Land fortifications...

[PaulTa]

I just had a bit of an idea over a cigarette...

What if, instead of forts and such, one had the option to erect land fortifications? You know, artificial ditches and walls of dirt and/or sand, coupled with stakes in the ground and different choke points, different raised sections of land that you could place muskets/archers/cannons on that can only be accessed from the back (like in the Battle of Pavia scenario with the french culverins).

What do you guys think? Cool idea, boring idea, bad idea? If it grows popular enough, we might be able to present the idea to the developers for the expansion.

[Grimmy]

I think that would be so very cool to see done.

[Triumph_of_Steel]

It's a good idea, first thing I thought of when I saw the map changed from the Shogun/Medieval 1 "game board" to what it is now.
I don't use forts much because my armies tend to be on the move, but that it certainly a more realistic idea - if camping in a narrow alps passage it is more logical to build a wall, ditch or something than just a fortified camp....

[Grimmy]

How about this for an add to the original idea?

The longer the unit sits in that fort, the more developed it becomes?

There could be maybe 2 or 3 fortification 'archetypes' that can be selected from the same menu that has the watch tower or fort option.

1. standard, current "quick fort" for a short halt along a march or a staging area for troops to arrive later.
2. circular fort, 360 degree defense with with a bisecting path running either north south or east weast as the map terrain demands, and are always plunked down in the center of battle maps.

3. line fort, used as a barrier fort that extends the length of the deployment area with no road or path breaking the the line. Barrier forts would only be available in terrain marked as "pass" or "ford".

[sapi]

I think this is a fantastic idea....provided the AI knows how to use and assault it.

[PaulTa]

I think that the idea of an upgrading fort would be nice, but not really that realistic. As it stands right now with the land fortifications idea, it would probably require quite a bit of extra programming... An upgrading fort would require quite a bit more.

Maybe, instead of a fort, when one deploys artillery and such there is an option to build the fortifications that we saw in Pavia, much like longbowmen deploying stakes. That way, the defensive artillery becomes very important, while having artillery to knock out the defensive artillery positions would be important as well.

I think it would be a quick way to add quite a bit more to the battle system. I could even see said defensive artillery positions being used in advertisement for the expansion, which sure helps the spoonful of medicine go down with the business types that crack the whip on the devs.

[PureFodder]

I think this is a fantastic idea....provided the AI knows how to use and assault it.

I agree a nice idea, but given that anything bogger than a large rock on the battlefield is enough to flummox the AI it may be too problematic. M3TW?

[Warluster]

I tried doing this with RTW, I only got as far as making trenches

[Ludivico Sforza]

Nice idea.

I'd like to see different levels of forts implemented, with the highest level perhaps being a small stone keep.

The option to build field defences, such as the redoubts/fleches seen in the Pavia scenario would also be very nice.

[Musashi]

Personally I'd like to see the city/castle functionality pulled... And replaced by the ability to turn forts into castles...

[Varyar]

Personally I'd like to see the city/castle functionality pulled... And replaced by the ability to turn forts into castles...

Hear hear! Or even better... the ability to turn forts into either castles or small cities. Being able to found new cities(or semi-cities) would kick ass.

[Musashi]

They'd need to be capped at the town level for sure though...

Ultimately it's perfectly historical... Nobles would put up a fort somewhere in the hopes of attracting merchants and creating a market due to the comforting presence of the fort... And towns would grow up around them...

[PaulTa]

So on the idea of having a cannon unit deploy a trench fortification before battle, like longbowmen with stakes, what do you guys think?

[EasyCo1]

It would be neat to do the Mott & Bailey instead of the Forts. Just a wooden structure.

[Zenicetus]

So on the idea of having a cannon unit deploy a trench fortification before battle, like longbowmen with stakes, what do you guys think?

I like it in theory, but I think there are problems including it as a symmetric feature; one that the AI could use as well as the player. And it wouldn't be fair if only one side could do it.

Even if the AI could be programmed to fight well from static, defensive field fortifications, there are some playability issues... like the question of how many people really want that kind of battle? Sure, it would be fun for the player to set up fortifications, but do you want to fight a static, fortified AI army? As it is, we have people complaining about "passive AI." A fortification-based AI wouldn't be quite the same thing, but it comes close.

Notice that even now, the AI really doesn't have a completely defensive mode, other than the special case of siege defense. It might start as the attacked army on an advantageous piece of ground like a hilltop, but it starts moving when you get close (at least when it works right). CA wants it to be seen as an aggressive AI, not a passive one.

Maybe it could be triggered to go full static defense only 20% of the time when attacked. Something like that might work.