Fort Questions - for all you military types

[grandmaster z0b]

I’m running a campaign where the enemy has constructed a large Fort as the base of operations for their new (half complete) army. I have a pretty good idea of what I want and how it’s going to work but as we have a lot of military or ex-military on the boards I thought I’d see if your have any ideas or experiences that I should incorporate.

Basically it’s roughly triangular in shape, sits near a fork in a large river, and is backed by large hills. About a kilometre out it has a ring of defences including bunkers, gun emplacements, towers and anti-aircraft guns all linked by trenches and tunnels. More towers, anti-aircraft guns and RADAR sits on the hills behind it, and the Fort itself is also very heavily defended with turrets and missile silos. This is all apart from the sqaudrons of Power Armor, Robots and infantry that inhabit the base.

What I want to know is details and logistics of modern military bases/forts;

How many people live there or work on site?
What’s the general size and area of a typical modern fort?
Is there anything obvious that I’m forgetting?
A quick list of general support staff and their roles would also be appreciated.

Thanks, I’ll post more details later if your interested.

[grandmaster z0b]

The army should be about 11 -15 thousand troops not including support (much of which would be automated/robots or magic) but the army will eventually be about 30 thousand.

Originally I made one wall about 500 meters long, but that gave me an area of 125 000 square meters, about 30 Acres which is the size of the Pentagon – yes slightly too big. Actually this is one of the questions I was hoping to get some help with.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Is this army putting all their eggs in one basket? If not how far away is their back up?

Sounds like you got good terrain. On other defenses what else is there? Minefields? Does that include the river?
Patrol unit's, and what does the patrol unit consist of?
Any scattered remote sensors to cover the areas between all those towers and what not?

Internal communications? How secure is that? Back-ups?

Anyway there's a lot of stuff out there on the net regarding old style forts. Not too sure on present day installations. WB 23 has a CS fort detailed out, and there's some defensive fortifications in WB 10 and CS Navy Book.

[grandmaster z0b]

Is this army putting all their eggs in one basket? If not how far away is their back up?

Whilst they have some smaller operations around and control the local towns, yeah they have pretty much put all their effort into it's defence.

Sounds like you got good terrain. On other defenses what else is there? Minefields? Does that include the river?

Yeah there is a no-mans land about 50 meters from the outer defences. It consists of land mines, pit traps, and LAWS.

Patrol unit's, and what does the patrol unit consist of?
Any scattered remote sensors to cover the areas between all those towers and what not?

I haven't worked these out completely yet, but I will detail them now that you've mentioned them, thanks.

Are they gonna put MDC walls up around the whole thing? And keep guards a kilometer out?

The Fort itself is MDC, but the outer perimeter is more of a line of MDC towers and bunkers within sight of each other.

I think the Patrols will be a combination of airborne PAs and small squads of infantry including psi-stalkers and dog boys. As well as Astral defenders (the players are quite keen on astral surveillance) and magical defenders nearer the fort.

[grandmaster z0b]

that would be Fort Barron...
and that might be what you would be looking for as it has 11,590 human troops, 640 dogboys, 4,440 skelebots and 1,280 freelancers there..

sure we could give you a full rundown of a base but that one has the rifts spin on a base already done,floorplans and so on.
and if you dont have world book :23 Xiticix invasion, IT would be one of many good reasons to get it.

but I would expand on it more it just is to ill equipped to be a Fort that houses an army Corp.
but thats me...

Yeah I forgot about that, I'll have a look at Fort Baron when I get home. If it is ill equiped (as I have thought as well) what is missing?
This fort is much bigger as it has it's own manufacturing facilities, bionics lab/surgery, hospital and cloning lab.

[R Ditto]

Do defenses include concealed or "pop-up" style defenses?
Any camouflaged/cincealed bunkers/gun emplacements set up to form anti-personal or anti-armor kill zones where 2 or more bunkers can catch targets in a crossfire?
What kind of weapons are used in the various gun emplacements, towers and other defenses?
Are there mortars and/or artillery to provide indirect fire?

I think a "mortar pit" with a "turreted" Metal Storm Mortar system would be lethal. Or a mortar system with a rotary "gatling gun" style barrel/feed system or an auto-loading mortar could also be useful. With a press of a button, one could deliver a whole lot of mortars into a target area in a short period of time and devestate any grouped hostile forces.

