AGEOD Forums

Going through the manual i noticed on the shortcut keys, shift+f; build fort.
But as yet all i can really build are depots, is it possible to construct forts?
Excellent game, spending many happy, frustrating hours, trying to outwit the enemy.

Post Captain wrote:Going through the manual i noticed on the shortcut keys, shift+f; build fort.
But as yet all i can really build are depots, is it possible to construct forts?
Excellent game, spending many happy, frustrating hours, trying to outwit the enemy.

Mmm not sure at 100% but is seems just a left over from the American Civil War game manual on which you can build forts on cities.

Yes, you cannot build forts. Are you using the last version of the manual?



From the old version of the manual

Operational Orders (if applicable)
Shift+T: Enter Town upon reaching destination
Shift+F: Build Fort
Shift+D: Build Depot
Shift+S: Sortie from structure



From the new version, removed

Operational Orders (if applicable):
Shift+T : Enter Town upon reaching destination
Shift+D : Build Depot
Shift+S : Sortie from structure


The updated manual comes with the last patches, 1.04 and 1.03 too I think

The updated manual can be downloaded form here also
http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=165

Regards

arsan that is not the last, in the link you posted you got the version 6 for 1.02. The last is called Version 6.2 for NCP 1.03 and comes with the patch

But you are right, here "Shift+F: Build Fort" has been removed too. It seems that only appears in v1.01 of the manual

Then maybe the "Download Last NCP manual" link at the bottom of the forums main page should be updated
I just copied that link over here

I have the boxed version (1.02) manual, But thanks for the info.

I was about to ask if there was fort building. Thanks for information.
Is there entrenching and if so what kind of hexes can it be done in?

No, there is no entrenching in NCP.
It was not "on vogue" then
On this game all is about field battles and sieges. Things are rather more mobile than in the AACW, from my experience.
Of course defending has some limited advantages (check offensive and defensive fire values on the different units) and terrain offer the normal advantages to the defenders. But the very important multi level entrenchments of the ACW are not used on this game to better represent the Napoleonic historical period.
Regards

From the manual

"Entrenchments only appear as part of the initial scenario set-up or, in certain scenarios, by events. Players do not construct entrenchments."

It seems to me there should be some way to improve city defenses over time, using supplies and heavy guns. Between the first and second sieges of Saragossa, the city's defenses were much improved, making it a tougher nut to crack than the first siege, which was unsuccessful.
While I do not favor alot of entrenching like ACW, there were certainly examples where it was done. Wagram: French on Lobau Island and Muhlau tete du pont and the Austrians north of the Danube. Russians: famously, Borodino. There are many more examples, I'm sure.
If such entrenching or improved positions were only allowed with engineers present, and at the cost of supply, artillery units and time trenches would not be popping up all over the place, which I would not like to see. Units engaged in creating improved positions should not only require some time to do it, but suffer combat penalties while doing it.

And Torres Vedras

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



Perhaps some fortification and entrechment should be allowed?

Nikel wrote:And Torres Vedras

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



Perhaps some fortification and entrechment should be allowed?

Totally agree, there have been many campaigns where i have wanted to surround a city with redoubts.

The russian positions at Borodino and the Allies at Bautzen was bristling with redoubt, so it should certainly be an option although only to about a 10% benefit as the above examples are the most elaborate field defences besides Torres Vedres. Also the defence of any fortified location depended greatly on supply, morale and PREPARATION, the last element seems to be missing.

Would you think it would be historical to allowing troops to entrench, but only if there is a structure in the region? High level entrenchments would be considered as redoubts or as the Torre Vedras line.

Would you think it would be historical to allow troops to entrench, but only if there is a structure in the region? High level entrenchments would be considered as redoubts or as the Torre Vedras line.

Yes you could do something along the line of an order "prepare for defence" which could apply to all structures - forts or city, engineers should off course help immensely. I can see that entrenching in open terrain would take some of the dynamics out of a Napoleonic system that does not have the posiibility of flanking (which would require entrenchements in the open to have a facing).

At Quatre Bras, Ney ordered his engineers to prepare to fortify the crossroads as soon as it was taken to repulse any counterattacks. But he never got that far.

To ensure an entrenching or fortification capability is not abused, Sappers should have to be present with the force attempting such "improved positions"
Also, some supply and artillery should be expended.
The player should have to trade some supply and arty for increased defense and immobility,,,Force must start in the region and cannot move that turn unless attacked (at a defense penalty).
Thus the ability will be there, but the tradeoffs will insure trenches dont sprout up all over the place. We dont want WWI.

I think entrenchments in open country is absurd for a zone game, these kind of positions were only ever valid in a situation where the attacker deliberatly took them head on out off fear of the defender refusing battle if the position was outflanked.

If you must have sapper engineers present, must expend supply and arty (which becomes immobile) and must remain immobile for a turn at reduced defensive capability you will not be doing alot of digging. You might attempt to improve the defenses of certain cities or build the lines of Torres Vedras.

I do not want to see improved positions popping up willy-nilly. I'd like a modest capability to improve defenses as described.

We don't want that either. Great idea on sappers, this give a very special role to the unit.

Fortifying was not just about trenches, farmhouses would be loopholed, and entrances shut off and Abatis put across the roads, which happened at Waterloo.
I used to boardgame many years ago, mainly Decision games and on one of them, Napoleon's first battles, you had engineers, which allowed you construct redoubts, which was quite a useful rule.