AGEOD Forums

What level of trenches equals to the structure redoubt?

I play for the USA. And looking at Alexandria (Fairfax, VA) I have a question. What it is better to put troops into the city (ie redoubt) or wait until they strengthened (have time). In case of the trenches when the enemy attacks and win my troops retreat to the neighboring region, or if they are located in the redoubt , they will be locked in and maybe I 'll lose them (surrender). Ie trenches in this case looks better. What do you think?

And one more question. How redoubt affects movement on the river?
If you build a redoubt on the river and put it in the four elements of art. it immediately block the movement of the river?


Sorry for my english

Redoubts are the same as forts. They have the same benefits and drawbacks. Entrenchments are out side forts. I believe their entrenchment value is 4, so entrenchment levels above 4 are actually better. You just have to wait for them to be constructed.

Redoubts or entrenched artillery on a river close it to supply movement but the enemy can run past but will be bombarded by your guns. Entrenched guns have to be set to bombard where as actual forts do it automatically.

"They have the same benefits and drawbacks. Entrenchments are out side forts."

What does this mean? I have noticed that units in a region can be in or out of forts; if out do they benefit form this level 4 entrenchment. Are forts deathtraps as are cities? Why would anyone place units in a city or fort if otherwise they have level4 forts and can retreat?

I would like someone to correct me if I am wrong, but it is a good question on what the benefit is of a fort

Forts have a couple benefits:
1. You don't have to wait to dig it; it's there already
2. Limited frontage; this means the attacker can only employ a few elements in an assault. This means a garrison of a few elements can hold off almost any attack. I don't have enough experience to know HOW many, but assaults on anything more than 4-5 elements are problematic, and even small garrisons you need a big advantage to take them
3. Artillery in the fort automatically interdicts naval supply, and will bombard passing ships

But the problem is that unless you have a field army outside the fort, the enemy can march there, beseige you, and wait a turn or two. Much like RL.

Units must be inside a fort to gain benefit from the fort's protection.

Forts are not only much tougher against siege, but they draw far more supply, which means that it is far more unlikely that a force inside a fort will surrender; especially if the besieged fort can still draw supply through a harbor. They also need artillery to defend against the besieging force.

The details are pretty well described in the manual on pages 93 and 94. Have a quick read. It will clear up most of your question.

Edit: Q-Ball's assessment is correct. I would like to add that it is also bad to put too many troops inside any structure, including a fort. Please have a read through this: Overcrowding Rule, which is unfortunately not in the manual.

I have an army resting in a fort (aprox 960 strength) and besieged by 575 strength. All areas around are enemy controlled. If I move the stack outside the fort on offensive posture (5% MC) and have to retreat will the corps retreat back into the fort?

The corps will retreat into the structure if you enable the special order "Enter Structure".

But I don't want the corps to enter if they win? If losing then yes. So if the corps wins the battle wont they then re-enter the fort at the end of the turn?

No they will not, only if they loose.

The rope won't be set loose, should I lose!

Ok Pocus, I did a typo, you got me there

I hadn't seen the overcrowding rule before: It says a fort should have a max of 25 troops for most efficient protection. Does this mean 2500 total troops, or 25 elements (eg, 25 companies)? I couldn't imagine it means 25 divisions or corps...

I've had some odd experiences with defending forts (I've rarely defended them against 15,000-20,000 union troops; my defenders have almost always lost and retreated in the same turn. I also often suffer equivalent, if not more, in losses than the attacking army (rarely besieged too, it often occurs in just one turn). If I do put 25 troops in maximum, I wonder if this would still occur or if they would actually successfully defend the fort.

25 regiments.

Please read it again. It says specifically elements. Elements are regiments, artillery batteries, cavalry regiments and even leaders. If you click on a stack on the map to load it in the Stack Panel, then click on one of the Units in the Stack Panel, the Inspection Panel will open to the right of the Stack Panel. Each line in the Inspection Panel describes one element of the Unit being inspected. Read page 30 of the manual if you are still not sure.