I can even see new versions of old trap designs. Like thosed used in Vietnam. Pit traps with weight sensitive triggers and HEAT charges on some of the spikes. Plus bouncing betties, and even concealed pits designed to be "tank traps", either snagging tracks, ripping apart MDC tires, or causing hover vehicles to suddenly loose several feet of altitude causing the bottom of the nose to impact the ground.

Clusters of small Rail Guns would also be a good idea. They would be good for anti-personal, but would be mainly made for gunning down large volleys of missiles. Toss in special radar guided hyper velocity guns for actually sniping incoming missiles and artillery rounds.

I agree with what wolfe said.
Walls are a must (preferably two with a thick mine field inbetween them), and having much of the base underground would be helpful, especially if built to resist even heavy bombing or even a close tactical nuclear warhead detonation.

I also would like to add to the suggestions of remote sensors. I think camouflaged and concealed sensors would be good. That way any sneaky attackers don't know you know they are coming. With a little work, even a tree, rock or other natural "object" could conceal sensors of some sort. I can even see a bird sitting in a nest in a tree actually being a mini-animatronics system concealing audio and video sensors.

Having such concealed sensors, combined with remote activated concealed "pop-up" weapons (and sensors spotting for mortars/artillery) could cause confusion among an attacker if they suddenly get attacked from behind while advancing towards the base, or even pinning attackers between base defenses to the front, and with incoming fire from concealed pop up defenses on the attacker's flanks and to their rear.

A few "kamikazi" sensors would also be useful, they would simply be made to paint targets with laser designators for laser guided artillery, mortar and missile fire. They may get spotted (with IR) and be destroyed, but the pin point accuracy from laser guided weapons could devestate parts of an enemy advance.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Just remember too...

"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
-Gen George Patton

[Mack]

If you want an estimate based on today's military, for every combatant there are 2-3 support personnel. With everything you want to throw in there, I'd say 3-4 support peronnel.

The biggest challenge will be obtaining food for that many folks. 30,000 people require 90,000 happy meals every day. Which means you'll need some hideously large supply lines and emergency reserves.

I'd also encourage digging down into the earth instead of building upwards. Lots of underground facilities, with tunnels connecting them. Don't forget that there are a few monsters out there that like to burrow through the earth, which bypass all your defenses and wreak havoc.

[Vrykolas2k]

To quote patton: "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
Okay, at one time they held significance beyond that, but a modern/ futuristic army is better off keeping itself mobile.

[Mack]

It must be my overactive imagination, but it almost sounds like this topic is getting personal. I know that can't be the case, because everyone here gets along just fabulously, don't we?

[Tinker Dragoon]

It must be my overactive imagination, but it almost sounds like this topic is getting personal. I know that can't be the case, because everyone here gets along just fabulously, don't we?

I was imagining the same thing too, and I suggest this not be imagined any further before the topic gets locked

[translation: Wolfe and MattBaby knock it off ]

[Dustin Fireblade]

There's some good Rifts Equipment here:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nova/73 ... frame.html

Get the Rift's Gear & the Rift's Corrections docs.

GOOD STUFF, GOOD STUFF!

Look at the Mobile Headquarters in the Rifts Gear doc. That's what you need, a military RV, so you can go all over the place and cause havoc instead of just the one area.

Lots of conversions from Star Frontiers, BattleTech, old Gamma World there. While I enjoyed all those games I didn't care for about half the stuff listed.

[Vrykolas2k]

Wolfe, you make VERY good points about modern vs book techs; for instance, I often wondered why a modern helicopter with modern equipment can be fully operated by one to two people, while a Rifts era gunship needs four people... seems like the tech would make it easier for one to two people to operate... for instance, an AH-64 doesn't need a pilot, a gunner, a sensor operator, and a commo specialist... two people do those jobs.
Also, I doubt that people building a fort in Rifts America would bother to build walls higher than 10'; their sensors would pick up most enemies long before they could get to the walls, and the materials needed for such structures as 50' walls just wouldn't be cost-effective.

