What is the difference between a redoubt and a fort?

[W.Barksdale]

Greetings. Could anyone clarify this for me?

[Cromagnonman]

You can't build a fort...?

[Gray Fox]

You need an RGD to construct a redoubt. A fort can be constructed with IIRC two artillery and four supply elements. I have never noticed a difference in their tactical effect.

[W.Barksdale]

You can't build a fort...?

Sorry I don't quite follow...?

You need an RGD to construct a redoubt. A fort can be constructed with IIRC two artillery and four supply elements. I have never noticed a difference in their tactical effect.

This is the conclusion I've been coming to.

I can't really see a difference. They both even produce 3 supplies and 1 ammo / turn and have the same graphic. A fort is built in 25 days with 4 artillery elements and 4 supply elements. The redoubt takes 6 or 7 turns with a RGD.

[Gray Fox]

I don't use forts because of the expense, although I do advocate stockade building. You only get one redoubt RGD per year, so it's hard to find a critical need for these. Pre-war forts cannot be built. Perhaps Cromanonman meant those.

[ArmChairGeneral]

AFAIK forts, stockades and redoubts are the same thing but where/how you build them and the costs are different.

The redoubt may be a level 2 fortification but I think that is only relevant to ZOC calculations, I don't have the game in front of me.

Like Fox, I hardly ever build forts, sometimes build redoubts (Paducah, KY is a good place, and always in Alexandria if the scripted one gets destroyed) and build a lot of stockades (outposts).

[Cromagnonman]

Whoa, I didn't realize you could still build forts. Though if it costs 4 arty units and no guns are in the fort when done, then it's a waste

[Captain_Orso]

First off, to build a fort--or actually a fortification--you need to first buy 4 artillery batteries of any kind--so the cheaper the better, because these are just costs. You also need 2 supply units. I'm not sure if the actual elements are counted, if not you might get away with using two 2 element supply units, but that's kind of cheating, because when the rule was written, there war only 4 element supply units.

You cannot build a fort with naval supply units, even if in a harbor, even if you load the artillery on them. It just doesn't work. I know, I've tried it

Once the artillery and supply units have been built, move them to any city size 1 or larger, put them into their own stack alone, select the stack, and select the 'Build Fort' SO button. Then wait 25 days.

The artillery and supply units are returned to their build pools--as are the CC's used in building them I believe--, but the money and WSU are the cost of building the fort. So the cost to build a fort is the cost of 4 batteries and 2 supply units.

Forts are level 2 and redoubts level 1. Neither may increase in the game, although hypothetically forts could go up to about level 6 IIRC.

Both act as a kind of depot in that they pull GS supply with 20 'pull', but the fort pulls ammo with 20 while redoubts pull ammo with only 6. For comparison, a depot has 50 GS pull and 35 ammo pull.

Forts you build during the game--level 2-- cannot be destroyed directly. Redoubts--level 1--I believe can. Both can be destroy when they are assaulted if the garrison is actually destroyed, but not if it surrenders. 10% chance for forts, 20% for redoubts.

Blocking movement through a region is through the Patrol value of the defender compared to the evasion value of the moving stacks factored through the magic formula shabalabala (see the magic formula here Zone of Control :confused . In short, a fort adds to the Patrol value equal that side's MC in the region.

[W.Barksdale]

Just some minor diferences then. Many thanks.

Blocking movement through a region is through the Patrol value of the defender compared to the evasion value of the moving stacks factored through the magic formula shabalabala (see the magic formula here Zone of Control :confused . In short, a fort adds to the Patrol value equal that side's MC in the region.

Surely a redoubt is also considered a fortification?

[Cardinal Ape]

Yes, a redoubt works for ZoC just like a fort.

I wish I knew if there was a difference between a fort and a redoubt in the game. It may just be a graphical thing to make coastal forts more obvious?

I got this going on in my current game:
[ATTACH]37282[/ATTACH]

I panic built it manually, didn't want to wait for the RGD card in January.

