protection
2: That means that if you are under siege in a fort next to a river crossing with the enemy stack sitting on the crossing, and raise the siege with another army, the AI gets to defend the crossing!

Much better to just sit your army on the river crossing itself.

That's exactly what i do but i do use forts(and you should too), only build the fort on the enemy (outbound) side and leave a peasant unit to defend it.

Most of the time the enemy army will have no siege equipment so you will have at least 1 turn to get your "River" army to the crossing. Leave it there and wait for the enemy army to capture your fort and attack you by crossing the bridge.

Now you're get to destroy their whole invading army for the cost of one fort and one unit of peasants.

The "river" army should be 1 general (moral boost) 4 infantry that has good defense and 4 + missile units.

I also add a few light cav units.

Use the infantry to pin the enemy on the bridge, use the missile units with fire arrows enabled to kill the invaders and destroy their moral. When some of them start routing charge your general into the fights, the whole army will rout. Then pick up the prisoners using your light cav.

[hoom]

I guess you can do that...
I just tend to leave a permanent garrison at the crossing.

[katank]

I honestly don't bother with forts. Even strategic locations like river crossings aren't worth the trouble most the time. Just going offensive and wiping the enemy on the other side out is better.

Watch towers, on the other hand, are damn useful in lifting the fog of war so that rebels don't spawn there. This keeps your interior regions clear. It can also be used to spot rival agents etc. so you can eliminate them.