Field fortifications

[Athos1660]

Shouldn't field fortifications (FF) in Attack/Defend scenarios give protection (+ % Cover + POA bonus in close
combat to defending troops ?) against attacks from the rear ?

Currently, the majority of the FF present in those scenarios are open at the stern and don't give protection against rear charges :



Doesn’t it currently encourage the attacker to bypass/avoid the obstacle and attack from the side/rear of the enemy as a tactic ?



The P&S manual says : " Foot defending obstacles count as “Protected” against mounted troops (see combat charts) and against the ill-effects of being flank/rear charged across the obstacle. »

The in-game tooltips also says :



Likewise, FoG Renaissance Tabletop rules say about FF : "Troops defending FF cannot be charged in flank/rear across the fortifications, and suffer no POA penalty for fighting in more than one direction across them. «

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well... it means if the rear/flank of the unit is facing the fortification it doesn't matter. Light Fortifications give cover bonus, protection, and I think some POA. Medium Fortifications give 66% cover, POA, and disorder the enemy.

[Athos1660]

Hello SnuggleBunnies
Nice to hear from you
I must admit I did not understand what you mean by :

Well... it means if the rear/flank of the unit is facing the fortification it doesn't matter.

My question was :
Shouldn’t the rear of wide field fortifications in Attack/Defend Scenarios be ‘(en)closed' (I don’t know if it is the right word) so that rear charges wouldn’t be allowed and protection at the back would be enabled (as it can be for small field fortifications ?

1) ‘Enclosed’ rear of small fortification


2) ‘Open’ rear of small fortification


… a bit like this :


Currently, this happens :


But I guess the answer is : WAD

[rbodleyscott]

But I guess the answer is : WAD

It is indeed.

[Athos1660]

WAD a surprise!

So this....

= np ?

ok

[rbodleyscott]

WAD a surprise!

So this....

= np ?

ok

They give protection from rear attacks across the obstacle. There is no obstacle behind them, so in this case an attack from the rear is not across an obstacle, so their rear is not protected.

[Athos1660]

They give protection from rear attacks across the obstacle. There is no obstacle behind them, so in this case an attack from the rear is not across an obstacle, so their rear is not protected.

I do understand that. I always have. That's logical.

What "troubles" me (the subject of this thread) is that I'm under the impression that such field fortifications ('that does not protect their rear") encourage the attacker to systematically bypass/avoid this obstacle and attack from the rear/side of the enemy that way...



...instead of most of his infantry going straight to the fortification like that :



With a closed FF, there would be no reason not to go straight to it.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe a 'straight to the fortification' tactic is more effective with the current FF ?
And maybe it is no big deal in an attack or defend scenario.

Sorry if I have not been clear in this thread that was about me wishing to understand why this obstacle is the right one for these kind of defend/attack scenarios, tactically speaking.

[SnuggleBunnies]

...of course it encourages you to go around. Attacking head on is a bad idea if it can be avoided. That doesn't mean the fortifications are useless; like any defensible terrain, they allow you to hold a large stretch of ground with a smaller number of lower quality troops, freeing up the rest of your men to hold another terrain feature or to use the fortifications as an anchor and attack with full strength from one side.

In many historical scenarios, the fortifications are either anchored on terrain or just one small part of a long battle line. You can see this is several of the games I have posted on my channel (Lutzen from both sides, Dessau Bridge, Wimpfen) Circumvallation was a thing of course, but generally the distance between the two separate inward and outward facing fortifications was far more than one square (60 meters). This can be seen in the matches I posted of Kinsale.

Scenarios that do involve a head on assault on fortifications (Wimpfen, Alte Veste, Nordlingen for example) all give the attackers a substantial points advantage.

[Athos1660]

Of course I do not lessen the tactical interests of such open field fortification in real life, depending on terrain, the defenders' objectives, etc. as one can experience it in a Historical scenario in P&S. You described them n a very interesting way.

I was referring solely to the generic random Attack/Defend scenarios in SP Skirmish mode (that may also exist in MP ?). They frontally oppose only defenders behind an 'open’ FF to attackers with a substantial points advantage and who have all the space they need to circumvent the obstacle without any other enemies to be careful of :



Sorry for not having been precise enough.

Maybe the subject is of little interest.

However, when I played such scenarios, I tended to always circumvent the obstacle. A tactic is of little interest too when it becomes automatic. So I stoped playing them. But I was still wondering how to force me to go straight to the obstacle in such random scenarios (at least sometimes).

Of course, with the scenario editor, conditions for such result can be created (terrain, obstacles such as water…). I will consider making such maps. Scenarios with 'open' FF has an advantage : they reinforce the value of the attacker's cavalry (during attacks from the back of the FF).

But a random, unexpected map is often funnier (and quicker) to play with.

Btw maybe wide 'closed' FF are not historical. I must admit I don't know anything about FF. An interesting subject...

[rbodleyscott]

Btw maybe wide 'closed' FF are not historical.

I think that is correct for most historical scenarios.

[Athos1660]

Thank you for the information. I should have looked at that in the first place !

I skimmed the first treaty on FF I found on the Net. It seems that open FF had (at least) two advantages to the defenders :
- defenders could easily renew their troops during the fight,
- after the capture of the FF, attackers couldn’t use it as a protection, as the open FF faced the wrong direction.
(+ open FF required less work ?)

All that is left for me to do now is reading Vauban’s Traité de la fortification de campagne

[awesum4]

If its any consolation Athos I dislike the attack/defend games. The attacker simply moves around the fortifications and attacks obliquely. The defender is then fighting an open battle but with fewer troops.
I only ever post open battles if I am playing a random game. but mostly these days I play the historical scenarios...there are dozens of them and if you are playing both sides against a single opponent they are often very interesting and lots of fun.

[Athos1660]

Imo each type of battles (random, historical or campaign ones) provide a different experience, each interesting ; the first one focusing purely on tactics, the second adding an... historical dimension, the last interlocking the results of several battles and providing a invasion background (a map).

As for the attack/defend scenarios, I am a fan of storming of fortification...
Knowing nothing about FF and related historical tactics (I will), I tend to think I wouldn't build an open FF without its "wings/flanks" protected by natural obstacles, other FF or substantial troops.

As for open battles vs the other types of scenarios, I for one do like and need the diversity of the in-game scenarios.

Btw would it be nice if one could buy and place field fortification during the force selection and deployment', depending on the specific map, as if it were a unit ?

[Athos1660]

Fo the fun of it, I am making a SP Attack scenario on a small map (WIP). It is not historical, but a "what-if" scenario.

The enemy defender is disadvantaged in strength of forces, but his infantry are behind field fortifications. He also uses each component of his terrain at his advantage; he cut trees, put obstacles, etc. to turn part of the terrain into a rough one, etc.

This scenario aims to make the attackers' lives very difficult with as few defenders as possible.

The player's goal : defeat the defenders to capture the city.

If you want to test it and suggest improvements/balance/units :

To install :
1) download : http://www.mediafire.com/file/9h3ci9ssg ... F.rar/file
2) install it in ...\Documents\My Games\PSCAMP\Campaigns

To play, click on Historical, Fortification and FF1.

PS : the map could also be made prettier.