City Forts

[It's a Trap]

Can someone please add any knowledge to my list here

*Pro: automatic entrenchment,

*Con: must be in a city to use (doesn't apply if you sally forth), expensive, can be breached and result in hits when not in combat(unlike trenches), doesn't count as a depot.


obviously I must be missing stuff here, cause a force would just be better off sitting outside for several turns and getting max fortification. And you wouldn't set a huge army in it cause they would just get seiged and unless you keep a supply chain open it would disappear.

I'm asumming that max trenches = a lvl 2 fort.

[GraniteStater]

I know from your other posts that you know what you're doing, but I think you could benefit from reading this:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6823

It's Runyon's primer on AACW.

To answer your question - cities are traps. The best arrangement is to have a good-sized force outside the city in entrenchments, with Arty, and to have a smaller city garrison inside the place itself. I'm not religious about this, myself, especially in Enemy Loyalty regions in winter (I go inside then), but that's the gist of it.

Read Runyon. Read the Wiki (Runyon's work is there, too).

[soloswolf]

Z.o.c.

[It's a Trap]

Yeah but for instance the locked units in alexandria. Would it be better to build them a fort or just let them be outside and get full entrenchment?

I've read the link before and it is awesome , but I'm trying to understand what a fort offers that entrechment doesn't. I just think theres got to be something that I'm not getting.

EDIT: BTW I know when its a trap

[GraniteStater]

For Alexandria, VA? I wouldn't bother, myself. That's my staging area for the Union Eastern theater - don't you have scads of folks lining up to get into formation there?

* I have built depots - twice, in coastal regions, to ensure supplies. Otherwise, I never build depots, no need to, I capture 'em.

* I have Never, Ever, built a fort.

As the Union, why? Why bother? You're trying to attack, ne c'est pas? You need to build big armies with lotsa artillery, put them under the best leaders you can, and crush this peridious rebellion.

Do it today.

[It's a Trap]

It was just an example. I'm just trying to understand what they could offer to justify building them.

[GraniteStater]

To paraphrase from U. S. Grant, the only real purpose for fortifications is to hold a given piece of ground with fewer men, thus freeing up some others for other tasks.

Now, IRL and the game, can they be a strongpoint? Yes. Are they useful to interdict maritime traffic? Yes. Other than these points, though, their only purpose is above.

Thus, I see no need for the Union to build them. I'm starting a CSA game and will, undoubtedly, learn more about the mechanics, but, even then, I will probably eschew building them.

Going back to ancient times, there is a general rule: everything else being equal, the besieger usually wins. The besieger, historically, fails for one of two reasons: lack of supplies or forage (logistics), or a relief column arrives.

As the Union, I laugh at CSA sieges - I can usually find or scrape up a relief column from somewhere, and, it being the 1860s, use RRs to get them there in plenty of time to raise the siege. I'm the besieger as the Union.

As a CSA player, I think I'll be pressed to find relief troops for raising Union sieges. You have to use artillery to build a fort and I think I'd rather have it in an active unit than as a static emplacement.

If you can't relieve the siege, you'll lose the garrison.

Forts have their times and places, but, as you can tell, I'm not a big fan of them. Worked better in 862 than 1862.

[MrT]

I personally like forts but only to anchor the devensive line on, not to be used as islands in the enemy land.. ill blow up and withdraw before that happens (so my own fort doesnt hinder a counter attack). But as the union forts a no-no for me, you've the men so steamroller!

[Heldenkaiser]

Going back to ancient times, there is a general rule: everything else being equal, the besieger usually wins.

Yes, he does. But then the idea of a fort is not to hold out forever, but to buy time and pin down enemy forces, right?

[GraniteStater]

Yes, that's correct. As you can tell, though, if you're the Union (I'm assuming the OP is playing the Union), why would you build forts?

I can see a CSA player doing it, but not the Union - especially in Alexandria - that's your front yard.

To amplify, as the CSA, the only use I can see for a fort is to slow down an advance and pin people down, as you said. However, one needs to counterattack in conjunction with this. I wouldn't base a strategy on forts, myself - they can be useful, but only as part of a plan to counter-punch at the time of your choosing.

Coastal and river forts to interdict marine traffic is a different consideration.

[Jim-NC]

For a reason to build a fort, look to Soundoff vs. Banks6060 AARs. Banks is the CSA, and has built some forts. You can see their opinions and what the forts have done to the game (from both sides - attacker and defender).

[slimey.rock]

I've built a few forts before as CSA. I find that a fort along the Mississippi will go a long way to discourage a naval invasion. Also, I can imagine a fort at Richmond wouldn't be a bad idea. 1 division garrisoned in a lvl2 fort can take on a serious chunk of troops.

[GraniteStater]

Richmond would be a problem, 'cuz I couldn't starve it out easily. Any non-Supply source fort is subject to investiture, however. With the North's general advantages in men and material, well, there ya go, pilgrim. Put a good size force there and the CSA can't break the siege and eventually must starve. In the game, of course, it would mean that your PWR numbers would drop.

