Skip navigation

Could Forts/Keeps be fixed?

Forum NavigationHome > Forum Index > Hegemony > Could Forts/Keeps be fixed?
Level 6 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:27 pm

Cause right now, they're pretty much useless, except if you wanna link mines to them (and there's usually no forts in mine-rich areas).

I've tried to put archers, peltasts and what not in forts keeping important locations. It's completely pointless : AI will just walk next to it, lose one or two guys, and forget about it.

I know it's pretty much impossible to change the way they work right now (though I hope they'll be improved in Hegemony: Rome), but just increasing the amount of arrows the garrison fires would be a start (same thing could be done to walled cities too, I guess).

Level 7 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 8, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Walled cities, the larger ones, can be really punishing. However, smaller ones are really not a problem for you or the AI (even without catapaults).

I admit that while forts "guarding" passes aren't particularly useful, the AI tends not to move too far past a city. You never see it seriously attempt to take a city by marching deep into your territory. It also tends to be very unwilling to siege a city with even a minimal garrison in it. It's odd but I've realized even a massive army of Tribal Cavalry (ugh) or Thracian Peltists (ugh again) or basically whatever will almost certainly be neutered by a "wall" of walled cities as it were. The AI only ever really burns farms, captures mines and destroys watchtowers in your land.

They will recapture farm/watchtower in their territory. This is one way to lure them out. Also if you simply move past a city which it has garrisoned up and attack one behind it with no garrison or recruits, the results can be amusing.

Level 6 Human gamer
Alignment: Lawful
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:56 am

I think AI may act differently depending on the fort. While I've seen they just don't care about 'your' forts, many times I've captured a fort inside the enemy territory and put some unit in it. What I usually achieve is that the enemy tries to recapture it by getting units out of city, so you then can ambush them while they siege the fort. It's useful because, if your military power is weaker, you can just retreat to near cities after destroying a few units so yours get replenished while theirs have to wait for a respawn. If you keep an (fresh enough) unit in the fort it will last enough for you to ambush again or take some near city that has lost units -or you could just try to take it with your weakened units if he's waiting for his to respawn...-.

Level 8 Human Hegemon
Alignment: Lawful good
Location: PA, USA
Posted on December 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm

I think forts could be improved in the same way as supply/trade routes. Based on increasing their upkeep things like fortification strength and defensive fire rate and/or range could be increased - Making it much more punishing to try and pass. Perhaps these increases could also be based on the engineering skill of the units and generals garrisoned inside.

Level 7 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm

I think forts could be improved in the same way as supply/trade routes. Based on increasing their upkeep things like fortification strength and defensive fire rate and/or range could be increased - Making it much more punishing to try and pass. Perhaps these increases could also be based on the engineering skill of the units and generals garrisoned inside.
Yeah, that's a cool idea. A unit with engineering and a good general making the most of the catapault turret...

Right now, it's odd because most of the AI forces can be foiled by a 200 point fort if they try and attack it, but not all of them.

Level 8 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Location: Reno
Posted on December 14, 2012 at 5:25 pm

upgrading fort would be nice the best example of fort fail i have noticed is the fort guarding the mine by Larissa the enemy just strolls on by losing a few men and then capture the mine over and over again until i get tired of recapturing it.

another possible ideal I like is slowing the capture rate of things linked to the fort(if its garrisoned) significantly where it will be worthwhile to capture all the surrounding forts linked to a town since a long siege would no longer be practical.

Level 6 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 17, 2012 at 9:02 pm

Manned forts should either be much more dangerous to units passing by (would be the easiest way to fix them, just make them fire faster and for more damage), or simply block all enemy traffic in the area, a la Total War (would likely be much harder to implement).

Level 7 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 18, 2012 at 3:23 am

Manned forts should either be much more dangerous to units passing by (would be the easiest way to fix them, just make them fire faster and for more damage), or simply block all enemy traffic in the area, a la Total War (would likely be much harder to implement).
Yeah, I think in the Roma game they let you block off passes and the like. Certainly much more of an effect than the current forts. It's particularly odd with the AI because they take some "strategic" fort and never put a garrison in it anyway.

Level 8 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 18, 2012 at 6:05 am

One of most beneficial use of forts is them being used as means to shorten the routes(thus more throughput per route) with additional 750food space. This is more a logistical function than tactical, but logistics are quite prominent in Hegemony.
Another use is what was already mentioned, the use of two routes to take care for two mines.
AI in my game will try to get them (back at least if they were it's and were lost), although not very efficiently. For that reason alone I am not sure if it would make sense to make them stronger if AI can't siege efficiently (and let's face it there is not much space for improvement in sieging forts with very limited access except to allow the use of siege weapons by AI).

Level 7 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 18, 2012 at 7:36 am

One of most beneficial use of forts is them being used as means to shorten the routes(thus more throughput per route) with additional 750food space. This is more a logistical function than tactical, but logistics are quite prominent in Hegemony.
It's troublesome as normally you don't get much saving in terms of amount carried. Having another node can actually hold you up because of the way food propagates though a series of nodes that you have linked together. Take a look, it can get caught up at some random city or whatnot. I do use them as forward supply drop offs, if there's one near a city I want to attack. That way workers only move between the fort and my army.

As for storing food, much better to store on site. My favorite "moving granaries" are basically using slaves or workers to "soak up" food. Slaves are preferable, less effort, but workers are nice since you can roll them out and not worry too much. It's gotten to where on short journeys, I have far too much food at the end.