To use or not use fortifications

[steeltalons]

Just needing some clarity on this, trying to piece together all the information out there on it

So should you use fortifications or not?  I am guessing its somewhat situational dependent, and with the change in cover does this change everything I have read.

My understanding is if you can use tree cover use it over the fortification.  If there isnt any good tree cover in the area use the fortification, ie only open ground around and area you need to defend.

Also do you only get a defensive bonus while actually in the fortification not just standing behind it?

 

Thanks

[Hitorishizuka]

As currently implemented, use fortifications only for defending open ground with nothing in front of it that can be used to give the enemies cover to shoot at you and no equally good cover (woods, building) behind it that could have been used to not fan out your brigade.

The change in cover was actually a bug, things mostly work as before.

And correct, you only get a defensive bonus while actually in the fortification for the most part.

[GeneralPITA]

 

It's all about the gradient. 50% cover from a cornfield is decent if it's surrounded by open ground. 100% cover forest is not very effective if surrounded by light forest and/or fields. Sometimes it's better to hold marginal ground simply because the cover gradient is steeper.

[Hitorishizuka]

2 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:

 

It's all about the gradient. 50% cover from a cornfield is decent if it's surrounded by open ground. 100% cover forest is not very effective if surrounded by light forest and/or fields. Sometimes it's better to hold marginal ground simply because the cover gradient is steeper.

Well, no, 100% cover forest surrounded by fields is actually better. It has a multiplicative effect, that's why you see brigades in full woods cover take basically no damage from volleys, while fields they still take damage and can get pushed out by superior numbers. If they're in the woods, you're basically not moving them until artillery or cavalry gets there.

Either way, he asked about fortifications, no cover in general. Fortifications have their own special brand of suck.

[Aetius]

1 hour ago, steeltalons said:

So should you use fortifications or not?  I am guessing its somewhat situational dependent, and with the change in cover does this change everything I have read.

My understanding is if you can use tree cover use it over the fortification.  If there isnt any good tree cover in the area use the fortification, ie only open ground around and area you need to defend.

Your understanding is correct. The general rule of thumb is no. That said, there are exceptions. The fundamental problem with fortifications is that they are wider than your brigade front, which produces an unfavorable firepower gradient. This means that while the unit is in the fortifications more enemy units can target them, and their own fire is diluted. The cover and damage reduction doesn't make up for that - 2 units firing at you, each with a 25% reduction in damage, is still 150% of the damage you would be taking one-on-one.

The usable fortifications are short, straight line emplacements that face the direction you need to fire. Poor fortifications are long, curved or hooked, and/or exposed. A prime bad example is the Confederate right flank fortification at Marye's Heights - it's stretched so far that it permits six full-strength Union brigades to fire at one defending brigade.

 

[Wandering1]

As another add-on for Aetius's comment, units in fortifications do not fire all at once, they fire as the individual unit finishes reloading. Which means that you won't get a surge of morale damage, but rather over time like platoon fire.

Personally, I tend to think if they just added a reload bonus (not accuracy, accuracy dilutes rather quickly for the high accuracy guns) it would fix the issue with multiple units being able to shoot at one badly designed fortification. The Fredericksburg salient on the right of Maryes Heights is just one example; something like that should be broken into two fortifications instead of one, at least, since that one can have up to 6-8 squads shooting at it.

[RoverGrover]

I would like to add that in my opinion it also depends on the purpose of using the defenses.   I find that they work great as a delaying tool.   While they might not always trade positively, they trade slowly, which can be very handy depending on circumstances.   

Additionally, you can often use a single fortification to hold up much greater numbers, albeit until they charge you.  

So if you're trying to roll their flank or something,  you can then use a single unit in the fortifications to hold up their advance while you prepare to pounce.  

So again, situational. Which I suppose is the theme of this thread

[mainiac]

I dont usually have a problem with my fortifications coming under concentrated fire because I'll usually have another unit supporting them.  You try to concentrate fire on my field fortifications, I concentrate fire on your flanks.

I tend not to use them for infantry regiments because usually there is a better option available.  But they can be extremely useful as a place to park detached skirmishers.

