I`m a fan of fortresses, but now a fortress is useless in most cases. Here`s my suggestion in how to make fortresses work.

A fortress should behave as a stationary army. Once a worker has completed a fortress it may be loaded with two units. A fortress with barricades may contain 3 units. HP`s and defense is combined like a regular army, and adjusted for terrain and fortress modifiers. The attacking value is also combined and modifiers applied, but becomes a bombard value for offensive and defensive bombardement. ROF equals no of units loaded int the fortress. Artillery may also be loaded in a fortress adding their Bombard , range and ROF stats.

Here`s three examples:
1. Two reg. spearmen will be a defensive oriented fortress with: Bombard 1, Defense 2, rof 2, HP 6 and defensive bombardement as well. All stats will be modified for terrain and the fortress.
2. Two vet. pikemen and a cannon will be: Bombard 3 (8+1+1=10/3 = 3), defense 3, rof 3, hp 8 and lethal naval bombardement. Then the stats will be modified (A mountain fortress could be pretty nasty)
3. A cannon and two elite med. infantry: Bombard 6, Defense 2, Rof 3,
hp 10, lethal naval bombard etc.
I think you get the general idea.

Fortresses loaded with gunpowder art will have deadly bombardement vs naval units and may thus function as coastal defense.

Units in a fortress will no longer be separate and may not be changed or upgraded. This to reflect that all fortresses become obsolete in time, and must be pillaged and rebuilt to be modernized.

All fortresses count as one unit vs unit limit and only costs 1 gp each turn.

As a flavour feature all fortresses may be named, and old fortresses will generate tourism and produce 1 trade. Obsolete fortresses will then be maitenance free. (It should be hard to pillage old York Castle which guarded the nation against the mongol hordes in 1060 AD) Fortresses next to each other will be graphically linked and look like Hadrians Wall, Maginot line etc.

This idea will hopefully be ripped apart, debated and rebuilt into something that works better than my "prototype".

The basics for me is that fortresses may:
- project power into neighbouring squares, either land or sea.
- have their strength in offense or defense.
-add flavour
- function in a game engine
-have their days and then be obsolete or become national icons and tourist attractions

Oh long essay, now it`s your turn, HIT ME :D

I like forts... and i like your ideas. :goodjob:

When forts a build in a line... it would become a wall...

what about having forts having defensive, zone of control, etc reguardless of whether there are units inside?

I think a zone of control is definately reasonable, dunno about them having defenses though. That makes workers awfully powerful in a sense and you would just end up with landscapes covered in fortresses. If you had to add units into them, well, I never would, better to have the units mobile and available. Why shouldn't they be able to leave? And if they can leave then you shouldn't really need to load them .... just fortify them in that square.

But I think, at least for certain for barriers, that it should have a ZoC and not just the peashooter ZoC of civ3 cavalry etc, but a ZoC that prevents enemy units from moving between adjacent squares at all (the same way Civ2 ZoC's worked). Either take out the source of the ZoC or be forced to go around the whole ZoC ... that would be a real "barrier" and add some functionality to the thing.

(It should be hard to pillage old York Castle which guarded the nation against the mongol hordes in 1060 AD)


This is a great idea-dont forget zones of control, but my nitpick with this line is that one the year was 1066 and it wasnt the Mongols it was the Normans. :D Sorry I have a problem with nitpicking inacurate history facts.... but once again great idea...

I like the idea but I don't like having to permanently load units without being to upgrade them. Plus fortresses take an awful long time to build, which is a reason why I never build them except along small borders.

It seems to me that if you the the fortresses to act as armies, then so should cities, or at least walled cities. Surely a castle in the middle of a city would offer at least the same benefit as a fortress.

Now image how impossible it would be to wage any kind of offensive.

Sorry, I think the combined arms idea is a better solution.

I've got another idea for fortresses: Make them act like the Radar Towers in Civ3 currently do, or something similar.

The purpose of a fortress is to provide defense for an area. However, in Civ3 it is pretty easy to just walk around them, unless they're on a chokepoint (which is really the only time that the AI ever uses fortresses anyway). This makes the fortress almost useless (except on very narrow strips of land, or if you make a ridiculously huge wall of them).

Something should be done that the player and the AI will both have an incentive to attack and destroy fortresses, rather than just avoid them. This is where the Rader Tower idea comes in. If a fortress is built within range of a city, it gives a defense bonus to that city. That way, the human and AI players will endeavor to take out fortresses before attacking the main city.

Some limitation should be put in place to prevent anyone from just filling their civ with fortresses. Maybe, only one or two fortresses can be built within a city's radius.

THis is sideways of the current convo, but a way ZOC can be revitalized.

You can move in enemies ZOC, but they then get an automatic chance to 'flank attack'. A flank attack can either be 'engagement' or 'skirmish'. Engagement gives 2x attack to the flanker. Skirmish is a bombard attack(any unit) with strength of attack and 3 rate of fire(assuming it stays the same). Skirmish is good if you don't think you'll win the combat easily.

wait, what's the point of lethal sea bobard? do fortresses function as a costal fortress too?

Ybbor: I miss a a possibility to make coastal fortresses that may sink enemy ships, not just restrict their movement. My suggestion to this was to give gunpowder artillery in fort lethal bombardement.

Frekk: I find it unrealistic that fortresses get auto- upgraded as old fortifications get outdated and need to be replaced. It wouldn`t do much good today if we stacked the Tower of London full of Mech Inf to protect London.

Colonel: No, in my game it was the Mongols :-D

Generally I believe that fortresses should only be able to hold a certain number of units, otherwise they`d be of unlimited size.

OK, I definitely agree with limiting the number of units allowed inside a fort, much like I agree with limiting the # of units allowed in a city or, for that matter, on any tile on the map! i.e. I strongly advocate STACK LIMITS for units-to end the 'stack O' death' exploit (OK, not truly an exploit, but you understand what I mean, I hope :)!)
Also, in considering the role of forts, I should point out that I am a VERY strong advocate of an overhaul of the movement and combat systems. Basically, I want to have a situation where ALL sides move, then combat is resolved prior to the new movement turn. In such a system, either occupied forts would exert a civ2 style 'Zone of Control' on enemy units OR would force enemy units to interrupt their movement past the fort-thus giving the forts owner a better chance to intercept them. Irrespective, though, any bombardment units within a fort should get a free shot at passing units!
Other ideas posted here, though, look good-especially Sir_Schwick's ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Aussie Lurker: I agree with you on a need for an overall overhaul. How do think fortresses should function in a new combat system? Strong fortresses have always been important for keeping territorial integrity, at least until WW2, even afterwards as well in some cases.

Well, Tantor, I have suggested in my post the possible way forts should work. Attacking a fort should be a dangerous though not impossible prospect and, as I said, either forts should exert a ZoC effect a la civ2 (i.e. units can come UP to a fort, but cannot pass it on the sides within X hexes) Barricades should exert an even GREATER ZoC effect if they are occupied by units, thus letting the player 'bottleneck' his opponents!!
Another thing I have been thinking about is the role forts played in pacification of occupied territories. For instance, England built a string of forts in Wales to keep the population in line there. How do people think this historical role could be simulated in civ4-if at all?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I would welcome a stack limit as Sir Schwick proposes. Let`s say the stack limit increases with certain improvements. Forts, barracks, city walls, AA etc. If one had a stack limit it would also give a flanking oportunity. Here`s an example: If the stack limit was five units on a normal tile with no bonuses. If I only hold one tile and the enemy holds the 8 squares bordering my tile he would be able to attack me with 8*5 units. Thus the more outflanked you get, the worse you`re set.(Just built Shakespeare`s Theatre, lol) The stacking limit would make it important to defend all the tiles around a city, not just the city itself.

Another thing I have been thinking about is the role forts played in pacification of occupied territories. For instance, England built a string of forts in Wales to keep the population in line there. How do people think this historical role could be simulated in civ4-if at all?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.


Fortresses reduce the likelihood of a cultural flip in cities within x number of tiles?

I like the idea that the fortress would give a defensive bonus to a city. As a matter of fact I've been playing with the idea of a fortress adjacent to a city making it impossible to control a newly-captured city until the fortress is taken (I don't find it realistic that they should be destroyed outright unless a certain amount of fighting/bombardment has taken place). Think about it. As long as the city's castle is still in the hands of your civ, the people of your city will never give up the hope that the city will be liberated. Feel free to modify the idea.

It wouldn`t do much good today if we stacked the Tower of London full of Mech Inf to protect London.

It would scare tourists, but would be a great deterent to terrorists :) I'd like to see them try and fit a MechInf in there though.....

A lot of interesting ideas. Anyone (aside from aussie_lurker) got ideas for making outposts worthwile?

Fort Cities:
Many ancient forts also had small cities within. In Civ terms these could be populated by workers or slave workers. The workers would 'attach' themselves to the city. They require one food per turn rather than two. All excess food from workers working the 'fort' radius could be shipped to city of choice within tech relevant range via road(4 in ancient era). In order to collect trade or more than one shield from a square you would have to build a Magistrate(with Code of Laws). You could only build first tier buildings(Library,Temple, etc.). Your food could also go towards 'population related units'. These include 1)Workers, 2) Slave Workers, 3) Reservists(more below).

Reservists:
You could enlist and train, with a Barracks, troops local to the region of the fort. This means if the tile is adjacent to a resource, it gets a upgrade of that sort. Different terrain types lead to different bonuses. This means forts can get better than normal or specialty units not avaliable overall.

