Army Take II

[miketr]

I'd like to see a cost seperate for light infantry; they shouldn't cost as much as heavy infantry due to smaller amount of supplies. But I'm willing to sacrifice that in the interests of KISS.

See comment I made already about having multiple variables, balancing becomes harder. 

I won't even go into the fact that most Cav DIVISIONS had like 1/3 the manpower of an infantry division.

Michael

[Desertfox]

You have to pay for forts, you pay for dry docks, etc.  NOTHING IS FREE.

That sucks. Mexico has a whole bunch of forts, some dating back to Cortez, and most upgraded to close to state of the art. And about half of them will be of no use to me.

1) The world is made up by in large.  Who is to say what stone fort is where?

Well I was trying to stay as close to historical as possible.

[Carthaginian]

And about half of them will be of no use to me.

Simple answer then- there is no reason to sim them, or even to count them as an actual 'fort.'

[miketr]

You have to pay for forts, you pay for dry docks, etc.  NOTHING IS FREE.

That sucks. Mexico has a whole bunch of forts, some dating back to Cortez, and most upgraded to close to state of the art. And about half of them will be of no use to me.

1) The world is made up by in large.  Who is to say what stone fort is where?

Well I was trying to stay as close to historical as possible.

Any fort before 1860 tech level his no military value, in effect it might as well not be there for the defensive value it offers.  Yes this not perfectly realistic but it is KISS.

You want a fort buy it.

Michael

[Darman]

A lot of ANYTHING is going to die if you are traversing a desert.
Darman, a lot of those horses likely did not die due to 'acclimatization' or lack of fodder... I'm quite willing to say that they died of the KNIGHTS lacking sufficient fodder. Whether it was the knight making something semi-palatable out of the oats he had intended for his horse, or just deciding that a nice horse steak beats the shit outta starving to death- well, you take care of the horse first under most circumstances, but eventually the man takes precedent over the horse.

That was actually a large part of the problem.  The horses and men could eat pretty much the same things.  I really wish I hadn't packed all my research away in the far corners of the basement but if I remember correctly the Venetians were counting on horses eating at least twice as much grain as a man during transshipment to the Holy Land by sea. 
As for horses dying in the desert, the Saracens managed to feed their horses just as well in the same terrain, because their mounts were bred on pasture and not grain.  The "desert" of Anatolia back then was very dry but had short grasses capable of providing sustenance for horses. 
Sorry for digressing from main topic...

[Carthaginian]

As for horses dying in the desert, the Saracens managed to feed their horses just as well in the same terrain, because their mounts were bred on pasture and not grain.  The "desert" of Anatolia back then was very dry but had short grasses capable of providing sustenance for horses. 

Oh... well, their horses were also smaller and generally had lower caloric requirements.
It also didn't hurt that their average rider was lighter and less heavily armored, reducing the strain on the horse from the get-go. ;)

[Darman]

Oh... well, their horses were also smaller and generally had lower caloric requirements.
It also didn't hurt that their average rider was lighter and less heavily armored, reducing the strain on the horse from the get-go. ;)

Yes on both counts.  However, for the two different styles of warfare they practiced, their mounts were designed almost perfectly.  The Saracens relied on speed, although they did eventually develop heavy cavalry of their own they never could quite match the heavy cavalry of the Crusaders.  The Crusaders relied on a combination of the steadiness of their footsoldiers (leavened by dismounted knights) and the shock of a properly unleashed heavy cavalry charge. 

We've digressed a long ways from the original comments about upkeep for horses.  At least back in the days of knights, warhorses ate more grain (plus hay) than a man even when not performing heavy labor (according to Venetian shipping records)

[Korpen]

Its not a real number, I have read 19th century and early 20th century forts and I don't think any of them had this much manpower.  Its a number for accounting / game mechanic reasons. 

Other people packed troops into forts; Belgium's defense plan was in effect to have no field army in WW1 they were all to be garrison infantry to support the forts.

Don't get caught up on manpower numbers again, its a game mechanic.

My point is that there are plenty of times and places were one wants fortification less imposing then one which is equal to 2,5k men in the field. I can see lots of cases, especially in the archipelago along the Baltic sea, were there is very little need of independent garrisons attached to the fort, so paying for chose capabilities seems wasteful. The easiest thing IMO would be that forts are bought "clean" with only local close defence troops but with capability to garrison forces from the field army.
Failing that, make the smallest possible fort much smaller, equal to about 1/5 of the present suggestion (so 100 in a "corps") to allow for more middle ground between massive fortifications and no fortifications.

[miketr]

Korpen anything smaller than brigade size just falls of the map.  How much accounting paperwork are we to have?  Again don't pay attention to the manpower size, its a number.  The key detail is combat power of the fort itself.  Also who said anything about the manpower having any value outside of the fort?  All of the troops combat power is tied up in the fort.

If you want to put defenses on some sand bar then put a pair of naval 6" guns and call it even.

Michael

[Guinness]

Who says what a "fort" is really. Maybe it's better termed a "brigade equivalent fortification". Such a fortification could buy you a standard fort, or a line of connected positions, or a set of interdependent positions. On a map it might be one dot, but if you zoom into the details, it's really spread out over a few hundred yards, or whatnot.

[Ithekro]

I think what he is going for is that on a world scale, the details don't matter, just that whatever it is provides "x" defense and costs "y" to build, and "z" to maintain.

The details after that are essentally, fluff, and newspaper fodder.

[Korpen]

Korpen anything smaller than brigade size just falls of the map.  How much accounting paperwork are we to have?  Again don't pay attention to the manpower size, its a number.  The key detail is combat power of the fort itself.  Also who said anything about the manpower having any value outside of the fort?  All of the troops combat power is tied up in the fort.

Then they just seems horribly expensive for what one gets to me.

If you want to put defenses on some sand bar then put a pair of naval 6" guns and call it even.

Blasted into granite would be closer to the truth, but that is not the point. A few naval guns are quite vulnerable to direct infantry or cavalry attacks and would be hard pressed to stop such an assault, especially if it is supported by accurate army artillery or conducted by night (read between sundown 1500 and sunrise 0900). Hence the need for a real fort.
Something to keep in mind here: much of the Baltic Sea freeze in winter...

[Walter]

Also who said anything about the manpower having any value outside of the fort?

No one, but I think that there is a significant difference between 300 men without value outside a fort or 3000 men without value outside a fort.

On a map it might be one dot, but if you zoom into the details, it's really spread out over a few hundred yards, or whatnot.

Yes, but in case of the Stelling van Amsterdam, you're talking about 135 km / 42 forts = 3.21 kilometers average between every two forts, not a mere few hundred yards.

[Walter]

Looking around, the Stelling van Amsterdam cost the equivalent of 449 million Euros (in 2010). Using the inflation calculator, You're looking at a bit less than $30,000,000 (or $30N) so those 42 forts would be equal to 24 citadels. 1 fort would roughly be equal to 1/2 citadel which is what I kinda see in the picture I posted of one of the forts.

[miketr]

The game scale is what it is.  Low end is brigade level, you are not going to be sending a detachment of 200 men to attack a pair of 6' guns.  The primary game scale is Corps Level Combat fought out on provinces 100's of square miles in size.  A lone defense outpost with 250 men just doesn't register at that level.  We aren't going to do 1800's Squad Leader here. 

My intention is you put a fortification in a province, you put several there.  The forts collectively defend the province.  If you have port in a province then the forts are defending the port also.  Area based combat.  Is this more clear?

Michael