Your Use Of Forts

[Musashi]

Another good use for a fort is to house your one defensive army in a central location... allowing you to have nothing but free upkeep units in the actual settlements surrounding it, and still be able to rush to the aid of those settlements and break sieges with your uber stack.

[JeromeBaker]

using forts to protect the best economical assets is crucial for my economies. I don't view it was cheating or pulling one over on the AI, because military assets often are used to protect economical ones. Plus, you don't keep losing your merchants to enemy buyouts which made a huge difference for me. In fact I stopped using them for a while since it took way to long to micromanage them when the enemy keeps picking them off with super merchants. Now I farm merchants in a few forts around the map and then send them to destroy opponents merchants after they build up status. Good point on an above post about there always being open land around forts when using a lot of archer and missile troops that are less powerful in wooded areas. I will start keeping my armies in forts when marching through woodland in enemy terriroty so I dont lose the power of my artillery.

[Multiplicity]

I make use of forts for all those purposes in the poll excluding merchants. I don't feel the merchant thing is balancing as there is no possible counter to it that the AI can figure out. In any case, I like to use them to delay the enemy advance, extra defense for armies out in enemy territory (or sometimes when I have to go defend my own lands), garrison point for backup troops when my armies lose troops, and I also use the good choke points to prevent enemy agents from getting through. Naples is a good example of this. Just need a couple forts along hte mountain passes and no armies, agents, heretics, etc can get through.

[Skott]

All of the above

[Darius]

The only use I've had for forts was to use them as a mercenary mustering yard. What I'd do is send any and all depleted mercenary units into this fort along with any good mercenaries I came across but didnt have room for in my current armies. This way I can combine depleted mercs to bring them to full strength and allow my armies to be easily supplemented with a decently sized mercenary arm to make up for any shortcomings in the stack.

[Multiplicity]

I forgot one thing I should mention, but since I cannot edit my posts, I'll have to write this one.

Anyway, while I find forts very useful, the major downside that I do not like is how the fort was made in the map. It is a nightmare if you have a lot of units in your fort and you end up getting attacked. How can all those soldiers stay in such a tiny fort, let alone get proper placement for them during the deployment phase? Maybe they're not meant to hold huge armies, but I think it would have been nice if there were several different kinds of forts based upon army size rather than having one simple fort that does not do too well with large armies. Like a previous poster here mentioned, he likes to use his artillery on enemy armies when they are the ones in control of the fort so he could just go on a mass killing spree without much danger to his own army. Clever use of a fort, but I feel they could use some work.

[Sir_Hawkwood]

Great thread!

I'm a little uneasy about using forts for my main armys...

I tried it once and ended up with my artillery and cavalry squashed in a corner, whilst my Longbow men stood behind the palisade loosing a shooting match to ranks of Militia Crossbowmen and a few Bombards...

I won, but it was nowhere near the victory I would have won If I had faced my opponent in the field.

Perhaps they should have built a simple earthen sconce, but thats getting out of the Medieval period and into the Renaissance...

I completely agree with the posts above asking for forts to be able to be built up to a basic castle... A bit of clear, sloped ground infront, a few towers aside the gate and a wall-walk for my archers would make the feature worth my hard pillaged cash...

Many thanks
SJH

[Czar Alexsandr]

Russia is big. So since it takes as long as it does to get anywheres I deviced the Steepe Fort Defense System! Which is the movement points away from a settlement or other fort to reinforce the next one. I keep motely units of peaseants and other obsolete units in them. Of course I aways try to put them some wheres tactical.

My idea was that other factions armies may lay siege to my fort giving me early warning of there attack. It also allows me to stall kill and mess with units on better terms than the field might allow. Think peaseants crowding into the breach.. it also gives me a staging post to kill thosse bandits who are too coward to face me and sit on the very edge of my frontier!

For a bandit killing network... excellent. But the other uses haven't been tested yet. I believe the AI knows it can walk right on by.. But as for a good place to put a fort.. I beleive the pass between Sarkel and Tiblis'i will get me a lot of dead Turks. I think there's three Mountain passes in Tiblis'i and I intend to put forts and all of them! Bwahahaha! The Turkish land with all it's passes may be just about the only place forts will actually see action and be really useful to.

[IrishArmenian]

Anywhere with bridges, I use the forts. Especially Tunis, I keep the Moors at bay and attack them with my powerful navy if they go by sea. I also use them for Merchants, too. I don't use them in enemy territory, because I hate taking the defensive and forts force one to take the offensive. I like to pick my battles and be agressive. Forts are not agressive.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Has anyone noticed that the AI never sallies from forts.

Here's another crazy exploit: If the AI seiges and then occupies your fort but does not leave it you can actually seige it again on your next move with only a unit of peasants. Provided they don't have a army nearby to attack your unit of peasants you automatically win after 3 turns and their army in the fort disappears.

