AGEOD Forums

I'm looking to see if the following statement holds water. Please challenge, question or add to the idea.


Forts
Forts can be traps. If you don’t have a field force capable of relieving a threated fortress, or if delaying the enemy is not critical, fight your defending forces and garrison outside the structure in entrenchments.

Outside, if the defenders survive the initial combat round, they may be able to retreat. This might limit NM loses you would suffer if your force was trapped inside and fell to an assault or siege. In the same spirit, if your fortress artillery might be captured and of use to the enemy, eat the victory point cost and spike the slow moving guns.

This is water-tight. Forces inside any structure are in danger of getting trapped there by a siege. At least with a fort you have the opportunity to destroy it before it falls into enemy hands, but you can't burn a fort down around you if you are in it during a siege.

Mid-'62, south of Raleigh NC, I surrounded a rebel field corps containing fort batteries. Over the ensuing 6 weeks, I hit it repeatedly with a corps containing my best Eastern generals, its escape foiled by the slow-moving guns. At the end, the corps was wiped out and several artillery elements were taken, including one named Fort Sumter Artillery. Within 6 months, it had been reinstalled in its rightful place in the mouth of Charleston Harbor under the Banner of Stars.

So, it may be a fatal effort to try to move your big guns out. Instead, leave them as a trap to be an albatross around your enemy's neck

Yup, sounds water tight to me too.

Forts without harbors are even worse. If it has a port you may be able to evacuate with transports before an assault.

Pretty much correct. Read the old AACW AgeWiki:Sieges_and_breaches and AgeWiki:Sieges and breaches articles to understand how sieges work to understand your chances of surviving a siege for how long.

The ZOC of a redoubt/fort/stockade can allow even a small force to stop an invading army dead in its tracks.

Lee/Grant can attack a force entrenched in open terrain with over a hundred extra elements above the normal number allowed by that terrain.

Lee/Grant can attack the same force entrenched in a structure with 25% less elements than the defenders because the structure is not open terrain.

If you wish to defend outside the structure, your force can be shredded and then retreat into a structure that it no longer can defend.

If you are going to defend inside a structure, then have supplies and a Supply Wagon. The chance of the force surrendering before they can be relieved is only 5%.

Artillery can do a lot of damage if entrenched inside a structure.

Don't let a Bastogne become an Alamo. If it is an Alamo, then make it a gambit so that you can strike a winning blow elsewhere.

Defending a structure is a tool that should be in your toolbox.

Word

I still think forts in PBEMs are death traps. If you are going to defend inside a fort then you need to have a corps size force that can counter attack the besiegers within two turns or it is folly. Chances are you will need two corps to push out the besiegers who will be defending in their own entrenchments.

In my experience it rarely takes longer than three turns to have the fort fully breached. Then the defender is stuck and forced to fight to the death. If it is a division sized force with a supply wagon and extra artillery you will lose 3-4NM, a supply wagon, and the spare artillery.

If you lose your capital by not defending inside the fortifications, then your army may survive but you lost 50 NM by taking this choice. Even set to Hold at all Cost, a force entrenched in the open will eventually take too many casualties and run away. If it makes sense to defend your capital, then it is equally important to any strategy to hold other fortified regions. The fort structures only work if occupied.

Santa Anna laid siege to the Alamo so that Houston's army would come there and be destroyed. Houston used every day that the Alamo pinned down the Mexicans to train his army to destroy Santa Anna. Don't waste a fort's defenders.

Dude, of course you want to defend your capital. I thought that was obvious.

I'm talking about places like Fort Donelson. It may be tempting to put a division inside there as the CSA, but don't do it. Grant will just land on top of you with 5 divisions while ironclads block your port exit. It will take at least 8 divisions to win against Grant and save your fort defenders. You would lose less if you disbanded your forts defenders.

Cardinal Ape wrote:I'm talking about places like Fort Donelson. It may be tempting to put a division inside there as the CSA, but don't do it.

I'm going to nod my here and say,

"Yep, no more big garrisons at Ft Donelson for me. Not too long ago, I lost 4 NM when a division, not to mention a supply wagon, surrendered at that very spot. What’s really hurting down the road is that missing power in my mobile force."

Cardinal Ape, the thread is a proposed truth about forts being death traps submitted for discussion, to which you were in agreement. I pointed out that the Alamo became a deathtrap, for a reason. We both agree that at least one fort should be defended with a reserve and would therefore not be allowed to become a deathtrap. So forts should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Ft. Donelson is the key to the Cumberland river, a supply highway to eastern TN. When the CSA lost it they essentially lost that state. If it is obvious that you can hold your capital's fort, then it is equally obvious that you could hold any other fort, too. If every fort that you defend is an Alamo, then something very wrong is happening.

Gray Fox, I think we are on the same page here.. Kind of. Military men don't take kindly to being called 'dude', do they? Yes, Sir.

I was just trying to emphasize the importance of a proper relief force and the dangers of Ft. Donelson if you don't have one. I've seen quite a few players get burned there; it needs a warning sign. It is quite difficult for the CSA to be able to afford a workable defense for Ft. Donelson in the early game. That is if Grant leads the attack anyway.

People shouldn't forget that any artillery inside a division is immune to capture. The general will most likely die, but at least he will take your cannon with him.

Anyhow, I don't have much of the fort defender in me, its definitely not my strong suit. I lean much more towards Patton's 'attack, and attack and attack some more.'

I'm a sword...and shield type. Hold strongpoints to cripple your enemy's plans. When nothing works for him, then he is at your mercy. As in chess, you survive off your opponent's mistakes. Defend with as little as you can and attack with everything you've got.

Also, I told my grandsons to call me Grandude...or is it Grandewd?