Apparently, I can destroy it or build another level. Seems a bit off.

I do like the moat, though.


Edit:

I did some digging.

The main difference between forts and redoubts is that forts can be built in regions without cities.

Redoubts come from RGD cards. Forts come from manual construction.

Forts require 4 artillery and 4 supply elements to be built. Takes 25 days.

Forts can be upgraded once with an additional 4 artillery and 4 supply elements. Takes 15 days.

Level 1 forts can be destroyed with orders. Level 2 forts and redoubts can not.

Redoubts and level 1 forts can fit 25 elements without overcrowding penalties.

Level 2 forts can fit 50 elements without overcrowding penalties.

[Cardinal Ape]

FYI, if you play against the AI, the enemy capital will receive a level 2 fort. Humans get a level 1 redoubt in their capital. Be wary when assaulting Athena's capital.

[W.Barksdale]

Yes, a redoubt works for ZoC just like a fort.

...


I did some digging.

The main difference between forts and redoubts is that forts can be built in regions without cities.

Redoubts come from RGD cards. Forts come from manual construction.

Forts require 4 artillery and 4 supply elements to be built. Takes 25 days.

Forts can be upgraded once with an additional 4 artillery and 4 supply elements. Takes 15 days.

Level 1 forts can be destroyed with orders. Level 2 forts and redoubts can not.

Redoubts and level 1 forts can fit 25 elements without overcrowding penalties.

Level 2 forts can fit 50 elements without overcrowding penalties.

Roger.

[Straight Arrow]

[color="#FFFF00"]"Forts are level 2 and redoubts level 1"[/color]

I believe a main game difference is that forts require 2 breeches to assault and redoubts only 1.

On the map, the black diamond under the fortress symbols has a number inside it; this number is the number of breeches required to assault.

I believe Pre-War forts are also 1s, while forts constructed by players are 2s.

[Cromagnonman]

You can assault without any breaches at all - it's just that the defender gets some bonuses.

[Straight Arrow]

You can assault without any breaches at all.

You're right.

If I had been thinking, I would of remembered the many times I've done so.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Honest mistake, that is the mechanic (breaches required to assault forts) in several AGEOD titles.

So is there any combat difference between the Lvl 1 forts and the Lvl 2s? (Aside from the overcrowding and ammo pulls, which are nice benefits for Lvl. 2s.)

[Cardinal Ape]

I don't think there are any extra combat bonuses for level 2 forts.

One can build a level 2 fort in 25 days. Use two stacks of 4 art and 4 supply elements a piece, give both stacks orders to build a fort. Its very expensive compared to a redoubt, but those take 90 days.

A bizarre thing one could do is have 8 horse artillery and 2 supply wagons on standby to quickly build a response fort. Not my style, but it sounds amusing.

[minipol]

I didn't know you could upgrade a fort after you built it. Question is, is the extra resources worth it? Depends on a lot of factors of course but I wonder. That's 8 art and 8 supply elements to build a level 2 fort.
In future CW games, they should just make a built/upgrade fort action with the proper WS & $ cost instead of having to go through this artillery & supply unit building.

[LCcmdr]

Why wouldn't you use the Engineer for fort building?

[ArmChairGeneral]

minipol,
Agreed about streamlining, its too fiddly as-is.

If a hand-built fort is a Lvl. 2 then the only forts you would upgrade would be Redoubts. Might be worth it in one or two spots, like Alexandria as CSA, especially if you can do it using captured supply wagons.

LCcmdr,
I like your thinking, you could give the Engineer a much needed boost in flavor; right now they are kind of boring and only moderately useful. Perhaps Forts and their upgrades could be RGDs that cost the appropriate amount (minipol) but require the presence of an engineer (LCcmdr). You could count Naval Engineers too, so they could allow playing the card in regions with a harbor.

[LCcmdr]

minipol,
Agreed about streamlining, its too fiddly as-is.

If a hand-built fort is a Lvl. 2 then the only forts you would upgrade would be Redoubts. Might be worth it in one or two spots, like Alexandria as CSA, especially if you can do it using captured supply wagons.