[Sentinel]

I rarely use forts. When I do it is usually as sleeping policemen, slow down and delay an attacking faction whilst I organise a better welcoming party for them.

I build them only when the need arises and very rarely try to defend them.

E.g you know that the full stack enemy army is only one turn away from starting to siege of your settlement.

The settlement only has a governor and two half depleted spear units. If you let them start the siege you will not be able to recruit more units.

So send out the governor to build a fort in their path and garrison it with your weakest unit only. This will buy you two or three turns, whist they massacre the fort, before they start to siege your main settlement.

[FrauGloer]

Has anyone noticed that the AI never sallies from forts.

Here's another crazy exploit: If the AI seiges and then occupies your fort but does not leave it you can actually seige it again on your next move with only a unit of peasants. Provided they don't have a army nearby to attack your unit of peasants you automatically win after 3 turns and their army in the fort disappears.

I once had a full stack french army sally from their fort. So maybe it depends on army strength. They consisted mostly of Peasant Crossbowmen and Armoured Sergeants with a few DEKs thrown in the mix. They were, of course, butchered by my elite English army (Retinue Archers, Armoured Swordsmen, Templars, and Hospitallers), but yes, it does happen.

[supadodo]

I usually use forts as camps to transfer units between towns that take more than two turns to reach to prevent them going rebel. I just garrison each with either townies or peasants depending whether the fort is near a city of castle.

Also I recommend not to put a full stack inside a fort. your units get bunch up and are undeployable as such. That makes them excellent fodder for artillery and archers. They should really make forts sizes proportionate to army size for example.. small fort - around 200 bucks - holds maximum 6 units(anymore and you will have to build next level...med fort - 400 bucks - holds max 12 units and finally large fort - 700 bucks - holds 20 units and comes with walkable wooden walls to put archers on. What do ya think??

[Matty]

> Hang on - forts can raise cash?

Not by themselves, but they allow you to stack merchants, and keep them
safe from persecution. Sort of like a trading post with a military garison.

I still don't understand this 'stacking' concept. Do you mean that if you put a merchant in a fort you can recruit another one in the city he came from? And then if you build the fort next to the resource he can both exploit the resource and the security of the fort? So you could build a fort next to the gold resource at Timbuktu and keep pumping merchants out of that city?

[PseRamesses]

Voted for all of the above but must admit I usually use them as trading posts and half-way stations.

[Philbert]

@Matty:
What I think it means is that you place a fort dead on top of the trade resource (Say a Gold mine) and place more than 1 merchant in the fort. Now all of the merchants make the full amount of money from the gold mine, even though you would think they would share the profits. What's more, enemy merchants can't reach these ones because they are inside a fort.

[crpcarrot]

Ditto

so this starategy works?

units in forts do not rebel?

[PseRamesses]

so this starategy works?

units in forts do not rebel?

Nope

[elbasto]

them me

[nheero143]

While I agree stacking merchants in a fort is an exploit; what 'back up' is it you're suggesting be left with them?

I could think of a few, like extra merchants and assassins. I'm playing as the Turks right now so have three merchants over there right now. It took forever to get them there, and nearly lost them at sea after my admiral was trounced by the Egyptians.

I think building a merchants guild, training high level merchants is the way the game should be played to avoid exploits. But a few extra merchants seems like a good temporary back up plan, until some of them achieve high ranking on their own.

[Multiplicity]

I could think of a few, like extra merchants and assassins. I'm playing as the Turks right now so have three merchants over there right now. It took forever to get them there, and nearly lost them at sea after my admiral was trounced by the Egyptians.

I think building a merchants guild, training high level merchants is the way the game should be played to avoid exploits. But a few extra merchants seems like a good temporary back up plan, until some of them achieve high ranking on their own.

I never have a problem with my merchant's getting put out of business from enemy merchants, and not from using the fort exploit. Like you said, getting a merchant's guild, especially the HQ, is vital to this. The frequency in which the AI merchants attempt to sieze your merchants' business is dependant upon the skill of the merchant. The more skilled the merchant, the less likely you will see your merchants get attacked. This has always been the case in all of the campaigns I have played so far. For the mid-skilled merchants, they, on occasion, have an attempt made upon them, but they have a good chance of resisting or even making it backfire on the enemy merchant.

[Kraggenmor]

It took forever to get them there, and nearly lost them at sea after my admiral was trounced by the Egyptians.

I think building a merchants guild, training high level merchants is the way the game should be played to avoid exploits. But a few extra merchants seems like a good temporary back up plan, until some of them achieve high ranking on their own.

I certainly understand having extra merchants but that's not really a 'back up' plan. As you've already noted, just getting a merchant to some of these locations takes a big chunk of their 'lives'.