[Drakenred®™©]

Actualy, their was a French fortification that did suprisingly well durring WWI. It was even able to take direct hits from 620mm Morters that were specialy built to crack it. also, During WWII mutch of the Cave network on Iwo Jima is largly intact despite the hills they were in taking direct hits from 14 and 16 inch armor peircing and high explosive shells.

Reguarless, now days most of the Fortifications you see nowdays are things like the blockhouses built in Montgomery Alabama and Kansas City Mo, Chyanne mountain, Aircraft and Vehicle bunkers in East and West Germany, and Underground networks stuch as the Soviet Era Subwaysystem (which reportedly has 2 aditional and seperate underground rail networks capable of simulatiously moving multiple Divisions undergound and moving the Govenment to "safty") and the "palaces" of Sadam.

[glitterboy2098]

assuming these people know what they are doing, i recommend this.


1) the land for a several miles around the fort has been clearcut and razed, to create a "kill-zone" around the fort, and to deny cover to those pesky rocket teams.

2) several large fixed gun emplacements (i'm talking howitzers here.), or batterys of mobile guns behind the walls. used in conjuction with guardtowers and spotter towers to bombard any aproaching force.

3) the cleared area is filled with standard anti-personell and anti-tank mines, both pressure activated, and those missile mines from mercenaries. also, the area should have tank traps, barbed wire, hedgehogs, and other physical obsticals for enemy forces to overcome.

4) air defense missile and gun emplacements (both flack and ground based cannon.)

5) many machine gun nests along the walls and in fortified bunkes connected to the main fort. the tunnels to the bunkers should be lined with explosives so you can collapse them if taken.

6) motion detectors, IR camera's, Vislight camera's, UV camera's, as well as multi-optic ones (its good to have redundancy.), with a constant manning of the sensor stations.



(check out the robotech source book Zentreadi breakout for some really good sensory gear. )

[Drakenred®™©]

NORAD is not a "fort" in the traditional sense. It is a command and control center.

The French forts failed during WWII. The point behind forts was to stop an enemy from crossing your border or to be used as a place to wait out a siege. The French forts accomplished neither of these goals.

The reason why forts are considered archaic by the modern militaries is because with the advent of highly mobile and lethal ground/air forces, a static defense can no longer hope to stop an enemy. A modern army can now simply bypass a fort and press on to it's objective. Isolated and cut off from support the fort WILL fall. Since WWII and the French were mentioned, look at the example of the maginot line. VERY strong stationary defense, no doubt there. So the Germans went around and over it. Using paratroops and by maneuvering there mechanized forces around the line they cut it off from the rest of France and attacked it from the rear.

The only way a fort like defense can work is if you have a army OUTSIDE it's walls capable of threating an enemy army's rear if it lays siege to the fort.

That having been said, forts make for good story telling and is a part of science fiction and fantasy. Regardless of how little military signifigence they may have today, they are still fun to use as a story telling element. I posted previously my suggestions for the fort in question here on this topic

Its still listed by the Airforce as one of their fortified locations(along with the Aircraft Bombshelters in Europe the middle east and Japan)

and again with the Example of Stalingrad, the Subway networks of Moscow and other citys, and what Bagdad could have been had the Iraqis not turned and ran evey time some of our M-1s showed up) you have examples of what you can do when you have no real choice BUT to dig in and defend a location. After all, so you think that TCS could just fall back from Chitown?

[glitterboy2098]

Janissary wrote:
The French forts failed during WWII. The point behind forts was to stop an enemy from crossing your border or to be used as a place to wait out a siege. The French forts accomplished neither of these goals.

actually the french forts were a resounding sucess.

their goal was to stop the germans from entering france along the german border.

the germans knew that the forts would be all but impossible to destroy by conventional means, and thus bypassed the line of forts by invading through poland.[/quote]

[Drakenred®™©]

Janissary wrote:
The French forts failed during WWII. The point behind forts was to stop an enemy from crossing your border or to be used as a place to wait out a siege. The French forts accomplished neither of these goals.

actually the french forts were a resounding sucess.

their goal was to stop the germans from entering france along the german border.

the germans knew that the forts would be all but impossible to destroy by conventional means, and thus bypassed the line of forts by invading through poland.

