Forts: Everything you need to know about permanent, stone and/or buildable forts

[Faylar001]

Having an invisble strat model fort with an altered resouce that looks like a fort on the same tile.

[Gigantus]

You will have a faction flag pop up every time that invisible fort is garrisoned
And it will look weird once the merchants start piling in (resource fort exploit - allows multiple merchants to stand on the same resource)

[leo.civil.uefs]

Does anyone know IF and HOW the farming_level works?

[leo.civil.uefs]

Im a little bit confused.

Can we have AT THE SAME TIME IN A GAMEPLAY permanent forts implemented in the game right at the campaign start via descrt_strat.txt AND buildable forts that will be removed when empty?

[Gigantus]

The forts are either permanent or self destructing when empty. Can't have both, it's governed by the entry in descr_campaign_db.

Farming level (and famine threat) is a left over from RTW afaik, no function in M2TW, just has to be present.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I've had a look at this thread and I think my summary for the SSHIP done some time ago might be useful for somebody using this thread.

In the M2TW the forts may be buildable or permanent, even with the names. However, they have been removed in the recent mods as SSHIP, BC or EBII, but they’ve been present in the SS6.4, DLV or recently in the Dawn of Conquest and The Italian Wars.

I see five major gameplay problems concerning both the permanent and the buildable (temporary) forts that justify the decision of the removal:
1. CAI is absolutely broken on the choice what to defend. Usually, it leaves the main settlement empty, concentrating troops in a fort present in the province. Or it moves it between them. A player can easily exploit this behavior.
2. However, the AI doesn’t know how to use forts strategically in the way the player does. It doesn't use the forts to block the player's advances to buy time for the reserves to come. It also leaves forts from time to time (it doesn't stay in a fort, it moves out and in - if it's a temporary fort then it disappears).
3. While on the offensive, the AI sieges a fort instead of the settlement, furthermore it breaks these sieges very often. The result is: a player can dupe the AI easily into endless sieges.
4. The number of siege battles is high with the permanent forts. The chrome of the forts is nice, but it's a nightmare to play with: you're bogged down in dozens of irrelevant sieges.
5. Western Europe is already full of settlements close to one another, so any forts would limit the tactical movements even more, with the player blocking passes through the mountains or woods. The result would be a restricted tactical movement, detrimental to the AI as it's not really capable of assessing the situation and sending troops around, or not sending them.
x) If the buildable forts are additionally related with the free_upkeep then an exploit is possible: you farm the forts to keep your whole army without paying upkeep (it was the case of the HURB, but also in the DLV).

I think possible exploits were known long before and Byg, one of the most deep-thinking M2TW moders of all times, has introduced a simple solution that on hand left the possibility of building forts, but on the other making that so unappealing to the player that it would happen very rarely. Namely, in the BGR IV_E he made the price of a fort to 15000 florins (it was an additional patch, I recall). Any player would think many times before splashing 15k for a fort but we would be able to do it in a grave need (or in the late game when you’ve got hundred thousands of florins spared – but who besides Alavaria gets to that stage…).

In future, I’d see theoretically just two possibilities of re-introduction of the forts.
a. permanent forts on lone islands (like Rodos)
b. buildable forts with the extreme price of 20000 florins or more.
However, for the moment I don’t see a real need for such a re-introduction.

[Used2BRoz]

Whether modders use perm or temp forts is a matter of design choices and how they want to play.
For some mods they may not be suitable, for others they may be a useful addition.
Personally I find they add much to the gaming experience if used with care.

1) I don't like temp forts - the AI and the human player can dump them in places which while they may make sense in blocking movement,
this can cause all manner of pathfinding issues on the campaign map. They're also ahistorical, medieval armies didn't, as a rule, build temp forts or castles
unless they were used in sieges. The Roman practice of building a temp fort whilst marching on campaign wasn't applied.
2) I prefer perm forts and like to use both the vanilla fort models and the castle settlement models to provide for variety. Castles were part of the medieval landscape
They tended (although there were periods when they were dismantled when erected without permission) to be around and used for many years.
3) Perm forts have the advantage that modders can be precise in their placement. I avoid placing them on islands where there is only one settlement (unless you're using them as a role-play element) as they'll never come into play. I try and place them on roads but not in mountain passes or narrow coastal strips where they would completely block movement - castles would rarely totally block movement in an environment. One good use of them is in larger regions where armies take two or more turns to go from one settlement to another - where armies without generals will often turn rebel en route, leading to constant battles to try and keep a route open. Having a friendly fort to stop at reduces the chance for rebelling.
4) In gameplay sometimes the AI will use them wisely, sometimes it won't. But then the same happens without forts being around. The AI will defend a border while a settlement is left relatively undefended. A fort gives somewhere for defeated armies to retreat to.
5) Historically much of medieval warfare was conducted around sieging and capturing castles rather than big set piece open field battles.
6) Having perm castles / forts in the countryside allows for mods which have one settlement type, ie towns, to have a variety of battle environments.
7) I'd agree that one doesn't want to clutter the map with forts/castles - some areas on maps contain a lot of settlements near to each other where having forts would severely affect gameplay and just get in the way. Having perm forts allows modders to avoid that happening, whereas buildable ones might be stuck virtually anywhere. Making buildable forts expensive seems pointless, it's a waste of money and the AI usually has a hard time budgetting as it is without wasting money on forts which it moves out of a turn or two later. At least with perm forts there is no budget implications of them being there.
8) Exploits - whatever modders do, someone will try and exploit it. When I use perm forts I limit them to 2 free upkeep units to represent a garrison. Any more then it can be misused. They can represent local nobility that has built and maintained the fort / castle out of their own pockets and can afford a small garrison.

Overall for me, provided they are placed with care, perm forts/castles can make for a enhancement of a mod. A medieval landscape without castles just seems empty.

[Gigantus]

Point 7 is my main concern - if that is taken care of then permanent forts can be a valuable addition to the game

[Jurand of Cracow]

Me, on the other hand, I find the second part of point 7 the most interresting as I've got no idea how does the AI prioritize the fort building. Will it supersede priority of recruiting units and building the buildings? I've got no idea, a link with info (tests, experience) would be very welcome.
Besides, you know my opinions from the previous mod (I share opinion on the 1,2 points, but I disagree on 3,4,7).

[Gigantus]

From the rare occasions that I have seen the AI builds forts (you can only build them in your own lands afaik) it seems to be based on easily identifiable spots when using the console command 'toggle_terrain choke', at the entry of passes, but not always totally blocking it, eg leaving a gap for armies to pass through the ZoC.

Red - impassable
grey - unsuitable
white - ideal

[Used2BRoz]

Thanks for that map info Gigantus

Digging around I found a post of yours which lists the following commands that may be of use :

AI Info
toggle_terrain choke
toggle_terrain landing
toggle_terrain frontier
toggle_terrain frontier_defend

And then there are related commands to map info:

Map Info Commands
toggle_terrain region
toggle_terrain tiletype
toggle_terrain climate
toggle_terrain features

Are there any others ?

--------

As for the map.

Be interesting to know what the various sades of grey indicate.

Red is impassable due to terrain (ie rivers, mountains, dense forests) - forts cannot be built here ?
grey is less dense forests - not a good place to put forts ?
white - a good place to put forts ? (But maybe not, you can't build a fort on a bridge I would have thought.)

hmm.

Will have to screenshot next time I find the AI building a fort.

[Gigantus]

The shades of grey indicate the feasible of establishing a ZoC on that spot - if that spot is in the middle of a 5*5 tile spot it's a waste of time where it's effectiveness is concerned, hence that spot will be dark grey.

Note: the display is not based on the building of a fort, rather the establishing of a ZoC (a choke point) - that's why river crossings are blindingly white

red = impassable = impossible to move\build on.

The 'landing' and 'frontier' displays will play a part in the campaign AI's strategic calculations.

[Jadli]

To your previuos grander discussion I can however add info, that if you add permanent forts held by friendly faction (could be enforced through scripts to keep it that way), the AI absolutely doesnt care about them, doesnt stack armies around, anything. Tested for many turns. Of course, this make use only if you want to do what I do, which is adding dungeons that you want only player to eventually take, or something similar. I tested on on Germanicus and Skynet AI


Anyway:
Im playing wtih permanent forts aka dungeon now, and I got a question. I read several guides but havent found the info I was looking for.

Regarding strat map models... Im adding many permanent forts (=dungeons) and want to make many different types, however, through testing it seems for one faction starting at possession of those dungeons (dungeon faction), I can have only 7 different strat map models, correct?

Because if I change "culture" line in descr_strat, it will use the main model of that culture. And I can also set "faction_variant" through models_strat/residences. That faction variant is used only if the fort starts in possession of the faction that has the faction_variant and is of the same culture like it belongs to. If it didnt have faction_variant, it would use the culture's base model.

So thats seven possible variations for one faction's starting permanent forts, any way to have more? Could perhaps the "culture" line in descr_strat be somehow replaced with "faction_variant"? Or would it be possible to tie it to the stone forts types perhaps? ( I mean tie to to stone_fort_a, stone_fort_b and so on).

I assume the only way might be havng those forts start in possession of other faction and somehow force those generals to join dungeon factions. Though, seven might be enough for my purpose, but then I would have to set permanent forts for other factions via factions variants, which might be a bit chaotic .... Or I suppose I could make forts invisible and put custom resources into the same spots

[Gigantus]

The strat cas model of the default fort is determined in descr_cultures and does not change regardless what type of battle model is used - which means you are limited to the options you described, eg faction_variants.

[Jadli]

Alright thanks! Is there some working script command that would force an army to join other faction, by which I could get more of those variants?

[Gigantus]

Not as far as I know - might give it a try if sending off map and re-spawning for another faction works. You might actually spawn a new character, though.

[Used2BRoz]

One extra point about perm forts.

As well as having custom design forts, you can also use some of the ambient buildings you find scattered around battle maps as "forts".
These you can pre-place in suitable locations. They can be used as locations for role playing or quests if you like
They have no military function and are best placed where the AI won't go to them - ie islands with no settlements.

Some are included in this package : http://www.twcenter.net/forums/downl...o=file&id=3115