LCcmdr,
I like your thinking, you could give the Engineer a much needed boost in flavor; right now they are kind of boring and only moderately useful. Perhaps Forts and their upgrades could be RGDs that cost the appropriate amount (minipol) but require the presence of an engineer (LCcmdr). You could count Naval Engineers too, so they could allow playing the card in regions with a harbor.

I REALLY like your idea of combining a decision card plus an engineer/naval engineer to build one. Hopefully, this would not be a difficult addition to the game.

[W.Barksdale]

While I suppose it would be nice not to have to build and move the requisite units I don't think CW2 updates are high on the devs list of things to do.

If I were going to implement a change, just a RGD would suffice; why bother with the engineer? And get rid of some of those useless cards.

Regarding the engineer; A 35% reduction in the time necessary to obtain the next entrenchment level is nothing to sneeze at.

[minipol]

I like the idea of ArmChairGeneral to combain both. I would like to see that change

[Captain_Orso]

I'm amazed at what I can still learn about this game after so many years .

Firstly, the game used to tell you the fort level. Pre-war forts always said 'level 1' and forts you built during the game always said 'level 2'. Currently, the game only tells you the 'size' of the fort. Most pre-war forts are size 1, but for example, Fort Monroe is size 2. I'm not sure if this equates to the level of the fort, but I can't really ignore the possibility. But that would mean that when you build a fort during the game, you are actually building the equivalent of a pre-war fort.

On the other hand, it might simple be assumed that the player knows that all pre-war forts are level 1, regardless of their size, and that all 'built' forts are level 2, but you can increase their size during the game.

Next, if you start building a fort and a redoubt at the same time, when the fort has completed being built, the redoubt will become invalid and it's build will be canceled. I imagine it works the other way around too.

Yes, you can use 2 valid stacks in the same region and give each the 'Build Fort' SO at the same time. After 25 days you will have a 'size 2' fort, which you cannot increase in size. Although I haven't tried it, I'm sure that if you already have a size 1 fort and then take 2 valid stacks in the same region and start to build a fort with each, after 25 day you will get a size 2 fort, but no more than that. I also imagine the second 'fort building' stack will simply disappear as invalid without comment, and the cost and resources may well simply be lost.

[Captain_Orso]

Lets put everything about building Forts and Redoubts together into one place. I'm assuming here that the terms 'level' and 'size' of a fort are synonymous, because everything I've seen until now have borne this out.

All forts that start on the map in the '61 campaigns are level 1, aka Pre-War Forts, which represent System 3 coastal defense forts. The exceptions to this are Forts Monroe and Pickens (near Pensacola), which are level 2 Pre-War Forts, and Fort Fischer, which was actually an earth-works fort who's construction started during the war, but in-game it is represented with a masonry pre-war fort graphic.

To build a Redoubt there must be a city in the region, which your faction must 'own'.
[INDENT]In CW2 owning and controlling are synonymous, and I will use the term 'control' to simplify things; also cities and settlements are synonymous for these explanations, so I will only use the term citiy.[/INDENT]

To control a region your faction must have been the last to have had an unopposed[SUP]1)[/SUP] non-artillery combat element in the region, which includes militia[SUP]2)[/SUP] and partisans. To control a city is more complicated, and you must consider your faction's loyalty in the region.

• If your faction has >50% loyalty in the region, your faction must simply control the region.
• If your factions has =<50% loyalty in the region, if your faction was the last last to have had an unopposed regular infantry--conscript or above[SUP]2)[/SUP]--, or late-war cavalry in the region. Additional, if there is a city in the region, your faction must maintain a non-artillery combat unit inside the city at all times to control the city.
  [INDENT]EG If there is 75% Confederate loyalty in Nashville, and the Union controls the Nashville region, and has a militia element inside Nashville, the Union controls Nashville. If the Militia element moves to outside the city, the city will become uncontrolled, which means that the Union will not gain VP's for controlling the city, and the city might revolt by having a CS partisan unit spawned in the region.[/INDENT]

Redoubts are built with an RGD, which require a city in a region, which your faction must control, and your faction must have => 3 infantry type elements in the region. Playing the Build Redoubt RGD, cost $50 and 10 WSU, which will be assessed once the build is complete after 6 turns. Redoubts are always level 2.