[/quote]

And people wonder why other contrys point out that we dont have a solid grasp of Geography or History.

(granted theis are sometimes the same people who either want to take a "couple hour" Drive from Houston to New York(Im not joking, europeans and Japanise have no sence of scale about this country) or think flying an Aircaft into a building will get us to do whatever they want us to do. or think that America only has Naval Infantry (Germany in WWI and Japan in WWII. They both found out the hard way that the US Navy Does not have Naval infantry. They dont need them

the Navy has the United States Marine Corps

They also seem to forget that the typical Texas Farmhouse has more guns than a typical infantry platoon but thats another story
)

[Drakenred®™©]

Janissary wrote:

the germans knew that the forts would be all but impossible to destroy by conventional means, and thus bypassed the line of forts by invading through poland.

oh and for the record, the germans had to attack through Belgium, proveing yet again that the Europeans are just as bad at History as we are. Poland at the time was REALY on the far side of Germany at the time because it was even farther way from France (and Germany was a bit bigger) before the start of WWII.

[Drakenred®™©]

An army of 30-40,000 is pretty huge, and in North America would easily be in the top 10. An army of 30-40,000 also requires (barring massive magical intervention) a civilian population of 300,000-500,000 to support it economically, which is positively huge.

For some reason I saw that and flashed on a story about how the Americans were able to accuratly estimate the number of japanise on any Islands Garison.

you see, the Japanise had a standing doctrin as to exactly how many infantry and officers their were per latrine. all they had to do was count the latriens.

[glitterboy2098]

hey, its been 3-4 years since i read anything on that period in history. whats one mistake between freinds?


and the forts were a sucess because they were to deter the germans from invading along that border. just because France all but ignored their non-german borders does not make it a failure.

Clap,clap,clap,
very good glitterboy2098! nice and short, and covered it concisely.

basically i combined the firebases of Veitnam with the gun fortifications of the Civil war, and then layered in modern detection techniques.

by the way, the triangular arrangement of this fort is similar to those used by the Iraqi Republican Guard. just make each corner a little sub fort, with a motor pool in the middle. (though that leaves the vehicles exposed to air strikes, as the iraqi's found out.)

[Drakenred®™©]

hey, its been 3-4 years since i read anything on that period in history. whats one mistake between freinds?


and the forts were a sucess because they were to deter the germans from invading along that border. just because France all but ignored their non-german borders does not make it a failure.

the fact remaind however that France did not learn one damned thing from history an dsaw their fort systems betten like a throwrug for 2 wars in a row.

they did not learn that the Germans would figure out some way to nail the forts (in WWI they did it by Inventing a Modern Heavy morter and howitzer and by beggin borroing and virtualy stealing Austrian 420mm semi mobile howiters and using thoes to crack open the forts and in WWII by using airborn troops and a new shaped charge explosive chage that (ironicaly) the French knew about(not in detail but they had been experimenting with useing a version of it in with aircraft bombs as early as 1937 and torpedoes in 1938) to wreck the (again) Belgium forts.

They also expected the British to be able to move in on time and in force without any prior planing or traing.

the fact that they basicaly made the same mistake 2 wars in a row is nothing short of astounding!

[Drakenred®™©]

yes, they did what they were supposed to do, cant blam the fortification for not doing their job if they werent all along the border.
but they would have had to put fortifications all along their border and that would have made the Belgians upset at such a hostile overture.

it did its job better than any other..
it defended its area and forced the germans to take a less defended route, so i would say it was a resounding success..

Actualy that was a non Issue with Belgium, In fact their Oficialy policy was that France could extend the fortifications to the cost since they honestly did not see France declaing war on one of its best traiding partners,(Granted in the previous war both the French and British declared war on the contry that suplied both with the Vast majority of their explosives used in their militarys, No Im Not Kidding! its the fact that Germany was able to simply divert the production they used to export to England and France that enabled them to keep their Magificent rapid fire howiters and maching guns Firing as needed) In fact the Belgium Parliment felt that having the Magional line extend to the cost would force Germany to not go through them again, the faction that actualy Did not want the French to Extend the line to the coste was actualy the same minority party that wanted their Existing fortifications destoyed and the garisons for them disbanded.

