Designing a fort for use in water wars
- CAPTAIN Nate
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:04 pm
Designing a fort for use in water wars
I have a question. Does anyone know what is a good design for a fort to be used in water wars, that can hold Max. 4 people and be 20' X 20' and also have space to store water guns and water ballons and of course water, and supplies? such as food, extra clothes, binoculars, a radio set, a small folding table for emergency meetings, and have a small space for meetings. we're using a shed for one team and a tent for another.
Please help if can.
THANKS
Please help if can.
THANKS
Last edited by Drenchenator on Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Silence
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm
In general, forts aren't very useful unless they're for objectives or for refilling. However, if you're using one, most of the efforts for the base should be for looking for the best location. Natural aid, such as plenty of barriers, elevated ground, protection, and escape routes should be considered, as well as proximity to a hose. The rest is all up to you.
Well, that's my two cents.
Well, that's my two cents.
- DX
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:00 pm
While we ditched forts long ago, the local teams built some impressive stuff back in 2003-2004, which was the height of the Fort-Building Era for us. The most important things we considered were strategic position, proximity to refill sources, escape routes, natural obstacles, height advantage, and points of weakness, roughly in that order. We didn't give a hoot what the fort looked like or what it was made of. The fortification at Reed Hill consisted of a 3-5ft high log wall protected by a thick padding of woodchips. Stonewall was a bit more elaborate, utilizing huge logs as tall as I am and having 5 outposts. There was a roof, from which I hung plant racks to store water balloons.
Later, we ditched those and moved to places like High Point. High Point was vulnerable on 2 sides, but the approaches were two nice ambush spots, and the other 2 sides were 30-50ft vertical. Likewise, Echopont had no true walls, but the thick reeds made entrance difficult for attackers.
Later, we ditched those and moved to places like High Point. High Point was vulnerable on 2 sides, but the approaches were two nice ambush spots, and the other 2 sides were 30-50ft vertical. Likewise, Echopont had no true walls, but the thick reeds made entrance difficult for attackers.
Mess With the Best, Get Soaked Like the Rest!
2004 Red Sox - World Series Champions
2007 Red Sox - World Series Champions!
2004 Red Sox - World Series Champions
2007 Red Sox - World Series Champions!
- isoaker_com
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Forts have their place in some types of water wars. I, personally, have only made use of natural or pre-made formations (i.e. clusters of trees and bushes with a clearing, hills, park benches, etc.). As SilentGuy suggested, forts for me must at least have good refill capabilities to be worthwhile. I suppose the most elaborate temporary fort I've used involved arranging some outdoor furniture, throwing some sheets over chairs to create walls, and having a hose with a QFD inside for refilling. I never liked the idea of having too strong or too permanent fort as water warfare is a 'fluid' sport, thus having non-soakable protection detracts from the game, IMO.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com / iSoaker.net ::
- Spinner
- Posts: 1337
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:00 pm
You could, however, experiment with soakable protection: cardboard would initially offer some protection, yet once soaked could collapse. Admittedly, you'd have to clear up wet cardboard afterwards, yet ion the plus side, you should be able to pick up a load of old boxes from your local supermarket and assemble a barricade/fort in a short period of time.isoaker_com wrote:I never liked the idea of having too strong or too permanent fort as water warfare is a 'fluid' sport, thus having non-soakable protection detracts from the game, IMO.
- C-A_99
- Posts: 1502
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:09 pm
My fights aren't large scale enough for having to set up forts where food, extra clothes, etc. needs to be stored. Our current fights are still around my house and my neighboor's, and of course that's where the "bases" would be. I do often use cardboard boxes to store supplies and blasters but when I try a wall for hiding behind, it gets knocked over by the wind.
- Silence
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm
I guess I use bases, but not forts. I usually play 1v1v1, or 2v1, with the bases being in front of my house, in front of the neighboring house, and behind that house. It's actually okay for action and is decent if you move around enough and decide not to make last stands.
All we use the bases for are for spawning and for filling. Both of which pretty much occur at the same time, as we play multiple rounds of 3HK elimination--the field is too small for 3HK lives. Because the rounds end so quickly, there's always time to refill in between.
All we use the bases for are for spawning and for filling. Both of which pretty much occur at the same time, as we play multiple rounds of 3HK elimination--the field is too small for 3HK lives. Because the rounds end so quickly, there's always time to refill in between.
- DX
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:00 pm
I've found that wars go much faster when spawning is done behind your lines rather than at a base. Whay walk [in my case sometimes over a mile] back to a base when you can simply head over to your team and clear from there? Locally we have a 2 minute wait period for respawns, which is plenty of time to return to territory controlled by your team. Neutral territory or territory behind your enemy is off-limits, obviously.
Mess With the Best, Get Soaked Like the Rest!
2004 Red Sox - World Series Champions
2007 Red Sox - World Series Champions!
2004 Red Sox - World Series Champions
2007 Red Sox - World Series Champions!
- isoaker_com
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Cardboard is definitely classified as soakable protection. What I was referring to are more permanent-type structures such as solid wood or rock walls, etc. Using limited protection that's non-soakable is fine, but things should be kept fair. This is supposed to be just a water-fight.Spinner wrote:You could, however, experiment with soakable protection: cardboard would initially offer some protection, yet once soaked could collapse.
B)
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com / iSoaker.net ::
- Spinner
- Posts: 1337
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:00 pm
That's true. However, I'd regard a well-built fort as a challenge: "red rag to a bull" springs to mind. I'd also consider weighting the teams in, say, a 3:2 ratio of attackers :d efenders, to create a more interesting contest.isoaker_com wrote:Cardboard is definitely classified as soakable protection. What I was referring to are more permanent-type structures such as solid wood or rock walls, etc. Using limited protection that's non-soakable is fine, but things should be kept fair. This is supposed to be just a water-fight.
B)
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:06 pm
Don't
My team fights in a park and our only forts are refilling points or strategically strong points.
And isn't cardboard biodegradable?
Grand General Napoleon out.
And isn't cardboard biodegradable?
Grand General Napoleon out.
- Spinner
- Posts: 1337
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:00 pm
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:06 pm