Org Mobile Site
View Poll Results: Your Use Of Forts
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 64. This poll is closed
Thread: Your Use Of Forts
I would like to see what is the most common use of forts for players. I would like a post saying good locations for them.
(Edit) I would like this information so I can write a guide on the defense of areas, (France, England, Turkey ect...) for minimum cost and maximum effect. As we all know, It is better to be able to mount an effective and cheap homeland defense so that our full stack shock armies can conquer the rest of the Medieval world. Muhahahahahaha!
(Edit) I would like this information so I can write a guide on the defense of areas, (France, England, Turkey ect...) for minimum cost and maximum effect. As we all know, It is better to be able to mount an effective and cheap homeland defense so that our full stack shock armies can conquer the rest of the Medieval world. Muhahahahahaha!
All of the above, plus secret service (spies, assassins) HQ.
How about a choice such as "i don't use forts"?
Originally Posted by FactionHeir:
How about a choice such as "i don't use forts"?
Me too.How about a choice such as "i don't use forts"?
I use forts only if i am playing realism type game (not modded, just alter my own actions) then i make a fort every time they stop moving, after all, its what they would have done...in my opinion 
Originally Posted by Kraggenmor:
Me too.
Me too.
Originally Posted by FactionHeir:
How about a choice such as "i don't use forts"?
I don't seem to be able to edit the poll.How about a choice such as "i don't use forts"?
I find placing well garrisoned forts at the local choke points is really a useful tactic - it allows you too head off invading armies and should that fail gives you a stack outside the city to help relieve seiges
i do use them as trade centres as well which is quite profitable
i do use them as trade centres as well which is quite profitable
I chose "Natural Chokepoint" and "Fort in Hostile Territory".
When ending a turn in enemy territory I always build a fort, because 1) the AI seems more reluctant to attack forts and 2) there is always open ground around forts, which suits my cavalry and archer-heavy armies better than being attacked in the middle of a forest.
Natural chokepoints are, of course mountain passes or narrow patches between natural obstacles (like southeast of Antwerp). I also use them to block land bridges. This doesn't work with all land bridges, but it works on the one connecting Jutand with Fynen (Denmark), so you can effectively lock the Danes out of Europe.
I didn't tick "Inland Garrisons" because the only inland fort other than the obvious chokepoints is my "Messina Fort". When I first got the game, I was disappointed that the famous Crusader port was not there, so after conquering Sicily, I always build a fort in its location where I gather units bound for the Holy Land. Call me sentimental...
I never liked merchants much and I've never used them more than sporadically, but I might consider doing the "merchant outpost" thing in future.
When ending a turn in enemy territory I always build a fort, because 1) the AI seems more reluctant to attack forts and 2) there is always open ground around forts, which suits my cavalry and archer-heavy armies better than being attacked in the middle of a forest.
Natural chokepoints are, of course mountain passes or narrow patches between natural obstacles (like southeast of Antwerp). I also use them to block land bridges. This doesn't work with all land bridges, but it works on the one connecting Jutand with Fynen (Denmark), so you can effectively lock the Danes out of Europe.
I didn't tick "Inland Garrisons" because the only inland fort other than the obvious chokepoints is my "Messina Fort". When I first got the game, I was disappointed that the famous Crusader port was not there, so after conquering Sicily, I always build a fort in its location where I gather units bound for the Holy Land. Call me sentimental...
I never liked merchants much and I've never used them more than sporadically, but I might consider doing the "merchant outpost" thing in future.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The merchant outpost works wonders for keeping the Uber-Merchants that AI factions seem to have from wasting your junior merchants. Often I will build a fort at a resource near my merchant producing cities and put the new guys there as a ersatz training facility.
In RTW I mainly used forts for holding choke points. In M2TW, small armies without a general seem to rebel much more often, so I now build forts midway between cities that are too far apart to transfer units in one turn as defection-proof (so far, anyway) way-stations.
Hang on - forts can raise cash?
> 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.
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 never use em - cant really see the point. And, now that i think about it... i dont think i've ever seen the AI build one either 
Never.
I tried building a fort in Nicaca province to prevent crusading armies from entering Anatolia by land, but the crusaders just scooted around the fort. I haven't tried building one since.
Never bothered with one yet.
You can block the approach to Venice from the east by bottling up the road near Venice's port. It's effective. But in retrospect, I should have just had the army standing there, since:
1) The army was musketeer and basilisk heavy.
2) You're forced to deploy all your troops inside the fort, and there wasn't nearly enough room for the full stack I had in there.
3) The Gunpowder units could not fire on the approaching army since they have a flat firing trajectory, and there were no walls to stand on. Knocking holes in the wall to shoot out is a ridiculous workaround IMO.
In every scenario I can think of, enemy archers and catapults/trebs are going to have a field day raining death on the packed units within, since the 5' walls provide little cover. It would be really nice if the option was given to pay extra for the contruction of larger forts that at least had some room to maneuver, and some basic wooden walls for archers. As it stands, the most effective use of forts seems to be non-military, rather taking advantage of their exploitative functions, such as "trading forts".
1) The army was musketeer and basilisk heavy.
2) You're forced to deploy all your troops inside the fort, and there wasn't nearly enough room for the full stack I had in there.
3) The Gunpowder units could not fire on the approaching army since they have a flat firing trajectory, and there were no walls to stand on. Knocking holes in the wall to shoot out is a ridiculous workaround IMO.