[Jagged Spear]

Fortifications always have and always will do there job and there job is to protect vital positions. What ever general or person that thinks that fortifications are useless is in for a major surprise if they ever conduct a war. The fact that fortifications can be by passed that does not make them obsolete. Planes can be shot down does that make them obsolete and useless? Of course not the same applies to fortifications. What was US biggest worry in the Iraq war? It was what if Baghdad was fortified and the Iraqis stood and fought obviously the US army still doesn’t consider fortifications as obsolete as some people might claim. Fortifications have draw backs, they are stationary, they can be bypassed but if you want to hold a position they sure as hell the best option.

Now to the original question of this post, I think Zob you have a pretty good idea of what you need I might add an underground base into the hills and have a secondary base that can come to the rescue of the bigger fort. Also I would increase the no mans land to several hundred meters if you have no need of the land there, obviously the amount of traps would be significantly less dens but could prove annoying. Something ells you might want to think about is turning the base into an island by digging a trench between the 2 rivers. Also make sure you clear out all manner of cover for at least 1 km so its harder to approach the base by stealth including on the other side of the river. As far as support personal that really matters on the type of army it is but the bare minimum would be around 20% of the army IMO. These would mainly be cooks and other administrators (somebody has to handle the logistics of buying ammo, food and other stuff).

Oh one more thing I would add a LOT of fake bunkers and other fake stuff to throw the enemy off and for them to expand more effort at brining the fort down.

[Jagged Spear]

Yes the US army was concerned about Iraqi civilians but they where also very highly concerned about US casualties in an urban setting which in a way is a fortification in its self but with proper hard points it becomes even more so.

Mobile armies are only good if you can bypass a fortification and strike at undefended targets in the rear. But if you want to take cities or other strategically important fortified positions you have to engage the fortifications you have no choice other then starving them out but that can take months and this is not necessarily viable tactic in many cases. As in this posts original topic how could you destroy this player’s army if you didn’t engage the fort? What you keep running circles around the base? You have nothing to by pass or out maneuver since the destruction of the army lays in the base a base which could be supplied indefinitely with magic. The only other choice is to surrounded it but that consumes your manpower just as much as his. Quite simply some fortified positions you have to deal with you have no choice take the Iraqi example again how do you take Iraq if you don’t take the major cities just by passing them doesn’t work.

Janissary - I know you said you wont replay but you too are suggesting that forts are needed but they are not the one and only thing thats needed with which I think I and everybody ells that defends fortifications agrees with the only thing that some people are pointing out is that forts are not obsolete they still fill an important roll even today.

[Vrykolas2k]

Well, if you MUST use fortifications lol..
Okay, do it the way the marines in Vietnam did it, and have defenses inside {yes, you read that right} your perimiter... why? Well, for one thing, if one section falls, the Marines there had a place to fall-back to and it also slowed the enemy while they did so. And the enemy couldn't just over-run the whole compound by just attacking one point of it.

[RockJock]

A few things that would help. Who are the bad guys? Not indivually, but are they humans mercs from the eastern US(FQ, CS, NG, ect), a scouting group from Atlantis, gun dealers from Naruni? Who? I'm asking because it would help narrow down the available resources. Without this info I will go all out, and give them the money to buy anything they could possibly find the seller for. The other question is what group are they most afraid of? Large bug attacks(X)? CS? FoM? or just in general? The predicted enemy will also help determine the defensive measures.

Now down to the meat and potatos.

You definately want as much of the base as possible underground. Even if it is only C3 and storage. Multi use missile batteries of various ranges for anti air, and counter battery fire are a must. I would also include manned or unmanned anti missile weapons made of fragmention mini missile batteries and light railguns. Even something as simple as the NG anti juicer PA with the automated light guns would work. Just make sure you have overlapping fields of fire.

Bunkers. You want different sizes with different capabilities. Everything from hidden spotter bunkers miles away to backup directed sensor bunkers, large and small direct fire turets for both anti armor and anti infantry guns. You would definately want at least anti infantry guns in your back field as well. I would look at something like the Tundra Rangers bunkers from Rifts Canada as a basis for a mid range bunker. For anti infantry work I wouldn't use Rail Guns, but instead the Wilks Auto Grenade Launcher from Rifts Mercs. A hell of a weapon against just about anything.

