Is there any reason to build a higher tier fort than 1?

[Phibs]

You don't need to separate the secondary defensive lines in depth. Two or three rows of provinces are all you really need.

This assumes high octane clay though, right?
I mean this is hardly an economically sound way to do things in the steppes or the new world.

In mainland Europe or India or whatever I can get behind the idea of doubling down on zoc, but in nubia or some such that'd be excessive imo.

 

[Wizzington]

Up-to-date fully maintained forts will give you army tradition in 1.13 (scaled depending on how many forts you have compared to your total development).

 

[hjarg]

Low-level forts surrender too easily, but with high-level forts, you can have really slow reaction time. Meaning you can wait a few years, gather your forces and then wipe off the sieging force. Time bought with this can be invaluable.

And since we're getting the 1.13 bonus as well... they become even more useful.

 

[chochko12]

Having 3 lines of level 1s is stupid imo. Line of level 3-4s and some backup here an there where you expect someone to breach them eventually will do better.
Case scenario - you are Spain and you are not friendly with the blue menace.
Option one - 4 level 4s at the bordering mountain provinces and 2 behind them for ZOC.
6*4 ducats = 24 per month
Time needed to siege - 300-400 days per fort with enough canons (20) and units (24). IF France commits 4 siege stacks the attrition will bleed them dry of MP, if they siege 1 by 1 it will take ages.
Option 2 - 24 level ones in all the provinces that are near the border.
24*1 = 24 per month
Time needed to siege level 1 - 30-60 days (tops if there is no breach early and the AI loves to assault low level ones).

We are comparing high attrition vs low, very big siege stacks vs peasant mob required for the siege to progress and time it takes for all the sieges to complete (1800-2400 vs 720-1440) caused by the added modifier to the low level fort siege progress.
I`ll pick 1 over 2 any day of the week

 

[Phibs]

Having 3 lines of level 1s is stupid imo. Line of level 3-4s and some backup here an there where you expect someone to breach them eventually will do better.
Case scenario - you are Spain and you are not friendly with the blue menace.
Option one - 4 level 4s at the bordering mountain provinces and 2 behind them for ZOC.
6*4 ducats = 24 per month
Time needed to siege - 300-400 days per fort with enough canons (20) and units (24). IF France commits 4 siege stacks the attrition will bleed them dry of MP, if they siege 1 by 1 it will take ages.
Option 2 - 24 level ones in all the provinces that are near the border.
24*1 = 24 per month
Time needed to siege level 1 - 30-60 days (tops if there is no breach early and the AI loves to assault low level ones).

We are comparing high attrition vs low, very big siege stacks vs peasant mob required for the siege to progress and time it takes for all the sieges to complete (1800-2400 vs 720-1440) caused by the added modifier to the low level fort siege progress.
I`ll pick 1 over 2 any day of the week

Why would I build (the strong/main) forts in the mountains? I can park my armies in the mountains fort or no.
I usually build my forts in provinces I can easily attack sieging stacks in to utilize the fact I have unrestricted movement while the aggressor has to siege forts to advance.

And your time calculation is a little off imo because the forts cannot be sieged simultaneously with movement restricted by zocs (which is not to say I don't agree with the gist of it, I fort-wise I also prefer strength over numbers where possible).

 

[hjarg]

Why would I build (the strong/main) forts in the mountains? I can park my armies in the mountains fort or no.

Because then you have your armies free to do whatever they want and not being stuck in border provinces, waiting for enemy not to attack?
Build fort, fee your army. Use navies to transport it past enemy lines and wreck havoc in their country until the enemy army gives up the siege and is in much more weakened stage because manpower depletion of huge army needed for sieges?

 

[chochko12]

You build in the mountains because there the supply limit is naturally low thus inflicting high attrition to the required big stacks to siege them.

My time calculation is linear exactly because of ZOC

 

[Shadrol]

Up-to-date fully maintained forts will give you army tradition in 1.13 (scaled depending on how many forts you have compared to your total development).

Now this looks promising.

 

[Phibs]

Because then you have your armies free to do whatever they want and not being stuck in border provinces, waiting for enemy not to attack?
Build fort, fee your army. Use navies to transport it past enemy lines and wreck havoc in their country until the enemy army gives up the siege and is in much more weakened stage because manpower depletion of huge army needed for sieges?

