|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jul 28, 2016 22:00:53 GMT
I didn't find a good definitive guide to forts, appreciate it if someone could explain all about them, and whether if it's worthwhile or not, etc...
Meanwhile I have a particular question
I'm curious... why is the 2nd and 3rd option blacked out in a conquest? I understand that in campaigns, you must purchase an upgrade via gold stars (and is not that worthwhile in short games like a campaign anyway). But I thought this isn't the case for conquests. I have complete access to anything else (with the right faculties ofc), ironclads, MG crews, armored cars, so forth.
So why can't I build fortresses even though I have a surplus pile of both money and industry, not to mention enough food to feed an entire third world nation? O.O
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 28, 2016 22:16:41 GMT
A guide on forts
Fort types:
1. Small Fortress (the wooden thing) Cheap, acceptable health, little firepower. Acceptable price of 120 gold and 10 industry. Good one if you have a strong Econ without good industry. Best fort for diverting enemy generals. Recommended2. Fortress (light gray) Good health, quite expensive. Good firepower. Price (200 gold, 80 industry). Too high to be used as a diversion. Unless you want something to stay for long against powerful generals, this is rarely useful. Also good compromise as a solid block of power (at those times when you can't have troops in a certain sector. At building time they are vulnerable though. Okay.
3. Large Fortress (dark gray) High firepower, high health. Price (280 gold, 160 industry) makes it a drain on your resources. Takes ages to build, not to mention it can't be built in most conquests. You'd probably be done in campaign missions by the time they are built (if you try to build them). Unless tons of generals and troops are surrounding, they're a waste. Not recommended.
4. Coastal Fort (looks like a cannon) Really good against ships, good for diverting enemy generals too. Is cheapest (60 gold, 60 industry). Less health than Wooden Fortress. Do not build if your industry is weak. Recommended.
On using forts
Forts are rarely used. However, there are situations where using forts is the best choice and incredibly effective. These are: 1) Distracting enemy generalsImagine you're besieging Vienna. Unfortunately, Klenau and Merveldt are very near to your artillery. Should the artillery be attacked, your siege is botched. How to solve this? By building forts. Somehow, the AI has its priority on forts, which makes them handy for distracting powerful generals with Mass Fire or Snare Drum (like Suvorov or Rowland in 1798). Or powerful artillery generals like Scarnhorst or Moreau. Normal generals could be distracted here. 2) Encircling enemy generals
This is a very powerful tactic to use with forts. They count as an unit, and a fort in the right place would hugely lower an enemy gen's morale. This makes your troops able to fight with powerful Leadership-less generals (Davout, Murat, Dombrowski, tons of others). 3) A solid block of power
Forts take some time to cross. Which makes them useful for defense. However, do a cost-benefit analysis. For example, would a wooden fort be worth it against double line infantry when defending, if the double line only costs 15 gold more? Note too the time spent building them. 4) Special functions
This is prevalent is Coastal Fort. They are the only non-general units able to present a huge threat to navy generals, which is why spamming them if you don't have naval generals would be smart.
Forts in all eras1798 (Europe)
Available forts
1) Small Fortress and nothing else. Strategy
You aren't going to need forts much here, unless you are playing as Sardinia or Naples and want to divert Napoleon's wrath. However, forts would be a huge pet peeve here so try to bring a fort cracker. 1775 (America)Available forts1) Small Fortress 2) Fortress 3) Large Fortress 4) Coastal Fort StrategyAmerica maps are usually too big for forts to be effective, unless you are playing as a small nation. Coastal forts are e a huge help here however, especially if you are playing as US. 1806 (Europe)
Available forts
1) Small Fortress 2) Coastal Fort Strategy
Same as 1798, you won't need much here. However, coastal forts are useful here if you play a nation near the sea (France or Britain in the simulated Trafalgar, Ottoman or Russia in battling for the Black Sea). With land powers, forts aren't that useful except for Rhine, which gets attacked by tons of Prussian and Russian generals. 1809 (Europe)
Available forts
1) Small Fortress 2) Coastal Fort Strategy
Same as 1806, but 1809 is more land-focused than 1806 except for France, which gets a naval invasion from Britain. Use coastal forts if you are France. On other nations, use them to distract generals (especially of you are Spain fighting Lannes). 1812 (America)Available forts1) Small Fortress
2) Fortress
3) Large Fortress
4) Coastal Fort
Strategy
Mostly the same as 1775, but naval strategy goes more to offense than defense unless in the Great Lakes so coastal forts are less needed here.