Patrol groups need to be versatile. One group would be your flying PA of choice, Flying Titan as the basic model. For group patrol use a Feral Dog Boy, Wilderness Scout, and a partial conversion Borg. I would also put a robot in the mix. This is a big stretch unless the group is connected to Japan, but a Snarls system could also help. If you can get Kitanni equipment use either, or both of the security drones. The other option is the Triax Sentry Bot. Bots are great because they have good sensors and don't ever tire. Throw in Naruni Spy Drones for good measure.

Fixed weapons cover allot. Standard are anti armor and personel mines. Also use Naruni Combat Drones as stand by scouts to do quick drive bys for more recon. Scattered in the fields you also have automated mines from the Mercs books that are actually automated missile launchers. These along with the Naruni drones cover your outlying sensor network. Salted around would also be Kittani Spider Guns, or Japanese Nighthawks for automated defense.

Now for response troops you have various power armor with the NG Samson working quite well along with fliers like the Flying Titan or Predator. Heavier PA like the Ultimax with its missile payload, and Glitter Boys help out with large numbers of attackers and fill in holes when bunkers go down. Another useful support unit is something like a CS Command Car, or the similar vehicle built in the New West armed with WI grenade lauchers.

If you have connections to the NGR use Flankers as guards at gates, or inside the tunnels. If not borgs work well along with Juicers, but don't keep them on guard duty too long.
Magic defenses are another bag of worms. You have circles of protection, entities, you name it.

[Capt. Meschievitz]

A fortication in Rifts would be underground and the defenders would be all cammo'd up, a tunnel network and something cool would place a "MOCK" base in the open so that the enemy would think hey thats the target blast it....mean while the force about to blast it gets blasted from behind.....by fixed gun emplacement s because in Rifts it like playing Command and Conquer......with fixed emplacements have an hugh advandage AMMO....

[Borast]

Three points (Defensive)

First - the outer ring of towers. If interconnecting them via tunnel between and betwixt, plus back to the base, make sure to put in LOTS of anti-personnel weapons, sliding walls, command detonated explosives, etc, otherwise, 90% of your defences disappear with the breeching and capture of one tower.

Second - the hills...you have two choices - assuming they are outside the (main) defences, first, raze them (ie: make some area farmers and potters happy with free dirt and clay), or, second option, place small defensive "forts" atop them supplied from within the main fort and rigged to collapse on command, taking a large portion of the hill with it (and hopefully lots of enemies after they successfully invest and take the fort(s)!!! ). In any case, raise the height of your wall along that stretch.

Third - if something happens, send a platoon, not a squad. 10 men might move easier and faster, but are easier to take-out in one quick volley! That and 40 men have ALOT more firepower

Oh, to avoid alot of problems with false alarms and having to go out into the mine field to replace "damaged ordinance," place low walls or high fences (ie: electricfied cyclone fencing) designed to keep animals out, and place LOTS of signage in as many languages as possible to indicate that you have a kick-a$$ mine field on the other side of the fence. If your NPC's opponents in the area are particularily stupid, they might even be able to forgo a majority of the mine field!

[Vrykolas2k]

Three points (Defensive)

First - the outer ring of towers. If interconnecting them via tunnel between and betwixt, plus back to the base, make sure to put in LOTS of anti-personnel weapons, sliding walls, command detonated explosives, etc, otherwise, 90% of your defences disappear with the breeching and capture of one tower.

Second - the hills...you have two choices - assuming they are outside the (main) defences, first, raze them (ie: make some area farmers and potters happy with free dirt and clay), or, second option, place small defensive "forts" atop them supplied from within the main fort and rigged to collapse on command, taking a large portion of the hill with it (and hopefully lots of enemies after they successfully invest and take the fort(s)!!! ). In any case, raise the height of your wall along that stretch.