Edited January 15, 2017 by mainiac

[Hitorishizuka]

2 minutes ago, mainiac said:

I dont usually have a problem with my fortifications coming under concentrated fire because I'll usually have another unit supporting them.  You try to concentrate fire on my field fortifications, I concentrate fire on your flanks.

The frontage isn't there, the fortifications block other units from firing. A prime example is Malvern Hill. The left side fortifications will focus a unit in good tree cover right in front of it while still being in range from 3-4 other brigades angling back and blocking anyone else from getting in to fire at them unless the unit comes way around to the side and in front of the fortifications and stands in open cover.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 hour ago, Hitorishizuka said:

The frontage isn't there, the fortifications block other units from firing. A prime example is Malvern Hill. The left side fortifications will focus a unit in good tree cover right in front of it while still being in range from 3-4 other brigades angling back and blocking anyone else from getting in to fire at them unless the unit comes way around to the side and in front of the fortifications and stands in open cover.

So what is optimum placement on that part of the line? Just stand on this side of the fortification and start hammering them when the pass to the other side? 

 

[Hitorishizuka]

35 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

So what is optimum placement on that part of the line? Just stand on this side of the fortification and start hammering them when the pass to the other side? 

 

As defense? Don't use the forts, move up to the forests. You can bottle 2/3rd of the Confederate army at the river crossing and the remaining 1/3 is easy to outshoot and play cavalry and skirmisher games with until you're ready to push to the other side and sweep them from the field.

[Wandering1]

I would also point out on Malvern Hill as Union, you can easily snipe out two entire cannon squads before the first timer is up (and they actually start marching on you), which means that you don't even need to have a forward position. As noted, you shouldn't be on the fortifications (at least the hill with the observation post), because it means your unit is not stealthed, and the Confederate cannons will shoot at it. Instead of standing in the open for sharpshooters to get free xp off of.

I usually have two squads up on the left forest to start off with, because you can trade much more effectively there than behind the left fortifications. They will eventually push you out by charging you, but not before you kill a good number of them, and depending on how you play your melee cavalry, you can just counter-charge the infantry that try to charge you.

I typically don't do that on Malvern, because the computer gets the 'bright' idea of sending single squads out to the left and right. To get eaten by the cavalry boogeymen hiding in the trees, because they're isolated.

[Hitorishizuka]

8 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

I usually have two squads up on the left forest to start off with, because you can trade much more effectively there than behind the left fortifications. They will eventually push you out by charging you, but not before you kill a good number of them, and depending on how you play your melee cavalry, you can just counter-charge the infantry that try to charge you.

If you take the right forests also, they're stuck at the river, so they never get weight of numbers to push you off. You can hold those positions the entire battle until you're ready to move offensively. Even if they do charge I'm pretty sure you can get 24pdrs by then so you just crush them.

[Wandering1]

1 minute ago, Hitorishizuka said:

If you take the right forests also, they're stuck at the river, so they never get weight of numbers to push you off. You can hold those positions the entire battle until you're ready to move offensively. Even if they do charge I'm pretty sure you can get 24pdrs by then so you just crush them.

By right forests, are you talking about the long way around the right, or are you talking about that one tiny forested hill in front of the field? Because I just use that to hide my skirmishers sniping their cannons.

[Hitorishizuka]

More or less like this:

The two brigades on the right have decent cover and range to contest the river crossing. The AI gets bogged down and bottled up there. One brigade gets partial cover from the field on the other side to where they trade shots but your artillery is so much closer that you win that pretty easily. You can hold this position the entire map. Eventually you can bring the forces on the left forward, swing the gate in line with the river, then swing all the way around and crush them because their remaining forces will be trapped on the other side of the river.

[Wandering1]

Oh. I guess you're just soaking all the cannon fire the entire time then. Which I suppose is one way to do it.

I usually end up letting the infantry come farther forward, so it's easier to blitz the cannons with melee cavalry around the left or the right, whichever is more convenient at the time. That far up, and the infantry are practically sitting on top of the cannons.

Though, if they are all using the ineffective sniper cannons, this may not be that big of a problem.

[Hitorishizuka]

13 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

Oh. I guess you're just soaking all the cannon fire the entire time then. Which I suppose is one way to do it.