To build a level 1 fort, or increase a level 1 fort to level 2, you need 4 artillery elements and 4 land supply unit elements in one stack. These elements need not necessarily be alone in the stack, but they cannot be in more than one stack.

You cannot use navel/riverine supply units to build a fort, even if you load the artillery onto the navel/riverine supply units. You may use 1 or more supply units to build a fort, as long as number of supply elements in the units used are => 4.

Since the requirement is 4 artillery elements, but the type of artillery is inconsequential to building a fort, it is advantageous to use the cheapest artillery available, which are 6lb-ers.

To initiate the build, simply select the stack containing the required elements and click the Build Fort SO button. The build time is 25 day, however, if you are increasing a level 1 fort to level 2, the increase appears to be completed the turn after issuing the orders.

Level 1 forts can be destroyed with the Destroy Fort SO. Level 2 forts and redoubts cannot be destroyed purposefully, but can be destroyed incidentally through an assault on the fort/redoubt; 10% chance for a fort/20% chance for a redoubt.

You can build a level 2 fort directly by having 2 stacks, each with the required elements to build a fort, and selecting the Build Fort SO on each. Build time is still 25 days.

You cannot increase a level 2 fort or redoubt.


[SUP]1)[/SUP] For enemy units to oppose control, they may not be in PP (Passive Posture).
EG The South has a stack with regular infantry in Gibson, TN (Humboldt City) (90% CS loyalty), so the South controls the region and the city.
The Union move a stack into Gibson and a battle ensues, which the Union wins by the CS force breaking (it is changed to PP) and starting a retreat. Since the Union force in Gibson is unopposed, the Union now controls the region. If the Union force is composed of only milia[SUP]2)[/SUP], artillery, and pre-war cavalry, the Union player will have to put at least 1 militia or pre-war cavalry element into the city to control the city too.
If before the CS force actually leaves the region the turn ends, the CS player will start the next turn with his force in retreat (plotted to move outside the region, with a number of days already having been moved). If the CS player now changes that stack to DP (Defensive Posture) control of the region is now opposed and contested, but since the Union side was the last to have unopposed non-artillery combat units in the region, control does not change.

[SUP]2)[/SUP] Militia and Volunteers are synonymous for these rule, and are not regular infantry.

[Cardinal Ape]

Good post Orso.

The only thing I would add, and its trivial, is to not be fooled or tricked by the in-game icons and names for 'forts'. If it matters to you then be sure to check what structure is really in the region. Lots of places out west have 'Fort' in their region name, but they are in fact stockades, not actual forts. Some places like Fort Pillow are actually redoubts. Other places like El Paso have a fort icon in the region, but it is just a stockade.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Cardinal Ape,
How does a stockade differ from a fort in terms of mechanics? (Aside from how they are built.) I was under the impression that they were effectively Level 1 forts.

[Cardinal Ape]

Forts have an ammo pull of 20, redoubts and stockades have 6.

Stockades are much more likely to be destroyed in an assault compared to forts. They have a 75% chance to be burned, forts have a 10% chance.

Stockades have a 50% chance to create an auto-garrison to defend it self. Forts and Redoubts have a 100% chance.

[Straight Arrow]

Lets put everything about building Forts and Redoubts together into one place.

Good stuff, very nice; I'll fold it into Points to know with the recent NM information.

[Wraith]

I have to say, this was a key thing I could have used before going into my PbeM game against Jerzul. In AACW, you could use riverine supply units to build the fort and was trying to do the same in NOLA for our first game in ACW2. The continued failure to build a fort was a contributing factor into my loss of NOLA in October 1861.