Temporary forts

[Budwise]

One very big use for Forts. Putting Merchants in so you don't lose them. After turn after turn of this "Let the CPU take over another Merchant crap" I got fed up and built a fort on two of the main exports in Stolkholm. Now, I don't have to worry about losing merchants or AI leaving their area to attack mine via trade. ANother question, why the hell does the AI seek out my resources and leave theirs alone? Do you get better traits as a merchant taking over other merchants because I never try to put another merchant out and I never had a trait 10 merchant before. But, I always lose my merchants to others.

[Suraknar]

Well I really liked, the Fort/Town choices in M2TW, it certaintly adds more flavor and tactice.

However, I also agree what everyone says here, which also gave me the following ideas, it could have been made differently, in that, all settlements are of the town type, and generals with armies can build Forts (as they do now) that could evolve to Fortresses, cstles, citadels within the same territory as a give settlements.

When in enemy territory one could build a Fort but not evolve it to a fortress and beyond.

And finally, the cherry on the top, Fortesse/castels could ultimatelly participate in the economy of the province by having roads etc (It would require a more dynamic road system because the placement is selected by the player.

To offset some placement of a Castle to some more sensitive areas, there could be some restrictions as to where a fort encampement can evolve beyond.

Like if lets say you made a fort in the middle of the road because you were fighting and defending etc, it would be considered a temporary thing just if you were in enemy territory, while if it was a bit farther in the green pastures/desert etc it could be good terrain to evolve it more.

What this means is that a Province can have more than one "settlement", it can have a sprawling town which is the basis of that territory, but it can also have Castles(there can be a maximum of castles able to be built depending on how big a prvince is).

Castles pretty much can have same function as they do now able to make better units etc. And of cource, would add to the overal defense of the province.

At this point we can intruduce astate in between A or B ownership.

For instance if the enemy captures the City of a give province, but that province does have a Castle , then the ownership becomes contested between the sides A and B.

Additionally, Ctles can draw their recruitment from the City Pool (this can also help with issues of over population in towns). If the city falls to enemy hands the castles of the contested province cant recruit anymore.

So the idea is for the player to mobilise a relief army.

Vice versa, an enemy could contest a given territory by taking over castles.

Holding all castles but not a city will dramatically reduce the production of a city its trade and limit its devellopment, it could also sclae it production queues 10 fold, the city could still contruct buildings but at 2x the original build times.

And finally castles can be Abandoned by owning player or destroyed all together by enemy (instead of captured). It is a choice.

As destroying castles captured by the enemy is a way to uncontest a province.

This could indeed be a real revolution to the series, and its future devellopment.

[TinCow]

Forts in M2TW are useful in the exact same way they were in RTW: to block strategic points with a small garrison. The most effective fort use I have ever seen was one I engineered in a RTW:BI WRE PBM. Check out the following post and you'll see specific screenshots showing how forts allowed me to secure the entire European border from the English Channel to the Black Sea with only 4 armies.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=32

In M2TW the choke-points are different, but there are many places that could benefit from a similar system. The Pyrenees, Alps, and Danube are borders that could work like this.

[Taiwan Legion]

all these suggestions are nice, but they're kinda far out. One thing they could and SHOULD do really easily is just give forts better layout. As of right now, it's just a square with wooden walls and bunch of tents in the middle. No strategic placement at all. Make it like a real camp would look like.

[DukeKent]

Forts are very handy. Great death traps for mobil armys like the mongols. My biggest complaint is the indestructible features in the layout of the fort. A wooden gatepost and tents stop cannonballs to protect the soft enemy soldiers cowering in the middle square. A bit ridiculous to say the least. Makes you want mortars for all factions when you get to the gun powder age.

[Czar Alexsandr]

I had a battle once where I had already defeated one Mongol stack but another one was coming and my archers still had arrows.. so I placed them behind the stakes and flanked the stakes with spears...

Lol. Ask any of thosse poor Mongol Heavy Lancers. The stakes kill.

[Whacker]

Forts are very handy. Great death traps for mobil armys like the mongols. My biggest complaint is the indestructible features in the layout of the fort. A wooden gatepost and tents stop cannonballs to protect the soft enemy soldiers cowering in the middle square. A bit ridiculous to say the least. Makes you want mortars for all factions when you get to the gun powder age.

That's one of my major beefs about siege battles with the changes made since RTW. In RTW you could destroy just about anything with arty fire, in M2TW there's hardly anything beyond gates and towers you can destroy. At the best you can knock holes in walls and put some nice big holes in buildings but you can't knock them all the way down. Something else I miss is the ability to just have your troops manually shred a building by clicking on it. In my view everything, including trees, needs to be fully destructible.