Player preference: Hollywood style fort or historical fort for Old West games?

[FifteensAway]

Title pretty much says it.  As a player in an Old West game - or Pony Wars - would you rather see a Hollywood style stockade fort on the table or a more open and historically correct style fort on the table?  I know some rules use the former but I'm asking more as a personal preference for you if you had a choice.

If I end up going with the stockade style, I'll probably use this one:



Thanks for your responses!

[frank xerox]

Hollywood, got to be. Ironically a historic fort probably wouldnt look “realistic”.

[Cat]

Fort Courage all the way!

[CapnJim]

Fort Courage all the way!

 

Well said, Sir! 

Or maybe Fort Apache...

[FifteensAway]

Is a consensus building?  Too soon to say.

But noticed a wee problem in the photo of the fort - the gate is upside down!  Guess I better check on that before purchasing if I go that route.

[Inkpaduta]

Yes, Fort Courage all the way.

[carlos marighela]

Yet another vote for Fort Courage.

I should imagine that the sheer variety in style of historical forts, some of which weren't really forts but encampments would make choosing the Hollywood version an easy choice. Just remember to model it with a wonky lookout tower and maybe a signal cannon with a collapsed wheel.

[FifteensAway]

Heard back on the gate, the fine folks at Tabletop Terrain confirmed I am correct and have it added to the list of things to fix when time permits.

Perhaps you can sense I am leaning towards a stockade given the photo of the fort I posted.  And, so far, the consensus is leaning that way. 

But the name?  Surely I must name my fort as Fort Discourage - now whether that name is a reflection of the morale of the garrison or what it does to the mindsets of would be malefactors is a matter for, well, interpretation.   

Here is a site, http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/photos.html, about Fort Laramie, first photo shows what sure looks like a stockade.  Sixth image is more like what I saw when I visited.  Would take a full table to represent what was there - and a large table at that.

On that visit - took a couple of hours to walk the perimeter and check out the surviving (or restored?) buildings.  Was pretty cool to experience.  Same trip I visited both the Greasy Grass/Little Bighorn battlefield and the Rosebud site amongst other old west key locations.

Lookout tower already owned and awaiting assembly and painting, wonky optional.  Not sure about the gun with a collapsed wheel - but, who knows, such things fit with my sense of humor.  And I have spare guns and spare wheels so you never know.

If you haven't visited yet, you should spend a few minutes here: https://whiskeyhills.blogspot.com. That is my Old West miniatures blog - or blather as the case may be.  But it does give a sense of where things are shifting towards as I work hard to reduce total number of figures to paint, great progress so far.

--
Hope Cat doesn't get too upset with CapnJim. 

[carlos marighela]

Capture the zeitgeist. Call it Fort Coup-Rage.

[Tom Dulski]

 Hollywood style for sure.

[Smokeyrone]

Problem I have with forts, they are too well fortified.

Your zulus, Indians, Nathan's, whatever aren't getting in tall thick walls and stuff.

I like making old, repaired or makeshift forts, that have weaknesses and are a real challenge to hold.   Otherwise, the bad guy players won't attack, and you just sit there, maybe master of your domain, but hardly worth gaming...

[FifteensAway]

Point well taken, Smokeyrone.  However, in most Old West games the fort is more 'scenery' than an objective and as such, if using the model above, it is about 200 square inches in table area so on a 5' x 6' table (very big game in 15 mm Old West, but not so big for a Pony Wars battle) takes up a bit less than 5% of the table.  Your comment did get me to take a closer look at the model to see how it could be set up to have vulnerabilities, though - in the event it does become an objective.

Well, the fort does have a more significant role in that it is often the starting point for patrols/rescues or the place beleaguered parties are trying to reach - and in the latter case the fort's "invincibility" is essential to those trying to get there.  Imagine the depths of despair they'd feel to arrive at the fort and find themselves still in danger!

Easy ways to make a fort vulnerable: poorly sited and overlooked by good sniper points, old dry wood that can too easily catch fire. 

But mostly starting point/destination point - and 'purdy' to look at. 

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Problem I have with forts, they are too well fortified.

Your zulus, Indians, Nathan's, whatever aren't getting in tall thick walls and stuff.

I like making old, repaired or makeshift forts, that have weaknesses and are a real challenge to hold.   Otherwise, the bad guy players won't attack, and you just sit there, maybe master of your domain, but hardly worth gaming...

I am with you on this. Nothing so boring to game as assaults on forts and castles in any period or setting except maybe the siege reducing defenses itself that leads up to that assault.

[Cat]

Forts are definitely good as destinations and spawning points for relief forces.
 
Infiltrator, traitor, cannonball, or dynamite to open the gate also puts them into play.

[Harry Faversham]

Mine's Fort Starke, and it's the old offering from Airfix. Cavalry forts have to look like them in a John Ford production!