In the case of Richmond or a similar situation, again, it's a numbers game. You wanna park a whole buncha guys in a fort that I'm reluctant to assault? Fine, go ahead. I'll put two Corps there and keep you company. I have more men available in general, so if you want to tie down 700 PWR in your own city, go ahead. Now I'll just make sure you don't go anywhere while my other forces are free to hunt your buddies down elsewhere.

Oh, you want to build other forts? Go ahead. Now you're tying down your own forces in several places and really making my job easier.

Eventually, I can reduce or assault your forts - and win. In the end, the CSA needs a mobile strategy and can't be too static.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Oh, you want to build other forts? Go ahead. Now you're tying down your own forces in several places and really making my job easier.

Eventually, I can reduce or assault your forts - and win. In the end, the CSA needs a mobile strategy and can't be too static.

In other words, avoid a "Maginot Mentality." (No offense to my French brethren!:coeurs

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

P.S. I just built my first-ever fort as USA. Put it in the Shenandoah Valley, one region SW of Harper's Ferry, to hold the area with fewer troops and create a tough ZOC. Just an experiment, really. Trying something different.

[GraniteStater]

Don't get me wrong, they have their uses and benefits, but definitely have drawbacks and are not a strategic solution in and of themselves.

I'll have to look up the ZoC impact.

[slimey.rock]

Richmond would be a problem, 'cuz I couldn't starve it out easily. Any non-Supply source fort is subject to investiture, however. With the North's general advantages in men and material, well, there ya go, pilgrim. Put a good size force there and the CSA can't break the siege and eventually must starve. In the game, of course, it would mean that your PWR numbers would drop.

In the case of Richmond or a similar situation, again, it's a numbers game. You wanna park a whole buncha guys in a fort that I'm reluctant to assault? Fine, go ahead. I'll put two Corps there and keep you company. I have more men available in general, so if you want to tie down 700 PWR in your own city, go ahead. Now I'll just make sure you don't go anywhere while my other forces are free to hunt your buddies down elsewhere.

Oh, you want to build other forts? Go ahead. Now you're tying down your own forces in several places and really making my job easier.

Eventually, I can reduce or assault your forts - and win. In the end, the CSA needs a mobile strategy and can't be too static.

Here are my thoughts on it.

1) Often times, Richmond is taken from lack of garrison. Too many times have I seen players leave only the token garrison that's locked to the region. They think their front lines will hold back the North, but when a hole is exposed, they find they lost their capital to a relatively small force.

2) If there is one region where you can guarantee a battle, it is Richmond. The main problem I see with heavily garrisoned forts is that they can be bypassed, but not Richmond.

3) As Soundoff has said in his AAR, it is always a good plan to have a division or two in reserve. So why not supplement that division with a fort which would basically double the amount of troops it can withstand.

I'll get more into this point in the AAR I started, but just as a teaser I'll reveal a little of it. In my game, I had all my forces tied up in Mannassas/Aquia. I felt it was important that I had as much strength there as possible, because that's where the action was. However, I failed to notice a 2 division sized force land at Ft. Monroe. The next turn, the force was two regions away from Richmond on the peninsula and the rail at Culpepper had been cut, which severed my direct link to Richmond. I sent a force as fast as I could, but ended up losing Richmond the next turn. I quickly retook Richmond, but the North had just gained a free 50 morale points . Lesson learned.

[GraniteStater]

I couldn't agree with you more, actually. I wish Athena would really turn Richmond into a tough nut.

My only real point is that forts, by themselves, are not a solution. They can be part of one, but fail as a 'general solution', as mathematicians say.

And I would never take the time to stop and build one as the Union, but that's me, Mr. Push-push-push whatsamatterwehaventgotalldayletsgoletsgo.

[slimey.rock]

Absolutely.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

City forts are best used at the strategic objectives: DC, Richmond, New Orleans and Chattanooga. A fort in DC saved my butt once. To lose DC usually means you lose the game as the Union and a savvy pbem opponent will capture it if you aren't careful.

Vice versa, NO and Richmond are devastating if lost for the CSA. If you're playing pbem you should really keep those cities garrisoned with 1-3 divs at all times. Keep in mind that city fortifications provide frontage and siege benefits where as normal entrenchments do not. It also takes about 4 turns to get to level 8, so it's not like you can just build that level of entrenchment in a day. City forts, though, are permanent. You might say, "well, I always keep a brigade to hold the entrenchments," but probably more than 10 times I have personally accidentally moved a foirce outside of its entrenchments and forgot to place it back. This usually happens when you're loading/unloading ships and mixing and matching. You save, restart and *poof* no more entrenchments - and the enemy's bearing down on you. Also, unless the force you keep to garrison the entrenchments has arty it will degrade over time down to 4.

Lastly, I say Chattanooga because the Appalachians are the backbone of the CSA and Chattanooga is that range's centerpiece. If that city falls it won't be long before the CSA is split.