Evolution of fortesses in Renaissance ( 1700s)

[King of Axum]

In the late 1600’s , a French military engineer made improvements on the new fortress design. He added slopes so that attackers could no longer be protected when they got close to the fortress (these slopes are called glacis).A glacis is an artificial slope of earth placed in front of the wall of a defended position. The slopes are constructed to keep attackers under the fire of the defenders. Without the glacis, on natural ground level, troops attacking any high structure achieve a degree of protection from its fire when they get close to it. Raising the ground to form a glacis allows the defenders to keep the attackers under fire from a bastion or a parapet.
Vauban also improved on the bastion design to allow the attackers to be enfiladed. This meant they were designed to be able to shoot at many angles. An attacker is “enfiladed” if the defenders can shoot straight down the line of attack. For example if the defender can shoot down the length of a trench then the trench is “enfiladed”.
Vauban also added trenches as defense mechanisms.
Fort McHenry in Baltimore, La Citadelle in Quebec City and Fort Ticonderoga in New York are all examples of the Vauban fortress design.

his design of the fortress was used up to the late 1800s

will recruiting a faction best units still only be possible through fortressess or can it also be done with cities.

check this wiki site about the brilliant fortress designer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban

Remember to Edit instead of double posting please. ~Emp. Meg

[Mechstra]

I expect that we won't see a castle/city distinction in Empire: Total War as the two lost all relevance, really. Cities were fortified with glacis and redoubts rather than large walls, and purpose-built permanent fortresses were rare except as barracks or the like, or along a border. As CA has said that we will have important buildings (such as barracks) outside cities, it's likely that cities will be the only settlement type, and that we will have various levels of fortification for those cities, growing ever more complex with star forts and batteries and trenches. But no separate fortresses as a settlement type.

Temporary forts would be interesting, though. They were of a more complex level than the ones we've seen in Rome and Medieval 2.

[King of Axum]

in the new world Major powers like France and England built fortresses all the time to defend their territories. Fortress Louisbourg, Fort Duquesne. Fortressess were also places were settelers would be tranied and equipted. If not important in the old world, it was in the New world.

[Mechstra]

Settlers were not 'trained'. Life is not a computer game.

[King of Axum]

what do you mean settlers were not trained what do you think a militia is. in many New world wars. Nations like england couldn't contend with a war across their border (the british channel) and a war across the atlantic so they had to rely heavily on the colonial militia or minute men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen

[Mechstra]

I think your command of the language is failing you. Sorry. I misunderstood you.

If you'd said something about militias being trained and equipped instead of 'settlers' being trained and equipped... well.

[King of Axum]

but settlers who vulonteered in the army where milita's

[ivan_the_terrible]

Settlers were not 'trained'. Life is not a computer game.

HEHEH. I think he meant settlers being trained to act as militia. But it still did sound funny

Interesting sidenote. The US citizens' right to bear arms has its origins in this time period, where every man that could fight could have been needed any minute. So it makes sense that people were encouraged to own weapons and know how to use them. Off course now its an outdated law that only leads tragedy (and its unfortunate that many right wing people in positions of power refuse to see the reality), but back when it was concieved, it was quite logical.

Sorry for Off Top.

About fortresses. I dont really mind what CA does with them. As long as fleets can participate in coastal sieges, I'm happy.

[Kracker Jack'D]

I think your command of the language is failing you. Sorry. I misunderstood you.

If you'd said something about militias being trained and equipped instead of 'settlers' being trained and equipped... well.

"settlers" were the militia. milita is nothing but locals to the land that made up a defence against attack. so "settlers" would have to defend their land if actual trained army wasn't around. christ, why would you pick such a minute issue when talking about how sieges would work. are you simple or something.

[King of Axum]

lmao. but going back on track for any modder from C.A who may be reading this thread it is important to keep the two settlement types intact. at one point in the new world only fortresses exsisted.