I usually end up letting the infantry come farther forward, so it's easier to blitz the cannons with melee cavalry around the left or the right, whichever is more convenient at the time. That far up, and the infantry are practically sitting on top of the cannons.

Though, if they are all using the ineffective sniper cannons, this may not be that big of a problem.

I'm pretty sure the cannons will stop shorter since their targets have moved up. And yeah, I mean, you're going to eat cannon fire one way or another. It's not a big deal, it's like 1-3 deaths per volley, it only matters if they hit your cannons (you can see some chip damage already in the screenshot).

My melee cavalry are usually too busy for the first part of the battle eating spare brigades for it to matter, regardless. The AI loves to keep brigades wandering around way far back as pseudo protection, so I don't think it's a clear shot.

[Wandering1]

1 minute ago, Hitorishizuka said:

I'm pretty sure the cannons will stop shorter since their targets have moved up. And yeah, I mean, you're going to eat cannon fire one way or another. It's not a big deal, it's like 1-3 deaths per volley, it only matters if they hit your cannons (you can see some chip damage already in the screenshot).

My melee cavalry are usually too busy for the first part of the battle eating spare brigades for it to matter, regardless. The AI loves to keep brigades wandering around way far back as pseudo protection, so I don't think it's a clear shot.

Well, I usually end up sweeping in Phase 2, once the map expands, not in Phase 1. Phase 1, if the cannons have nothing to shoot at, will get in range of sharpshooters in the trees, so you can get free kills without them shooting at all in Phase 1.

[Hitorishizuka]

6 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

Well, I usually end up sweeping in Phase 2, once the map expands, not in Phase 1. Phase 1, if the cannons have nothing to shoot at, will get in range of sharpshooters in the trees, so you can get free kills without them shooting at all in Phase 1.

I've never seen that personally. When I tried in my very first campaign sitting in the fortifications not knowing better the cannons still stayed pretty far back while infantry moved up. The infantry would have forced sharpshooters out if they were in the trees long before they would have been able to snipe the cannons.

[mainiac]

1 hour ago, Hitorishizuka said:

More or less like this:

 

At Malvern hill I initially held the left forest with like you had there but eventually had to fall back under sheer weight of numbers to avoid envelopment.  At that points, the fortifications become useful.  After that, the right fortifications were useful.  Sure the rebels were shooting at the guys in the fortification but I had troops just south of the woods flanking them.

[GeneralPITA]

6 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Well, no, 100% cover forest surrounded by fields is actually better. It has a multiplicative effect, that's why you see brigades in full woods cover take basically no damage from volleys, while fields they still take damage and can get pushed out by superior numbers. If they're in the woods, you're basically not moving them until artillery or cavalry gets there.

Either way, he asked about fortifications, no cover in general. Fortifications have their own special brand of suck.

50% cover is paltry compared to 100%, you're right. You're also right that many fortifications have a special brand of suck

Immediately southwest of Chancellorsville farm lies mostly open ground, with a large patch of cornfields in the center and a fence along the northern edge. This fence offers a 75% bonus and corn offers 50%, so if you hold the fence you'll be firing into 50% cover. If you extend your line to the southern edge of the cornfield you only get a 50% bonus, but the enemy approaches from open ground, so the gradient is steeper. It's better to hold the corn field.

74% fortifications are useless I agree.

[Wandering1]

35 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

I've never seen that personally. When I tried in my very first campaign sitting in the fortifications not knowing better the cannons still stayed pretty far back while infantry moved up. The infantry would have forced sharpshooters out if they were in the trees long before they would have been able to snipe the cannons.

As long as the cannons don't have anything to shoot at, the cannons, strangely enough, will be in the front of the formation. That stays inactive until the first timer runs out.

[Lif]

Just check out Union Campaign Mission 1. After you have taken the city, just don't use the fortifications in front of it but place your troops in the city. You will have 60% less losses defending your positions. Fortifications suck if there is better cover available like forests/houses. I don't like them.

[Sandermatt]

16 minutes ago, Lif said:

Just check out Union Campaign Mission 1. After you have taken the city, just don't use the fortifications in front of it but place your troops in the city. You will have 60% less losses defending your positions. Fortifications suck if there is better cover available like forests/houses. I don't like them.

But if he charges go into the fortifications before contact for the melee bonus.