When I see the term 'back up' I'm thinking , on hand ready to use the moment anything happens.

From that point of view there's not much to realisitically do to 'back up' a merchant. You're certainly not going to build one to have sitting around doing nothing in case the other one dies.

As for assassins: In my experience they have as little chance against the multi-starred 'super merchants' the AI pumps out at whim as my merchants have of successfully buying them out.

My point really being that there's really no effective method to actually 'back up' a merchant.

[nheero143]

My point really being that there's really no effective method to actually 'back up' a merchant.

Point well taken. I guess the best way is to train higher level ones to start with. But the ones I took there were trained before I had much in the way of merchants guild improvements. Seeing that it is so far away and yet so lucrative, an extra merchant or two might not be a bad idea. They could always handle less lucrative trade nearby until the need arises to come back to Timbuktu, i.e., one of the primary merchants is bought out or dies.

[dismal]

them me

OK, taking the map on the left, the border between France and Spain.

If I own Toulouse and Bordeaux, I have two big "forts" (aka citadels) that any enemy who comes through those 4 passes will head straight for. Those citadels more than effectively control that territory. With a couple of watch towers to warn me that an emeny is heading my way, I can get by with maintain minimal garrisons in those citadels if I am in need of troops elsewhere.

Why would I want to tie up 4 armies and spend 1600 florins to take enemies on under less favorable circumstances? The game is all about cities, "controlling" land has minimal value.

Those 4 armies could be rampaging through Spain instead.

[elbasto]

OK, taking the map on the left, the border between France and Spain.

If I own Toulouse and Bordeaux, I have two big "forts" (aka citadels) that any enemy who comes through those 4 passes will head straight for. Those citadels more than effectively control that territory. With a couple of watch towers to warn me that an emeny is heading my way, I can get by with maintain minimal garrisons in those citadels if I am in need of troops elsewhere.

Why would I want to tie up 4 armies and spend 1600 florins to take enemies on under less favorable circumstances? The game is all about cities, "controlling" land has minimal value.

Those 4 armies could be rampaging through Spain instead.

That's actaully one single army guarding ALL of France, 1 fort with 1 peasant each buys me from 2 to 3 turns, more than enough to prepare myself (aka train troops and bring the reinforcements), reducing enourmously the upkeep.

Bordeaux is a city also, so more money. I had 3 citadels, Metz, Tolouse and Angers.

With all that profit all of France and the Benelux were fully developed by 1200 (1 turn per year).

[Von Nanega]

Thanks, elbasto, that was a really excellent post for me. I am taking notes as to placement of forts and garrison armies. This hopefully will turn into a guide on to regional defense on all "areas" of the map. Like how to garrison and protect Turkey with minimal cost. Or France, ect. Thanks everbody and keep it up!

[dismal]

That's actaully one single army guarding ALL of France, 1 fort with 1 peasant each buys me from 2 to 3 turns, more than enough to prepare myself (aka train troops and bring the reinforcements), reducing enourmously the upkeep.

Bordeaux is a city also, so more money. I had 3 citadels, Metz, Tolouse and Angers.

With all that profit all of France and the Benelux were fully developed by 1200 (1 turn per year).

Well, if it's just one peasant, it's not so bad. There may be cases where you could save a little money on a static front. But, it's probably even better not to have static fronts.

Honestly, I generally pay next to zero attention to defense specifically once I get rolling. Certainly not near where I have a citadel. A citadel will normally be pumping out troops and be more than ready to defend if need be, which is seldom if you are generally taking those troops you're making and attacking with them.

[Daveybaby]

What's stopping the AI from completely ignoring your forts and plunging on straight to your cities?

Well, apart from its own stupidity, that is. Since the AI doesnt use forts in this way itself (and a human player would certainly tend to ignore them if they only had one peasant in each) this is almost an exploit IMO.

[Multiplicity]

The AI doesn't stop. Particularly if you simply put a light garrison inside, the AI will definitely attack it. even if they decide they don't, they will have to deal with the zone of control (assuming the fort is in a nice choke point). Though if you don't put enough of them down, then the AI can probably slip a few armies through (did once with me as Egypt... bloody mongols).

[elbasto]

@ Dismal:
Well, that depends on how you like to play. Sure, blitzing it's the shortest road to victory, but I enjoy turtling a lot and so this strategy helps me to.

@Davebavy:
Whenever you come close to an enemy or neutral army or settlment (including garrisoned forts), there is a red area around it which means that you can't pass through that area without attacking the unit.
If you place the forts close enough and in choke points (a.k.a. mountain passes, next to bridges, etc.) neither an AI or human player will be able to pass through.
For this effect, notice the 3 lined up forts in Bordeaux.