[Kracker Jack'D]

i think a whole new siege option should be created since it changed completely in this era. they still had ladders and such but relied heavily on opening a breach which took awhile. a cool feature would be to allow defender to place traps in breach before assault, something to the degree of how attacking commanders could choose ladders,rams and such.

[King of Axum]

that would be cool. I also belief that the defenders also be able to recruit minuteman even if they are under siege it would bring a strong sense of realism. Defenders Cannons should also be able to be mounted on walls, and they should also be able to have a farther reach to the ennemy because of the height advantage.

[Rockstone]

This was the time in which fortresses were almost (but not quite) outdated. Guns would easily turn one to rubble. City sieges took a new meaning also. Fortress design was in part adjusted to this. It will be interesting to see if and how this will implemented.

[King of Axum]

I couldn't agree more, some fortresses took afew days for attackers to breach and even then storming the settlement was difficult, due to the constant barrage of gun fire.

[Kinjo]

Forts are important in this era and there where a lot of them. To name a few Fort William Henry, Fort Ticonderoga, Fort Pensacola, The Lévis Forts, Fort Trumbull, Fort Duquesne, Fort Cumberland, Fort Chambly, Fort Carillon, Fort Frontenac, Fort Rouillé, Fort Niagara, Fort Kaministiquia, Fort Miami, Fort Vincennes, Fort Ligonier, Fort George, Fort Snelling, Fort Machault, and Fort Pitt.

http://www.mohicanpress.com/images/fortti1.jpg
http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutiona...iconderoga.jpg
http://www.peerlessrockville.org/Tra...esne%20web.jpg
http://www.nochildleftinside.org/ima...s/trumbull.jpg

From this passage you would think that the forts where some what important:

The French defied the warning and built Fort Machault. They amassed large forces of French, Indians and boats there, and planned to mount an attack on Fort Pitt (in what is now Pittsburgh) to reclaim Fort Duquesne for France. Before an expedition could leave, however, word was received that the British were launching attacks on other French forts along the lakes. The French had to scurry north to protect Fort Niagara after they had burned their fort and supplies here. The British built their own fort, which was destroyed by Indians during Pontiac’s uprising in 1763. The fort was burned and the soldiers massacred in a surprise attack.

I hope that we have a couple of option to build forts, temporary wood forts and stone fortress. Also we should have the ability to fortify ports.

Here is what I think a stone fortress should look like for the most part.
http://www.kislakfoundation.org/mill...nside/0465.jpg

[LegionnaireX]

I hope that we have a couple of option to build forts, temporary wood forts and stone fortress. Also we should have the ability to fortify ports.

Here is what I think a stone fortress should look like for the most part.

Yes, a feature that allows you to fight bombarding ships from a fort would be awesome. Having spent alot of time around DC there is a significant number of 1812 era forts built to defend the potomac.

[King of Axum]

yea and i also hope that C.A allows mounting siege weapons on the walls this time

[Eric]

Rockstone: Not exactly true. The concept of the fortress evolved to suit the new face of warfare. Walls became low and wide, with ramparts of packed earth of absorb cannonfire, bastions were developed so that cannon could be placed to bombard attackers, ditches and sallyports were added so that soldiers could drive off attackers with volleys of musketry. This was all laid down by the Master, Vauban.

[King of Axum]

Fotresses in native ancestrial land should be able to recruit some native units. like Black foot Tomahawk warriors

[Kinjo]

Yes, a feature that allows you to fight bombarding ships from a fort would be awesome. Having spent alot of time around DC there is a significant number of 1812 era forts built to defend the potomac.

I really hope CA adds port and settlement bombardments. Amphibious assaults would neat to see hundreds of soldiers assaulting a fortified port from sea.

yea and i also hope that C.A allows mounting siege weapons on the walls this time

I'm sure that if the walls have cannons they would be premounted cannons and probably would be a fortress upgrade of some type.