First off, forts are not all those romanticized, mid-evil solid-stone structures you see in the movies, mostly call fortress or castle, nor does anybody ride around them shooting their firearms inward like in the old Westerns of Hollywood. They are more like the main-stay of a defensive position, that you can fall back on if outnumbered or overrun. Although some forts that can be found in Civil War literature are large stone and brick structures, the only ones I can think of to which the fighting even came close that survived the war are Fort Monroe (she basically survived because her location was more or less unassailable) and Fort Caswell (because her importance was overshadowed by Fort Fisher).

The other forts that did survive the war were less what you might call a fort and more of a kind of extensive entrenchment with hills and the general landscape incorporated into them or with earth mounded to man-made hills. These were very successful in surviving artillery bombardment. A solid shot hitting the masonry walls of an old pre-war fort will crack, break or puncture them. Solid shot hitting the earthworks of a structure line Fort Fisher will be swallowed by the earth and rarely did any actual damage.

If all of your troops are outside of a fort and none of them inside, the only thing the fort will do for you is provide supplies (they draw a lot of supplies) and prevent an enemy force from just passing them by (if the fort is empty, I'm not even sure if they'll do that).

Trying to defend solely from within a fort is also not the best choice. With no force outside, anybody can move around in the region doing what ever they wish basically, including entrenching and destroying or repairing rail lines.

What you want to do depends on the size of your force and the enemies. At lease one regiment of infantry should be left inside the fort. In case your field force is defeated in battle and is retreating and not yet outside the region, you can simply cancel that retreat movement and drop them inside the fort. Even if your field force is already outside the region by the start of the next turn, you will still have your garrison sitting inside the fort and you can possibly still bring your defeated force back into the fort if there is a harbor that you can sail into, or you can counter attack. At any rate, you will still have your fort, your supply source and a fighting chance.

Fort Erie, Fort Pulaski, partially Fort Moultrie, a Fort up in Maine, Fort McHenry, Partially Fort Stevens, some western forts that were preserved, Alcatraz Fortress, Fort Pickens, Partially Castle Pinckney, Fort Zachary, and Fort Jefferson survived until the present century. (I've been to them all!) I can't recall the name of the Maine one.

Regarding Fort Alcatraz. I am afraid that the only part of the original Civil War fort to survive the conversion into a federal prison is the sally port and guard house:



A much better example of a Civil War era fort is Fort Point, which is located directly below the southern leg of the Golden Gate Bridge. Fort Point is especially interesting as it was built in 1859 using the same model as Fort Sumter.

Very nice photos

Although Fort Pulaski survived the war, you can see exactly why brick and masonry forts stopped being built from her wreck. It took the Feds less than 1 day of shelling from Tybee Island (using rifled guns) to force the garrison's surrender. The Fed cannons were about to hit the powder magazine when the garrison surrendered.

I understand these catches and what Orso was saying. I remember visiting Fort Point as well. I was just stating that there are surviving Forts dating back to the American Civil War. Not that they all just sort of eroded away like Fort Clark (Which wasn't even a masonry Fort!).

Oh and did I mention Fort Delaware is still around as well.

I saidededed

the only ones I can think of to which the fighting even came close that survived the war are Fort Monroe (she basically survived because her location was more or less unassailable) and Fort Caswell (because her importance was overshadowed by Fort Fisher).

Maybe I should have said "which got or nearly got the sh*t kicked out of them"

OH well I feel like a fool.

Fort Point in San Francisco is worth a visit as it is an excellent example of the Fort Sumter model of brick forts. Fort Sumter, OTOH, did not fare well during the war.

Fort Sumter in 1865:

[ATTACH]25876[/ATTACH]

Fort Delaware. Was a prison.

Gen.DixonS.Miles wrote:OH well I feel like a fool.

Not to worry, my wording was a bit easy to be misconstrued