Defending against the Seige

[OldSchool]

I recently lost a very large army during a seige by an equally large force after it made only 1 breach in a large city with a fort

So how can I avoid another replay of what happened to Cornwallis at Yorktown?

Is there a posture setting that will avoid surrendering during a seige?

I've also tried the sorti button, but it doesn't seem to do anything; perhaps the posture needs to be set at the most agggressive stance for a sorti to happen?

[Carnium]

I recently lost a very large army during a seige by an equally large force after it made only 1 breach in a large city with a fort

So how can I avoid another replay of what happened to Cornwallis at Yorktown?

Is there a posture setting that will avoid surrendering during a seige?

I've also tried the sorti button, but it doesn't seem to do anything; perhaps the posture needs to be set at the most agggressive stance for a sorti to happen?

First rule of sieges is simple. Don't allow it to happen and place your armies OUTSIDE the cities.
As far as I know sorties works when you also have a relief army coming to your help. Please see the sorite tooltip for details or look in the game manual.

[FENRIS]

I agree, avoid siege as possible. and having supply wagons in your besieged force give you more chance to not surrender.

[OldSchool]

First rule of sieges is simple. Don't allow it to happen and place your armies OUTSIDE the cities ...

Then is there really any benefit to building a fort to help forces protect and hold an objective?

[arsan]

The sortie button is to coordinate a sortie from the inside with the arrival of a friendly army to the region and attack together the besieger.
If there is no relief army to coordinate with, just drag your army outside of the structure and they will attack the besiegers on the next turn.
The problem is that then you will be the attacker and the besieger will be defending with entrechments and all...

Personally, i hardly ever keep a medium/big army inside a structure because of the danger of being besieged. I only put small garrisons inside, small forces that i'm prepared to lose just to delay or deny supply to the enemy.
You can make some exceptions with extremely important locations and special situations, but as a rule of thumb, usually it's better to keep the army than the city

[arsan]

Then is there really any benefit to building a fort to help forces protect and hold an objective?

Sure, forts helps defending an objective and can make small forces hard to dislodge. But if the enemy brings much stronger forces, yours will be dead. But forcing the enemy to bring a huge force to attack the objective is already a success for you.
You have to read the strategic situation and decide what's the best course of action: risk of losing a force to defend a location? risk of losing a location because of keeping a force?? That's part of the fun!

[OldSchool]

... i hardly ever keep a medium/big army inside a structure because of the danger of being besieged. I only put small garrisons inside, small forces that i'm prepared to lose just to delay or deny supply to the enemy.
You can make some exceptions with extremely important locations and special situations, but as a rule of thumb, usually it's better to keep the army than the city

Especially when its the Continental Army led by Washington and his entire staff.

In hindsight, I should have placed a good defending general with some units inside while the rest of the army went outside; even if the army is defeated, at least it would have somewhere to go until the next turn.

C'est la guerre.

[arsan]

As he Americans is important to keep your armies on the field and try to avoid decisive battles with the english unless you have a big advantage. That's what the british are looking for: decisive battles to use their experienced redcoats against your green militias.
You have to keep the continental armies alive, training and gaining experience and being a bother for the british... I think time and space is on the american side... don't worry to lose cities or regions... you can always come back later when the main british armies are on the other side of the map
They can't be everywhere at once and if they try their forces will be dispersed and weak and you will be able to defeat them.
And if you keep on fighting, some time in the future the french (and some spanish too ) will come in your aid!

[Durk]

Then is there really any benefit to building a fort to help forces protect and hold an objective?

One place I use forts are must hold cities for the British. This is usually limited to New York and Philly. A decent force holding these cities frees your main army for campaigning.

[Carnium]

The scenario and side that you are playing right now is really hard from the beginning even for experienced players as British are really aggressive and can destroy your best armies with ease.
My suggestion is to first start with some short scenarios and then with 1755 campaign where the pace of the game is a bit slower and more "European like" than in 1775 where you need to use all your tricks to survive the starting British onslaught.
1812 scenario is quite interesting too, a bit short but it will teach you some important lessons that could be used in the 1775 game
Also my Hobbes made some interesting scenarios. Check 1763 Pontiac war where you can wreak havoc with the natives

[FENRIS]

As he Americans is important to keep your armies on the field and try to avoid decisive battles with the english unless you have a big advantage. That's what the british are looking for: decisive battles to use their experienced redcoats against your green militias.
You have to keep the continental armies alive, training and gaining experience and being a bother for the british... I think time and space is on the american side... don't worry to lose cities or regions... you can always come back later when the main british armies are on the other side of the map
They can't be everywhere at once and if they try their forces will be dispersed and weak and you will be able to defeat them.
And if you keep on fighting, some time in the future the french (and some spanish too ) will come in your aid!

playing the english side, do you think it's a good idea to use the coastal artillery making a fort in New York (using artillery units of my main army to make a fort is... :crying

[Durk]

I've also tried the sorti button, but it doesn't seem to do anything; perhaps the posture needs to be set at the most agggressive stance for a sorti to happen?

Sorties do work. The are conditional. The condition is you have a force enter the region which initiates a battle.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Forts are force multipliers for smallish garrisons but as noted above are vulnerable to siege. Also I think there is a 25 element limit before you face overcrowding penalties and a combat malus (someone please confirm). I find them very useful in upstate new York for their supply capacity and because they count as a structure in winter for attrition purposes. In FIW scenarios I forward build one and try to get a depot in the same spot if I can to act as shelter for my invading armies. The fort keeps garrison that can protect the depot from casual attacks while the main force uses it as a base of operation and a fallback position to receive supply and recover. I forget if a fort alone allows for replacement or not but if it does this is also extremely useful in the wilderness. I also leave behind one unit not in the fort to maintain outside entrenchments for when my main army returns.
In cities I find forts to be of limited value.