France: Fort Placement?

[Corvus_Alt1]

So, I find myself torn about where to build/rebuild fortifications in the French Region. In particular, I'm struggling to decide how to handle the fort placement along the Pyrenees and Bay of Biscay.

For the Pyrenees, I'm torn between leaving the fortifications there alone or, assuming I conquer Rousillon, demolishing the fort of Narbonne in favor of Toulouse. I'm admittedly more tempted to take the latter arrangement for the sake of having a tougher set of fortifications along the entire length of the border, plus it covers a lot more internal provinces that way.

For the Bay of Biscay, I honestly cannot figure out what I'd prefer. I see two arrangements: either leave the fortifications in Poitou and Anjou alone and simply build a third fort in Saintonge, or demolish the fortress in Anjou and build two new forts in Nantes and Gascogne. The former plan is cheaper and would lead to more defensible fortifications in general, while leaving Gascogne and Nantes open to temporary occupation. The latter plan spreads the fortifications out more so that they're spread further apart and directly on the coast, with the two high value provinces of Nantes and Gascogne having their own seperate set of defences. I like the former because it involves the least amount of effort while producing some really tough fortifications that also lure enemy forces away from the really valuable provinces, and I like the latter arrangement because it makes any attempt to conquer the either of the more valuable provinces individually harder. And I simply cannot decide which is better over all.

Other issues are minor, with the only significant one being whether to build a fort in Sundgau if you already have Alsace protected.

Thoughts?

[shoki]

With the current broken fortification system all that matters in my opinion is that a)it's on a hill and b) has as many river crossings as possible.

[Halcyon]

As France, I actually prefer to delete forts except for a few in the Pyrenees and the Alps and put the money towards more troops. France's troop bonuses make it seem like a better investment to have a larger army than to have static fortifications beyond a few as traps.

[Corvus_Alt1]

Really, you'd delete the one in Poitou for Berry? Hmmm, I suppose I've done that before. I usually keep Poitou because I liked having more protection for Orleannais. Oh well.

So, you'd support building in Saintonge since I'd already have a fort in Labourd and thus would see less benefit from building in Gascony? Or is Gascony still a good place for a fort since its Zone of Control covers so many provinces?

[Laladen]

Originally posted by shoki:

With the current broken fortification system all that matters in my opinion is that a)it's on a hill and b) has as many river crossings as possible.

As opposed to the old broken fort system where you deleted the forts.

[Corvus_Alt1]

Okay, so after a lot of deliberation, I decided that Saintonge is the best place to build a new fort. While it means that Gascony and Nantes are a little bit more naked, it's a cheaper arrangement that still prevents their occupation, and if Orleans can go without a fort, they can too.

Now my only real issue are the forts adjacent to Saintonge in Poitou and Anjou. Based on all the other fort locations, I'm tempted to relocate Anjou in Maine, while placing the fort in Poitou in either Berry or Limousin, not sure which. Also, I don't necessarily like rebuilding the fort from Anjou in Maine, but it seems like better fort placement if I'm operating from a strict spacing criteria. To be frank, I'm tempted to leace Anjou alone because it's more defensible than Maine. Thoughts?

[Fellini_Fiend]

I've seen some say forts are broken. I disagree. Forts are actually worth having now particularly in mountains. With the changes to how attacking/defending works now my practice for sieging an enemy's fort in mountains is to either keep the main stack next to the stack sieging the fort or if I have a lot of manpower saved up I might just have the entire stack on the province just in case the enemey decides to go towards the fort. And as said before, try to never have forts border one another directly, the way to have forts set up is to have one province in between each fort, no more no less. It's the most efficient to have zones of control set up.

[Laladen]

Forts were not really worth having previous. They were an object to be dashed to upon declaring a war. First one there wins that fort! If you cant be the first one there...head to a different fort quickly! If you take land and there is a fort, you actually aren't better off deleting the fort if its on defensive terrain.

[Exarch_Alpha]

Forts still give army tradition so it´s a trade-off between deleting or not. But if all wars are one front wars then there isn´t much reason to keep useless forts. Money is too important now.

For England (extreme example but still) in a single player game there isn´t much reason to keep the forts in the isles.

[Laladen]

The army tradition they give is hardly worth what they cost. You need far to many forts built and on to maintain the 1 AT you get.

[Laladen]

Originally posted by Ultrix Prime:

Even with defensive, I find they get too expensive other than with countries that have additional discounts.

I still end up deleting them a lot.

Same. I will at least keep key areas where armies are likey to approach from, but not nearly enough to maintain the full 1 army tradition.