Fortified or not

[gerryb]

Now that quite a few of you have played multiple games I was wondering your opinion on whether to take a fortified or unfortified camp ?

[plewis66]

I don't get the option, playing Romans, but in all the games I've played, the enemy has been in a position to sack the camp five times (out of about 15 games), and has only attempted to do so once - and not succeeding. The other four times, they didn't bother trying because they thought it would be too difficult.

I consider well worth 24pts personally.

[rbodleyscott]

I don't get the option, playing Romans, but in all the games I've played, the enemy has been in a position to sack the camp five times (out of about 15 games), and has only attempted to do so once - and not succeeding. The other four times, they didn't bother trying because they thought it would be too difficult.

I consider well worth 24pts personally.

Thinking about this when you posted it before, I agree that it is worth it for an infantry army.

My Ilkanid Mongol baggage has been sacked several times, usually by enemy infantry. This is because all my heavy cavalry tend to attack on the wings, leaving only light stuff in the middle which has to move out of the way of the enemy foot.
If I had a fortified camp, they probably would have sacked it anyway, because by the time they got to it, they were effectively out of the battle anyway - it had moved elsewhere.

Hence I would suggest that a fortified camp is

1) Of most benefit to an attacking infantry army lacking adequate mounted support.
2) Probably unnecessary for a well balanced army.
3) Paradoxically not worthwhile for a cavalry army.

As this corresponds very roughly with historical use of fortified camps, something may be right!