After some testing I must admit that Forts are a perplexing terrain feature .
Close order infantry has nearly NO advantages in a fort . "Nearly"
They are protected vs shooting but shooting from forts is also downgraded
Forts are good vs mounted, chariots and so on . Much less vs Nellies :)
But close infantry is heavily affected so they do give a +3 to their opponent if attacked . If the agressor is loose infantry , only affected so giving a +2 to the defender, things can be more or less equal during the charge but during melee the loose infantry gains is at least equal as affected they give a +2 advantage to the defender who also benefits from a +1 for baricades but gives a +3 for being badly affected . I do not see the logic .
I must admit it seems strange top have defenders, in a fort build for defense in such a disadvantageous situation. Also why put shooters in a fort as their shooting will be hampered .
Would it not be better to have the defender in open terrain or any other solution that works as forts were often guarded by "militia" because they were deemed to be able to hold in a fort . Here the effects of a fort do seem pretty limited unless the attacker has no loose/flexible units which is a possibility . But a defender without loos/flexible defenders will also be hapermred in his defense
Agreed some units do need open terrain such as for pikes, but any rough terrain will do the job
So what's the use of forts as they are immobile,difficult terrain and are lost 1/3 of the time as they do not deploy in the central area
Any comment suggestions
IMHO forts should have stayed out of the rules. If depicted historically they would be perhaps unbalancingly useful as a spot to place a weak shooty unit. As they now work, they are nearly useless and in most situations a net minus.Although, OTOH, id did me a chance to put a Roman mile fort on the table that looked pretty even though all it did was occupy space. I won't be rolling for forts again in competition.
Forts (any fortified settlement essentially) were a part of ancient warfare.
Rather than get rid of them entirely, the following changes might improve them:
1. Any infantry in 1 rank defending the edge of a fort should count in good going.
2. Any troops in 1 rank defending the edge of a fort should not downgrade for shooting through cover.
3. An unfortified camp should be allowed to be deployed in a fort.
Richard
Interesting Willing to test
Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 27, 2026, 11:43:20 AMForts (any fortified settlement essentially) were a part of ancient warfare.
Rather than get rid of them entirely, the following changes might improve them:
1. Any infantry in 1 rank defending the edge of a fort should count in good going.
2. Any troops in 1 rank defending the edge of a fort should not downgrade for shooting through cover.
3. An unfortified camp should be allowed to be deployed in a fort.
Richard
Number 1 and 3 in particular would add to the usefulness of a fort, especially no.3
The fort should be out of the central corridor, correct?
Then you can place the camp inside only when there is a secure flank, otherwise your camp needs to remain within 6mu radius from center, correct?
Another angle, the Romans are paying for a fortified camp, while the fort is free...
My feeling is that it creats a lot of unbalance in the game rather than real benefit / playability.