Some Thoughts on Forts...

Thanks for the insights on Forts, I am now more likely to try that option.

Perhaps I should change my name to Stilton Stevie.
But everything I wrote is perfectly legal.
(As I frequently say...I didn’t write the rules)

One more refinement that I forgot to mention:-
If the defender does have a road available, so can afford to be a bit more ambitious and have a larger 1½ by 3 BW City or Fort, they could also have the road passing right in front of it, depending on placement rolls of course. This would allow the defender (who moves 1st) to zoom an element down it right from the start...not to engage the enemy you understand, but merely to use its TZ to prevent the invader from getting three of his elements into assault positions.
Even lowly Ps or LH would be good for this role, as they are usually hard to kill and frequently flee if doubled.
And if threatened, they can just zoom backwards down the road out of danger for zero PIP cost.
The invader won’t get much use out of this road, as it will be covered by the TZ generated by the City or occupied Fort.

(I like my cheese on toast...)



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

I may have to tear mine down. Too big. Shame as they are nice Baueda forts.

Jim

I have a couple of thoughts on using Forts or cities I'm prepared to share with you...firstly, the obvious one to choose a fort rather than a city as it costs only the loss of the defending element and nothing if you abandon it.

I would also recommend placing a fort on a waterway in some situations...it acts as a flank guard as any landing troops have to assault it or run the risk of flank or rear attack if they avoid it.Either way it could help protect your flank...it could also put off a possible flank attack leaving the garrison racing to rejoin the fight!

I would also suggest placing a fort bang in the center of your proposed deployment line...your opponent has to either attack it or avoid it and may not get the overlaps as the rest of your troops could prevent it.If they ignore it..it can be used to attack flanks or rear of advancing enemy elements depending on which facing you place the entrance.Also the Tz of the fort can mess up your opponents attack on your line.The down side of this is that the attacker could concentrate on part of your army and the fort could get in the way of aiding the troubled part of your line.

The best defenders are fast foot elements...the range of their possible movement should they sally out can be a threat.

Lastly,If you place the fort on a road with the entrance facing your opponents baseline and he does not block the road your garrison has a free move into middle of his rear.😉

...oh the cheese.🧀

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said Haardrada...
...providing that the defender has access to a Blade garrison, or if the invader has no Blades and Spears in their army.

Picts, Caledonians, Ancient Britons, Gauls, Spanish Iberians, Umbrians, Samnites, Italian Hill Tribes, Bruttians & Apulians, Illyrians, Thracians, and the vast majority of armies, only have CF 3 foot elements to use as a garrison (allies won’t help either: they can’t be used as a garrison).
And a CF 3 garrison has 15 chances out of 36 of being destroyed by a Blade assisted by two other assaulters.
So for these armies the Fort actually becomes a liability rather than an advantage.
The defender has effectively thrown away one of their elements, leaving only 11 to face the invader’s 12.
In these cases, a piece of bad going near the centre of the battlefield would be far better for the defender than a Fort in such a position.


A Note To Tournament Organisers
If you think that a 1½ by 1½ BW City or Fort tucked right up in a battlefield corner so that it prevents more than two invaders to assault it is a bit ‘cheesy’ (even if legal), then I suggest not banning Cities and Forts, but banning the tiny ‘postage stamp’ terrain.
(Something I’ve always hated: see fanaticus.boards.net/post/8552/ )

However, it won’t make much difference.
A City or Fort with a curved 3 BW front and 1½ BW deep crammed into a table corner will have the roughly the same effect...
...the invader won’t be able to assault on the first bound, two elements could assault for two PIPs on the second bound, and it will take three bounds to get the third assaulting element into position (assuming they all have a move rate of 3 BW that is).



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018

Very generous of Stevie to share insight, there is a lot more in that pdf than just about forts really.
I can't say I agree with much though, as basically most attackers will just ignore the fort and choose a side such that the fort is in the defender's "half".
For me, the real function of a fort is to occupy space, either to reduce frontage (esp. in combination with a river and a road), or to protect a flank. Nobody is daft enough to attack a fort.
But it's interesting how different folks look at things differently.