What's so bad about forts?

[Benandorf]

I've heard horrible things about forts, and never tried them before because of it. So my question is simple: why is it that they're so awful?

[DVX BELLORVM]

There's nothing awful about forts, they are great if you use them correctly (to slow the enemy's progress by blocking strategic points, to support the supply line... etc).

They become awful if you got you army trapped in one, and getting cut to pieces by the enemy artillery.

[Benandorf]

And is there any reason you'd be worse off in a fort than a Castle in that sense?

[phonicsmonkey]

yes, a fort is much smaller than a castle with lower walls and no significant buildings, meaning you are far more exposed to artillery fire than if you were camped out in the main square of a castle

in fact a good tactic against large invading stacks (like Mongols or Timurids) is to tempt them by leaving a fort in their path, defended by one depleted bait unit, then attack them with an artillery-heavy stack the next turn once they have captured it and are sitting nicely inside.

[supadodo]

Which is why Kingdoms is gonna make forts much better...

Anyway, my only use of forts is to provide a staging ground for my army. As we all know, armies tend to go to the gray side every now and then for no apparent reason and forts help keep that from happening. You can essentially make a trail of forts across large provinces so your armies have a place to sleep in after a particularly long march.

[Rhedd]

Due to their cramped confines and total lack of defenses, they're no better (usually worse) than an open field battle.

The real clencher for me, though, is that unlike a field battle, you always count as being besieged, so if you lose, everyone dies.

No benefits plus insta-death if defeated equals a terrible place to fight.

I do construct them in chokepoints and man them with a few cheap archers. They work nicely for slowing and whittling down an invading enemy.