Re: Shooting from Forts

[Doomsmile]

The intention was to avoid making Forts too good for competition games.  This is a rule that could easily be changed for scenario games.

I think you may have overshot. Since the new terrain table, I have seen-- in and out of tournament play-- precisely zero attempts to deploy a fort.
Their current implementation kinda' manages to hit a trifecta of uselessness:

[1] They're unlikely to hit the table when selected.
(Because they must be placed in a flank zone against the back table edge, they're always lost on a 3-4, and on tables with a secured flank, they are very unlikely to fit in a legal position on a non-water secured flank.)

[2] If they do hit the table, they are guaranteed to be out of position.
(Flank zone against the back edge is where my group shoves flank zone terrain we'd rather not deal with on a 4-5 for terrain movement. In my experience, in the overwhelming majority of games with back-corner terrain, the feature plays no role in the battle. In those rare games where it does play a role, it's usually just to stop a camp from being hidden behind a secure-flank mountain.)

[3] Even if it was to be in position, it's a bad pick for any job.
(Did you want a claims bonus? Mountains will do that while letting you shoot. Did you want protection from shooting? Forests completely neutralize shooting if you hide your UG at least 2BW back from the edge. Etc.; you get the picture.)


Oddly enough, I nearly picked a fort in a recent tournament round, but only to exploit a glitch: I had a mandatory difficult terrain piece to place, but wanted an emptier table.
Because we had a secured flank with the terrain pieces placed partially in both deployment zones, I knew there was a 2/3 chance the piece could not be legally placed, and even if it did hit the table, I knew it could not be moved from my back table edge.
In other words: The fort had a 0% chance of ever being relevant, so I could exploit it to effectively eliminate a mandatory terrain pick.
(I didn't do it, though; it would have been [1] clearly contra to the spirit of the rules, and [2] what we in the business call a "jerk move.")




If I might be so bold as to make a suggestion: perhaps change forts to a Good-Going-type which counts as having barricades placed along its perimeter as if UGs with the characteristic had been deployed there), and blocks line of sight beyond 2BW to/from UGs within the piece and not claiming barricades.

This would make the fort useful for hiding infantry inside of, but its requirement to stay at the back table edge will all but ensure that UGs inside the fort would be completely out of position to participate in the battle (unless the opponent actively hunts them down), so would probably still be a pretty niche choice.

[nikgaukroger]

Wondering what effect "Forts" as represented by the MeG terrain type actually had on ancient/medieval battles. Not something I've looked at other than in passing.

[lionheartrjc]

I posted these ideas in the topic "Forts and Settlements":

orts (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

[badhabum]

The fort could be the supply base and might help some armies . It might be the town you defend but as it is now it is near useless except to protect a flank

[Doomsmile]

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.

{1} If heavy infantry should be encouraged to occupy a fort, is there a reason it's classified as Difficult? Doing so requires special-rule workarounds to patch that problem.
(Also, weird rules implications as written. Does close order infantry defending a fort in 1 rank have a +5 bonus when charged by enemy close infantry in 2+ ranks?-- +2 for barricades, +3 for enemy badly affected. If a TUG moves into a fort while 2+ deep, does it need to expand repeatedly until it's 1 rank deep to avoid being affected? etc.)

{2} This isn't an improvement; it just trades experienced bow shooting black dice due to cover, for experienced bow shooting black dice because they're under depth.
(But adds extra rules to make it happen?)


{3} This ties into bullet point 1, but if camps are intended to deploy inside a fort, the fort being classed as Difficult actively causes issues here as well.
(Also, is there going to be a special rule allowing the camp to deploy there, or would the defender just be praying that their fort ended up on a secured flank?)


As a side note, I'm a bit confused why forts are being made blatantly inferior fighting positions compared to field fortications.
I don't think it's controversial to state that it was usually the other way around historically.

[nikgaukroger]

The fort could be the supply base and might help some armies . It might be the town you defend but as it is now it is near useless except to protect a flank

After having a rather quick and dirty look around for what effect this sort of thing actually had, I think "except to protect a flank" is probably about their historical role. But it was just a quick look so examples of more effect may well be out there - be good to see them to help assess what the rules might be better off saying.

[Rino]

Fort jobs were mostly to hold a garrison that could threaten the logistics line behind an invader. Not really potent in itself it still has to be reduced to avoid trouble.

Historical use?
2 units : xbow and sergeant cav inside. The cav rushing behind the enemy line if despised by the enemy during the initial general attack