Third - if something happens, send a platoon, not a squad. 10 men might move easier and faster, but are easier to take-out in one quick volley! That and 40 men have ALOT more firepower

Oh, to avoid alot of problems with false alarms and having to go out into the mine field to replace "damaged ordinance," place low walls or high fences (ie: electricfied cyclone fencing) designed to keep animals out, and place LOTS of signage in as many languages as possible to indicate that you have a kick-a$$ mine field on the other side of the fence. If your NPC's opponents in the area are particularily stupid, they might even be able to forgo a majority of the mine field!

the purpose of a mine field is to not be known
othrwise they'd just drop ordie from above it to take out the field and then run up to the rest of the post
a waste of resources
you place your mine-field and give only your own personnel the maps of where the mines are
and rotate mine locations occasionally

[RockJock]

Just leave signage saying not to approach, don't put in anything about mine fields specificly. The only place you sign minfields is something like the DMZ in Korea.

[RockJock]

You use mines made of composite materials, or even wood and you don't need to worry about metal detectors. Someone would have to use a chemical sniffer to pick up the nitrates.

[grandmaster z0b]

Thanks to everyone who gave me some advice, I really appreciate it - even the usefulness of Fortifications debate.

It's been a 3 day weekend in Australia and I just got back so will have to take some time to look over all the posts but all the info looks great.

Thanks again...

[grandmaster z0b]

The enemy building the fort is made up of humans (including borgs, juicers, mages psychics etc.) and humanoid mutants(dog boys/cats/bears etc.). The reason they are even building a fort is actually a number of reasons;

1. It's on a ley line nexus and they need to control and defend it.

2. They need a base of operations in this area to protect their interests (mines, towns, agriculture)

3. They needed somwhere for their RADAR and long range missile silos

Also another two things that I think need to be mentioned

1. YES the Fort has WALLS! Of course it does, I don't know why people are trying to convince me to build walls on a fort, it's the first thing to go up. It is the outer defences of bunkers, trenches and towers that dosent have a wall, it's too big a space to wall completely and it has it's own adequate defences (mines, traps etc.)

2. A large part of the army is actually drone robots, wouldn't this combined with Magic resources greatly reduce the amount of support needed? Also this army is using a large slave labor force.

[grandmaster z0b]

Well considering that %90 of the fort is underground I don't think that's a big issue. There are 3 hills behind which all have their own fort/towers on top. The hills aren't really suitable for a large building without huge earth moving equipment, besides wouldn't sticking a fort on top of a hill make it vulnerable?
It dosent need to be at the top of the hill, RADAR and missiles deal with threats without having to stick the Fort in the line of fire for anything a miles around. It's like sticking a huge target on it for aerial strikes. If it were a medieval fort then everything would be different.
Also being at the fork in the river makes it much easier to get water to all those troops and machinery.

[Zer0 Kay]

Maybe double perimeter MDC chainlink and barbwire (hmm what about vibrowire powered by burried cables, and turned on when the perimeter or its own vibrations sensors are tripped if power consumption is a concern) fence at .5k. Guard towers behind them placed every 150 meters (one at each clock position) double up at entry points. Foliage cleared out an additional 1k with an additional barb/vibrowire coil perimeter at .75k. Within the forest (or whatever foliage there is) sensors should be placed and the area mined except for wide striaght roads which are heavily guarded (primary line of fire for many towers.) Mines between the perimeter fences and from the outside perimeter fence outwards to the foliage perimeter. Well marked paths through the minefields are heavily guarded. Three of four tanks should patrol the area between the fort and the perimeter inside the fence. If mines aren't capable of defeating GEV then a couple should be used to patrol the minefields. There should also be regular air patrols.

If the "hill" is big enough for the fort to be built on take the higher ground. It is better to do that than to allow your opponents a strategic position to take in order to fire down into your fort. If the hill is too small for the fort MDC weapons SDC hill equals no need for dynamite.

All or most towers and wall firing positions should have generators to power search lights (which should have IR capabilities, yes an enemy with IR vision can see the lights...so they can be blinded by them too.) and energy weapons to reduce the need for having to resupply conventional weapons. Particle weapons would be prefered to laser incase of laser or heat (plasma) resistant targets.

[grandmaster z0b]

So did I, infact the party is almost at the end of this adventure anyway so it's a bit of a moot point. Although if anyone does have any good ideas except "move the fort" (because I can't now anyway) I'm still grateful.