Does fort benefit defenders outside city?

[hiram ulysses]

Having read and re-read the manual, I know that placing defenders INSIDE a city is counter-productive. So, I leave 1-3 divisions entrenched outside the city walls.

But - does a fort inside a city provide any benefit to the defenders entrenched outside the city?

[Jim-NC]

I don't believe it does.

[Durk]

The defenders inside the fort and outside the fort do not actually join the same battle sequence. Your practice of units outside and inside is sensible to hold the area.
Forts can make sense, but units outside do not aid units inside, and visa versa.

[colonel hurst]

From what I have seen/read, having a fort in a region will help all troops in a region by pulling in some general supply and by providing a better detect rating.

Plus building forts in key spots can slow the USA advance down by six months or so easily.

As far as helping in a battle, I don't think having a fort in a region helps troops that are outside of a fort.

[Longshanks]

Forts provided several big benefits, among which are:

1) allow bombardment of passing ships without concern for level of entrenchment
2) bonus on military control and detection
3) combat options.

Let me elaborate on the third one. If you put your units outside a fort, they may fight or retreat before combat. If they retreat, they MAY go in the fort, but they're just as likely to go to another region, leaving your fort underdefended.

The best use of a fort (at this stage in my understanding) is to build it where you want to blunt the line of advancement of your enemy. Then stock it with a force large enough to withstand a direct assault for at least one turn. The size you use depends on what the enemy has in the area. Once the units are inside PUT THEM ON DEFEND AT ALL COSTS. This greatly reduces the chances that a 2:1 force or even a 3:1 force will defeat them with one attack. To survive a long term siege, you need a bunch of supplies built up there. If you're not getting that, then build a depot. Either way, you MUST have a SU inside the fort.

The purpose of using a fort this way is TO HOLD THE POSITION UNTIL RELIEVED. That means, if you don't have a force comparable to what your opponent is going to throw at the fort, this tactic is somewhat compromised. You'll eventually lose all the units in the fort and a big NM along with them.

For these reasons, I often do NOT put units outside the fort. I don't want to give that position to the enemy on a retreat before combat. Yes, this can mean the opponent can march right past you (more slowly than without the fort BTW). But then he has to deal with you behind him.

Forts on the water are used somewhat differently, and their abilty to bombard passing ships is key. For example, I am seeing many of the most competent Southern players turn Norfolk into a Fort asap, and then stick at least one long-range arty in it. This makes life more miserable for Union operations up and down the James. I have also advocated using Paducah the same way, and there are other "juicy" spots on the map that I'll keep to myself thank you very much.

To sum up: if you ain't gonna use a fort, then don't build it!