That may work for Spain, unless GB is also hostile or whatever. Whenever you don't have naval superiority that's not really feasible.
I mean you'd have to keep the transports near the dropped off army in case an enemy comes calling.

You build in the mountains because there the supply limit is naturally low thus inflicting high attrition to the required big stacks to siege them.
My time calculation is linear exactly because of ZOC

Mmmhh attrition is a fair point, though I don't generally win wars against the AI based on attrition unless they start out with low MP.
With your second sentence I'll need help. What do you mean?

 

[hjarg]

That may work for Spain, unless GB is also hostile or whatever. Whenever you don't have naval superiority that's not really feasible.
I mean you'd have to keep the transports near the dropped off army in case an enemy comes calling.

Still, the point being is that you either have an army stationary in the province or you have a fort in the province and army free to do whatever you please with it. If you are keeping your army doing your fort duties, you have one less army to play about with.

 

[Phibs]

Still, the point being is that you either have an army stationary in the province or you have a fort in the province and army free to do whatever you please with it. If you are keeping your army doing your fort duties, you have one less army to play about with.

I'm not saying you're wrong and maybe we just play differently, but my primary concern in non-cakewalk warfare is the facilitation of advantageous combat.
That either means me defending in mountains (or any defensive territory available) and holding on to dear life or seeking out enemy stacks trying to avoid exactly that.

Forts can be a handy tool to have enemies move armies into non-defensive territory and keep em there until you're ready to pounce. *shrug*

 

[hjarg]

I'm not saying you're wrong and maybe we just play differently, but my primary concern in non-cakewalk warfare is the facilitation of advantageous combat.
That either means me defending in mountains (or any defensive territory available) and holding on to dear life or seeking out enemy stacks trying to avoid exactly that.

Forts can be a handy tool to have enemies move armies into non-defensive territory and keep em there until you're ready to pounce. *shrug*

To be honest though, even AI attacking your army set in mountains is a rare event though... AI is stupid, but not that stupid, unless they really outnumber you. Or if this is the only chokepoint.

 

[Phibs]

To be honest though, even AI attacking your army set in mountains is a rare event though... AI is stupid, but not that stupid, unless they really outnumber you. Or if this is the only chokepoint.

Not really. The AI still falls for "leaderless" armies with reinforcements next door. The movement lock advantages the player even further.

 

[chochko12]

Linear means that you add the time for siege one after another - reason is ZOC overlap and you cant get behind the forts and start to siege lets say 10

 

[chochko12]

Not really. The AI still falls for "leaderless" armies with reinforcements next door. The movement lock advantages the player even further.

AI enough said... but anyhow it is better than before.

 

[Phibs]

Linear means that you add the time for siege one after another - reason is ZOC overlap and you cant get behind the forts and start to siege lets say 10

Ah OK. Yes of course. Still four large forts will be mostly pure Siege time. With 24 small ones there'll be a lot of movement time (and backing out of interlocking zocs and such).

AI enough said... but anyhow it is better than before.

Agree. Though sometimes I feel player ai allies suicide their armies just to spite the player

 

[chochko12]

A lot of pure siege time

 

[Phibs]

As I said, I share your preference. Twas more of a devils advocate argument.

 

[zamieo]

Well, it won't help you if you're on the offensive all the time, but if you're facing an opponent that is bigger and stronger than you, then fort levels above level 1 are much, much tougher to handle, especially if you put them in provinces with low supply limits (mountains, for example). The enemy will have to siege the fort with an army that's way above supply limits, tying the army down (allowing you to attack another army safely) and draining their manpower. For example, if you're trying to conquer Ming, do not wait until later on as they'll build a ton of level 8 forts, pinning your armies down and draining your manpower.

 

[Zak Preston]

How about dirt-poor nations with lots of provinces: they build forts to cover most of their lands with ZoC but can't maintain those forts even when mothballed (example: all non-European mountain regions without gold mines like Caucasus or Tibet, steppe regions, African regions). You take some lands, get some extra forts and watch your treasury go down quickly).