In every scenario I can think of, enemy archers and catapults/trebs are going to have a field day raining death on the packed units within, since the 5' walls provide little cover. It would be really nice if the option was given to pay extra for the contruction of larger forts that at least had some room to maneuver, and some basic wooden walls for archers. As it stands, the most effective use of forts seems to be non-military, rather taking advantage of their exploitative functions, such as "trading forts".
Originally Posted by FactionHeir:
How about a choice such as "i don't use forts"?
it is called GAH!How about a choice such as "i don't use forts"?
Usually I use fort as a trap for the enemy's full stack ...Tempt the enemy to attack my fort and move in after victory. Then I immediately lay siege on it using full stack of cannon/ballista/archer...
Then....you all know what's going on...
Very effective trick for mongol invasion
Then....you all know what's going on...
Very effective trick for mongol invasion
Originally Posted by MilesGregarius:
In RTW I mainly used forts for holding choke points. In M2TW, small armies without a general seem to rebel much more often, so I now build forts midway between cities that are too far apart to transfer units in one turn as defection-proof (so far, anyway) way-stations.
In RTW I mainly used forts for holding choke points. In M2TW, small armies without a general seem to rebel much more often, so I now build forts midway between cities that are too far apart to transfer units in one turn as defection-proof (so far, anyway) way-stations.
Ditto
I use them as trading posts... and I would probably build them if I were in enemy territory with an infantry army, so that cavalry couldn't catch them out in the field.
Originally Posted by Musashi:
and I would probably build them if I were in enemy territory with an infantry army, so that cavalry couldn't catch them out in the field.
That reminds that I did use a fort for just that once. While playing the Scots and army I had bound for Stockhom got ambushed and depleted to the point I needed to turn it around and go back to Oslo. On ending the march a little more than a turn's movement from Oslo I saw the big ol' stack of Danes coming on an intercept course. So, I had the army shelter in a fort. and I would probably build them if I were in enemy territory with an infantry army, so that cavalry couldn't catch them out in the field.
The stack of Danes didn't attack and I brought the lads home.
Other than that time, I haven't used forts.
I'm of the feeling that the merchant fort trick is totally unfair and unbalances merchants. The AI can't do it, so, you shouldn't be allowed to either.
It's not smart; it's just not working as intended. Merchants can be high-risk to lose, if they're subjected to being alone without any backup. You don't get 2,000 gold from Timbuktu so you can have thirty merchants there in a fort and 2k gold from EACH one.
Thats just haxx0r. Awesome, but still, haxx0r.
It's not smart; it's just not working as intended. Merchants can be high-risk to lose, if they're subjected to being alone without any backup. You don't get 2,000 gold from Timbuktu so you can have thirty merchants there in a fort and 2k gold from EACH one.
Thats just haxx0r. Awesome, but still, haxx0r.
Nah, it's realism. You don't even have to have a fort there, you can just have one unit of peasants to create a stack and attach all the merchants.
i use m as chokepointgarrisons... In my spanish campaign i sealed off the pyrenee mountain passes and the the crossing from spain into africa... In my byzantine campaign i sealed off the entire boshporus with 2 forts... this saved my butt several times. The AI launched a jihad and i had 3 muslim stacks wandering around + 2 enemy crusader stacks... but they couldnt pass because there was no way passed my forts... they were lightly garrisoned at first but when the threat increased the garrison increased. When they attack my fort in the bosphorus i dispatched a army from nicaea, landed them behind the besieging army on the bosporus by fleet and crushed the army... because they were totally surrounded and had nowhere to run they army disbanded.
Forts should not be used to defeat enemy armies but to slow their advance a few turns so you can train extra forces... In RTW this tactic wasnt as useful because you could only train 2 units in 2 turns... but in M2TW 4 or 6 extra units can make the difference.
Forts should not be used to defeat enemy armies but to slow their advance a few turns so you can train extra forces... In RTW this tactic wasnt as useful because you could only train 2 units in 2 turns... but in M2TW 4 or 6 extra units can make the difference.
I wondered if Forts could be more useful and representative of the myriad of minor castles that dotted the medieval landscape by using the smallest castle settlement as the battle map.
I think the current forts are left over from RTW where the Roman army was famous for building temporary wooden stockades etc. whilst on the march, in M2TW I would like to see them represented more as minor keeps.
I don't know if it is possible to mod the battle maps that are triggered at the start of battles or not but I think it would be a nice feature.
I think the current forts are left over from RTW where the Roman army was famous for building temporary wooden stockades etc. whilst on the march, in M2TW I would like to see them represented more as minor keeps.
I don't know if it is possible to mod the battle maps that are triggered at the start of battles or not but I think it would be a nice feature.
but then they shouldnt be able to be built in enemy terratory... It would take a while to build a fort like that and i doubt a enemy would ever let you build it... also they shouldnt decay after they have been abandoned... atleast not after one turn
I still say they should start out as wooden pallisades, and the longer you have men stationed there, they start to grow into real castles.
Originally Posted by OMGLAZERS:
It's not smart; it's just not working as intended. Merchants can be high-risk to lose, if they're subjected to being alone without any backup.
While I agree stacking merchants in a fort is an exploit; what 'back up' is it you're suggesting be left with them?It's not smart; it's just not working as intended. Merchants can be high-risk to lose, if they're subjected to being alone without any backup.
I use forts near cities or castles as a place to house spillover troops for my huge armies. They come in handy because the troops don't rebel. They are also good when I am retraining troops and it provides a good staging area.
I don't know about others but my forts get attacked on occassion.
I also use forts for merchants sometimes. Call me a cheater.
I don't know about others but my forts get attacked on occassion.
I also use forts for merchants sometimes. Call me a cheater.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO