Now that we have seen the forts...thoughts?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

In the recent footage we have just seen, there was a fort present and I wanted to know what everyone else thought of them.

Personally, I am stuck between two thoughts. Firstly, that fort is small as hell. I'm not trying to say that I was expecting a massive, up to scale fort. It's just that I was not expecting a fort that small. I was looking forward to forts that were big enough to at least accommodate 20 units. I am kind of disappointed because the fort is completely pointless. The whole point of a fort is to protect the defending army and to give them an advantage against superior numbers.

On the other hand, I can understand the choice behind this. A smaller fort means that people or AI will not just camp in there and it won't just become a chaotic massacre by the doorway. This decision is obviously put in place to force us to fight out in the open.

That is the thing I find annoying though, which is that we are being forced to fight on CA's terms which is out in the open. I think it was enough that most of the city battles will be field battles but to limit forts this way? I really don't know. I'm waiting for your thoughts to see what you guys think and hopefully someone can convince me that this isn't that bad. I understood the decision making behind the cities etc. but not the forts though. The whole point of a fort is to make enemy numbers count for nothing.

[Aleksander the Average]

perhaps there will be defense bonuses, but if the forts truly are rendered useless then i would imagine CA has a good reason for it

[craziii]

perhaps there will be defense bonuses, but if the forts truly are rendered useless then i would imagine CA has a good reason for it

ign video clearly showed all the benefits of a fort or defensive stance. unless ca got a different kind.

[Sabre120]

perhaps there will be defense bonuses, but if the forts truly are rendered useless then i would imagine CA has a good reason for it

There are in the form of passive buffs, as far as I remember, going into fort mode on the campaign map will grant a 20% melee defence bonus to all units among other things.

[lacrossepl9]

Could it be that the forts grow compared to the size of your army? this is one thought to consider like the Legion you use in the tutorial was only 10 units, maybe with 20 units the fort will grow a little bigger. I like how it doesn't accommodate an entire army though cus I see it's main purpose being your last ditch effort to win the battle. If you lose too many soldiers you fall back behind the walls of your encampment and try to hold off the enemy. It seems to be more of a place to hold your last stand rather than just a cheap way to bottleneck the AI and win on the open field with limited casualties. So I really like this a lot actually it makes the AI less likely to make the dumb mistake of breaking against the wall and killing itself even if it holds numerical superiority and it forces the player to actually use tactics in the field rather than hide behind a wall.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Could it be that the forts grow compared to the size of your army? this is one thought to consider like the Legion you use in the tutorial was only 10 units, maybe with 20 units the fort will grow a little bigger. I like how it doesn't accommodate an entire army though cus I see it's main purpose being your last ditch effort to win the battle. If you lose too many soldiers you fall back behind the walls of your encampment and try to hold off the enemy. It seems to be more of a place to hold your last stand rather than just a cheap way to bottleneck the AI and win on the open field with limited casualties. So I really like this a lot actually it makes the AI less likely to make the dumb mistake of breaking against the wall and killing itself even if it holds numerical superiority and it forces the player to actually use tactics in the field rather than hide behind a wall.

I know what you mean. When it comes to upgradable forts, I think it could be possible but I can't see it. Hopefully a dev can clear it up.

The problem I find is that the emphasis on fields battles has spoilt a lot of other features. I know fort battles are prone to having the AI act stupid but the fact is that CA should not have turned fort battles into field battles. There's already enough field battles. For people like me who loved siege battles and fort battles, we are really missing out big time. Part of the strategy in Rome 1 was to get a massive army to attack your fort so you could defeat them on your terms.

[lacrossepl9]

I know what you mean. When it comes to upgradable forts, I think it could be possible but I can't see it. Hopefully a dev can clear it up.

The problem I find is that the emphasis on fields battles has spoilt a lot of other features. I know fort battles are prone to having the AI act stupid but the fact is that CA should not have turned fort battles into field battles. There's already enough field battles. For people like me who loved siege battles and fort battles, we are really missing out big time. Part of the strategy in Rome 1 was to get a massive army to attack your fort so you could defeat them on your terms.

Well don't forget as someone already mentioned the palisade isn't the only defense you get, if you watch closely in the video when AL enters fortify mode it says you get 2 sets of caltrops, barriers, flaming balls of hay, and spikes I think or something like that so you get a ton of defenses on top of the fort to play with so you can cover a lot of ground and defend the capture point with just a few units forcing the enemy into a bottleneck. So it looks like having a smaller fort makes it so you can't just put all those defenses in the gate and just hide in there, the small fort balances out everything else, you still gain the edge but you're not completely unbeatable.

[fenianmenace]

Well don't forget as someone already mentioned the palisade isn't the only defense you get, if you watch closely in the video when AL enters fortify mode it says you get 2 sets of caltrops, barriers, flaming balls of hay, and spikes I think or something like that so you get a ton of defenses on top of the fort to play with so you can cover a lot of ground and defend the capture point with just a few units forcing the enemy into a bottleneck.

Noticed this as well. It really begs the question why Al didn't bother using any of the extra defenses he had available when it appeared the point of the battle was to showcase new features such as army stances and LoS.

[lacrossepl9]

Noticed this as well. It really begs the question why Al didn't bother using any of the extra defenses he had available when it appeared the point of the battle was to showcase new features such as army stances and LoS.

They aren't available in the first tutorial battle if you look he never had the option (in Empire the second you clicked on a unit the possible defenses that unit could place popped up on the left). The script telling AL these things were available is the box that comes up no matter what when you go into defensive mode that's why it's there for this battle. But since it's the first battle for new players the tutorial doesn't give you the ability to use these features cus new players are already learning a lot as it is setting traps could be disastrous cus it could cause a new player to spring them on his own troops by mistake (running his own cavalry into spikes or caltrops as we all have done before in Med 2 am I right? haha) and so they avoid this feature till later on when the player has a better hang of the battles. Do not forget the battle we saw is going to be the FIRST battle new players EVER play.

[CDR Hurricane]

This fort looks big enough for about half a stack of infantry to fit into comfortably. Also, the walls are short enough that artillery should be able to shoot out from inside. I think the main advantage of forts will be to hold off large enemy armies with small forces by making kill zones just inside the gate. If you have a full stack, you are probably strong enough to meet the enemy in the field head on anyway. Otherwise, you can still form a defensive semicircle outside the gate with any troops that can't fit inside the fort, making you flank-proof.

Defensive stance also says it includes "barriers" which we never saw Al deploy in the video. You might be able to use these to essentially close the gate of the fort.

[Bearnation54]

I agree with how small they are they are pointless. But it could be possible that these forts are bigger with larger armies or through technological advances

[von stoker]

probably the best way to use forts is to put your archers inside to protect them from melee, anchor your battle line in a semi circle against the fort wall (this would protect one end of the line from being flanked) and have a few reserve units to cover any breakthroughs.

[kamikazee786]

i feel that CA has made some clearly good choices in the game, but they then take these choices all the way to the extreme.

With forts i see the extreme that they really are way to small to be of any real use. If CA could make them a little bigger so that maybe you can put your ranged units on the wall and then your infantry on the outside defending the fort then it would be perfect

Another example is the siege mechanics. I can understand why you'd make minor settlements unsiegable (we all got bored of the sieges in shogun) however the extreme in this is that CA has left out some really important cities such as Rhodes, Jerusalem and Syracuse etc which really aren't minor settlements

if CA had made some Custom cities maps for these obviously important cities then i really wouldn't have minded the mechanic as it really does help getting rid of the problems of constant sieges like in Shogun II.

[Jokern]

From the looks of it, the forts are nothing more than a structure around a capture point. It doesn't look like men can man the walls, there is no gate to the fort and most of the yard inside is covered by tents, making it hard to place your units in a god defensive way. I'm actually a bit dissapointed that it doesn't look like they went as far as they could've gone with the forts. A shame.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

The forts are too small and they don't even have gates. What a joke. They should be like the forts in Rome 1 instead.

[Markas]

Fortify stance gives you a small fort as the Romans in the tutorial but surely every faction gets that when it fortifies? I would have thought a representation of Castra would have been given to the Romans as it was kind of a big thing for them. Curious omission.

[HusKatten]

if forts were bigger and more effective than what CA have shown so far, then they'll be close to as effective as a small settlement - attack one of these bigger forts would result in a battle similar to a siege which is exactly what CA wants to decrease.

Introducing too effective forts would able the player to abuse the fortification, using it next to his minor city which has no walls. It would be odd if you had to fight a fortification battle instead of the minor city battle - it would completely destroy the point of having minor cities.

[Markas]

if forts were bigger and more effective than what CA have shown so far, then they'll be close to as effective as a small settlement - attack one of these bigger forts would result in a battle similar to a siege which is exactly what CA wants to decrease.

Introducing too effective forts would able the player to abuse the fortification, using it next to his minor city which has no walls. It would be odd if you had to fight a fortification battle instead of the minor city battle - it would completely destroy the point of having minor cities.

If you made Forts attackable without siege equipment so they give good defenses but don't act like cities it could work. In Medieval 1 your troops could burn gates down with torches, for example. Limiting them to one per province, and/or having them researched/gained through traditions could be used to avoid exploits.

[HusKatten]

If you made Forts attackable without siege equipment so they give good defenses but don't act like cities it could work. In Medieval 1 your troops could burn gates down with torches, for example. Limiting them to one per province, and/or having them researched/gained through traditions could be used to avoid exploits.

Either that or having no gates at all. A fort without proper gates is still a good defensiven structure for outnumbered armies since it will create choke points.

But i don't think they'll have to be bigger. A huge army should not be able to hide behind walls, they should be fighting a field battle. Forts are for outnumbered and small armies, imo. For gameplay reasons ofcourse.

[HusKatten]

If you made Forts attackable without siege equipment so they give good defenses but don't act like cities it could work. In Medieval 1 your troops could burn gates down with torches, for example. Limiting them to one per province, and/or having them researched/gained through traditions could be used to avoid exploits.

Either that or having no gates at all. A fort without proper gates is still a good defensiven structure for outnumbered armies since it will create choke points.

But i don't think they'll have to be bigger. A huge army should not be able to hide behind walls, they should be fighting a field battle. Forts are for outnumbered and small armies, imo. For gameplay reasons ofcourse.