The Problem with Forts: I think I have a solution

I really don't know where this is coming from, becasue I am neither writing rules nor am I building any forts but have you ever had much use for any fort you have ever made?

In 28mm I have built over the years a motte and wooden donjonn with curtain and a Roman fortlet (like a mile fort on Hadrian's wall without the wall). I lavished a great deal of care and attention to both models (which are sizeable) and both have only seen one game in 20 years.

I even had a massive and sprawling 28mm Vauban style bastion fortress section I built in the '90s which ran to about two metres, complete with gate house, bridges and a massive breach section. I've chucked that - there's a year of hobby buildng time gone to the dogs. Again, it just wasn't getting used.

Every now and again I allow myself to get carried away and serious contemplate adding to this small collection. Why? Well, military architecture is just so fascinating and wonderful looking. Unless you are building a static display model (and presumably going down in size) they take up a lot of space on the table-top and considerable room in storage for not a lot of return. The following are the essential problems as I see them and I conclude with what I think might be a novel idea.

I think one of the big issues with model fortifications is that they are difficult to game with. Let me clarify firstly that I don't skirmish game. Not yet anyway. All of my figures from all of my armies (and there are quite a few) are based in large units - multiple figures to a base (normally at least six for foot and three for horse). I've long since turned my back on games requiring figure removal so I have next to no toy soldiers individually based.

As such, my toy soldiers cannot easily take up positions behind a rampart unless I make a fighting platform ludicrously wide to accommodate a minimum of two ranks. Of course, no one built fortifications like that and no defenders fought ranks deep behind a wall. I have similar issues with earthworks.

The other issue is that for any fortification to feature effectively within a game the attackers should have a chance of getting at the troops inside. This will often require artillery of some sort (torsion or black powder) or some means of compromising the integrity of the walls. This likely requires siege engines, mines, ramparts, earthworks maybe, ladders, fire - ah, the list goes on. This means a significant capability expansion for a lot of miniature armies - especially pre-gunpowder era armies. That's a lot of scratch building, conversions and model purchases for a very specific game type when we all mostly play open battles. Once more, not a lot of gaming return likely on the investment.

Unless you are designing a specific siege game, most games involving a fort needs to get straight to storming the breach. There's not a lot of room for maneuver in a breach and such games are likely to funnel into a dice fight. Personally, I imagine that skirmish games like Lion Rampant might work best fighting over extensive buildings like a fort or castle complex but again, I'm not convinced battalion sized units, my 24 figure Roman cohorts or 28mm tercios will work particularly.

If the fort is on the table it seems to me it will likely either be an elaborate and awe inspiring piece of ornamental scenery with no real relevance or it will necessarily draw focus of the game to itself.

One day I rather fancy building a Canadian block-house. I have a rather large colonial SYW (French Indian Wars) collection thanks to my Quebec project and imagine I'll play some FIW games where the occasional fort or farmstead will come in handy. The funny thing about most block-houses I've seen is you don't need figures to man them at all - becasue they essentially can't be seen. It was musing on this point when an idea occurred to me.

Solution

Why not play the fort in a game as a unit in and of itself?  

Rather than a terrain feature like a wall or a dug-out which provides a defensive bonus to a unit occupying it, we might imagine a block-house as a manned structure with it's own offensive and defensive values and an integral constitution or stamina (hit points). In Black Powder terms (for example) we could allow a stamina of 6 (or whatever you think is reasonable) a high morale role (saving throw) and the ability to deliver fire up to two dice from at least two sides per turn. 

Once it fails an infantry break test, the block-house is compromised, neutralized and deemed abandoned. A garrison can break from sustained and effective fire or it could break after losing a melee in which case the garrison is eliminated and the attacking unit takes it by storm.

This is effectively how units break into occupied buildings in Black Powder already but a fort is constructed to enable greater fire from within and presumably better defensive characteristics. The real point is that I'll be modelling a fort with a representative garrison only and play the fort as the unit.

If you think that makes sense, then I was considering similar features for my Roman fortlet (pictured) . This is a large and open structure and if I'm to resurrect it's usefulness, I will paint up a handful of sentries to visually man-it - I would consider them simply part of the model. I could then apply a similar set of values appropriate to that size of fort.

In terms of it's greater utility, the courtyard can accommodate a number of cohorts. I might consider any such units in sanctuary to anything other than indirect artillery (if present). They wouldn't affect the offensive capabilities of the fort.  I hope I remember this correctly but I think it was a comment by Mike Loads on Marc Morris' Castles documentary series which emphasised a castle's tactical value. He likened them to an aircraft carrier which of itself has no offensive value but the aircraft (like knights in a castle) sally forth and deliver destruction to the enemy. Likewise, in my concept units inside add nothing to the forts fighting capability (that's the garrison's job) and cannot be engaged. But they can always threaten to sally out.

Do any rules actually do this or are you already doing something similar? 

I could apply the same considerations to my castle - probably according it a greater stamina value. I can always deem only artillery can damage it or any scenario can specify the effect of fire, mining, ramming etc.

I have another blog site dedicated to my Balaclava project and the thought just occurred to me that rather than collecting a massive series of Turkish garrisons for the Causeway Heights redoubts, a few dozen figures and a token handful of guns to represent the fighting redoubts is a far more elegant solution. I think this could be particularly advantageous for garrison troops who were ineffective in the field more generally. Some ideas are firming up about these redoubts which I will post on my Balaclava Build blog.

These considerations are really only for when a fort features in a game which is not designed as a siege game and when you want to keep it in play. I should say it's also for what people refer to these days as big or bigger games.If you want to include victory locations in a scenario, you can either opt in or out for your fort depending on what role you want it to play.

Marshal Grant and I have recently had a dangerous conversation surrounding skirmish Crusader games and I'd love to build a caravansary. Similarly, a small outpost keep complex for late 12th century Hospitallers has a definite appeal and at the Lion Rampant level of skirmish game, the features can be built which the toys can fight through. In these instances, fortifications play a different role and require different considerations and rules.