1815 (Europe)
None. Not at all. Strategy
This is supposed to be the hardest conquest, so no forts. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jul 28, 2016 23:43:30 GMT
Much obliged! Thank you!
Will someone add this to the list of guides or maybe add to the starter's guide?
|
|
|
|
Post by kyokusanagi on Jul 29, 2016 11:45:10 GMT
I didn't find a good definitive guide to forts, appreciate it if someone could explain all about them, and whether if it's worthwhile or not, etc... Meanwhile I have a particular question I'm curious... why is the 2nd and 3rd option blacked out in a conquest? I understand that in campaigns, you must purchase an upgrade via gold stars (and is not that worthwhile in short games like a campaign anyway). But I thought this isn't the case for conquests. I have complete access to anything else (with the right faculties ofc), ironclads, MG crews, armored cars, so forth.
So why can't I build fortresses even though I have a surplus pile of both money and industry, not to mention enough food to feed an entire third world nation? O.O In some conquests you just can't build the 2nd and 3rd tier forts. Usually in Europe conquests this happens, but in Europe 1815 you can't build them at all. You can build them all in the America conquests. On fort types and their rates, IMO they are: 1. Small fort (the wooden thing): cheap, acceptable health, little firepower. Best fort for diverting enemy generals. Recommended.2. Fort (light gray): good health, quite expensive. Good firepower. Price too high to be used as a diversion. Okay.3. Large fort (dark gray): high firepower, high health. Price makes it a drain on your resources. Not recommended.4. Coastal fort (looks like a cannon): really good against ships, good for diverting enemy generals too. Is cheapest. Recommended.I've added Kutaisov to Coastral fort in the starting mission for the France yesterday. He shoots like a monster. Sometimes it's worth to put generals on permament non movable positions. They can destroy biggest AI plans. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 29, 2016 11:48:26 GMT
Kutaisov only has one star in forts. Or is yours an upgraded one?
|
|
|
|
Post by kyokusanagi on Jul 29, 2016 11:50:14 GMT
I did not upgraded him, only in Farming he scored a little. Maybe I had luck with numbers. But what is more important to use them somethimes in unorthodox way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 29, 2016 11:55:04 GMT
Try using him on coastal fort to 1vs1 Hood. To me, the orthodox way optimizes the general's skills and stars, so I prefer it over anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Aug 16, 2016 14:36:57 GMT
The general consensus around here is that 90% of the time forts are useless, mostly because they cannot move, and a max nobility/rank general on line infantry or guards should be enough to soak the damage you'd use a fort for. That being said, I think it is fun to create an impenetrable defense in the corner as UK 1812 to watch the AI attempt to deal. For Campaigning, I would recommend you never use a fort, especially with a general, because the use for that pair will not be worth the cost. Sure, you could put Kutuzov on a 120-10 fort, or you could put him on a 135-10 double formation line inf and have him be useful the entire time instead of just a few turns, possibly losing you campaign stars.
In short, Forts are fun, but I strongly recommend for campaign that younot use them (if you are playing for stars).
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Aug 16, 2016 14:41:36 GMT
The general consensus around here is that 90% of the time forts are useless, mostly because they cannot move, and a max nobility/rank general on line infantry or guards should be enough to soak the damage you'd use a fort for. That being said, I think it is fun to create an impenetrable defense in the corner as UK 1812 to watch the AI attempt to deal. For Campaigning, I would recommend you never use a fort, especially with a general, because the use for that pair will not be worth the cost. Sure, you could put Kutuzov on a 120-10 fort, or you could put him on a 135-10 double formation line inf and have him be useful the entire time instead of just a few turns, possibly losing you campaign stars. In short, Forts are fun, but I strongly recommend for campaign that younot use them (if you are playing for stars). Forts are only useful for diverting OP generals (like Lannes, or Poniatwski with Snare. Or Rowland in 1798). Otherwise they are useless. |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Aug 17, 2016 8:36:54 GMT
In a mod that I had forts could move! It would be fun to put Lan on a wooden fort and watch it speed around Europe 10 hexes per turn. Imagine the use!
|
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Aug 17, 2016 16:02:09 GMT
If forts could move they would become very, very useful. Its like a super tank from WC3! WITHOUT NUKES!
Then I'd put stars for forts on Poniatowski so he can Assault Art all of the things, and his fireproof would actually be really useful (assuming forts work like ships and the fire would move with them)
|
|