Buliding Forts in Cities:
Regular cities can have forts built in them or build one for 40 shields.

A lot of interesting ideas. Anyone (aside from aussie_lurker) got ideas for making outposts worthwile?

Just make them see much farther than they do. Assume that it acts as a base for small bands of rangers or scouts, and covers then at least a 4 or 5 tile area or more.

I have general suggestion that could enhance the use of colonies, outposts, radar towers and fortresses. If all of these improvements were made by sacrificing a worker, then the people the worker represents should turn into a garrison guarding the improvement. The combat value of the garrison would equal the defense rating of your best defender (spearman, pikeman, musketman etc) Then a colony would also defend a resource even after your borders has expanded beyond it. The bonuses applying to any normal unit would apply to the garrison as well, thus making a fortress- garrison stronger than an outpost garrison. Like any other unit a garrison must be defeated to allow a cultural flip of the square.

I like Forts too. I think there should be two varieties, so a cheaper less strong one can be built gratuitiously as a border patrol, else the ZOC of current Forts should be expanded some.

Making Forts like Armies is a bad idea, only because it corrupts what Armies are supposed to be, which is very well-led and organized groups. If all you need is a stone structure to do it, it will make expansion very difficult, and is philosophically weird.

If it was done as your suggestion, then you'd need siege warfare to reduce the fortresses without directly engaging them if you attacked without an army (in most cases we do since armies are had to get regularly in big numbers). And then Forts would be like miniature, 1 tile cities in themselves, tilling the land etc...


It's better to make forts a simple passive worker build representing a rural castle or wall fort. Maybe artillery should have extra utility if stationed in them, getting 2 defensive barrages, but not forts shouldn't equal an army philosophically.

I like your idea of making a definite line of forts that can be bypassed directly, and showing it graphically, like the Great Wall or Maginot Line, rather than abstracting it as City Walls do now.


I think it might work as you suggest if it's done by the defenders of a city holed up in a special City Improvement: The Castle Keep. Most strong castles actually were the basis of cities. Without an army, the defenders might act like one, including bombarders, as long as the Castle Keep wasn't destroyed. The counter-balance would be that it'd be the first targeted city improvement by enemy bombards and sappers (We'd need to add the Medieval Sapper as well now to try to collapse or breach the walls of the keep).

I`m a fan of fortresses, but now a fortress is useless in most cases. Here`s my suggestion in how to make fortresses work.

A fortress should behave as a stationary army. Once a worker has completed a fortress it may be loaded with two units. A fortress with barricades may contain 3 units. HP`s and defense is combined like a regular army, and adjusted for terrain and fortress modifiers. The attacking value is also combined and modifiers applied, but becomes a bombard value for offensive and defensive bombardement. ROF equals no of units loaded int the fortress. Artillery may also be loaded in a fortress adding their Bombard , range and ROF stats.

I posted this in territory and diplomacy but it makes more sense
here (repost)
Basically another idea for Forts would be grab unclaimed territory.




Forts and Units as culture sources

I kind of like this idea now, since it gives a another reason to build forts. I also like how this could tweak the 'borders' with either limited warfare (no city conquest), and to claim culture without building cities.



1. Units claiming culture tiles

Units can optionally wage war on the local 'country folk' of a tile to either 'pillage' their culture, or to claim their allegiance (each would be a separate act). This would be as an actual battle, with a chance of losing the unit or hitpoints, but no chance of being promoted, and it would potentially be 'disreputable'. An already cultured territory could be pillaged by one tile, as long as it wasn't actually within the economic zone of some city, and wasn't a 'swiss-cheese' hole (meaning you can't pillage holes into the territory----you can only pillage from edges).

An 'uncultured' territory could separately be attacked and claimed, but the addition would have to be contiguous to one of that Civ's existing cultural territory(ies), and within the economic zone of a city. This would be like 'warrior-rushing' culture.

By allowing units interact with culture, way, the national borders then interact with the Civs cultural projection more finely, since the military units can shape the borders in war, without dealing with klunky cities. It'd also better the game since city-abuse (building cities to claim cultural territory) wouldn't be as necessary, at least if war is an option, and the overall city count could be lower (speeding up the turns).


2. Forts claiming culture tiles

Once manned, Forts 'domesticate' uncultured land, generating allegiance when no cities are present. Forts can't really compete versus a city with real culture (i.e. city improvements), but they'd be about equal in cultural strength, to a city with no improvements for culture purposes, except they would't project culture as far---perhaps only into the tile they're in.

Alternatively,
a string of forts could also be used to claim the culture of a string of road or river tiles (rivers will supposedly double as road in CIV4). The length of a road/river between two forts could automatically be claimed, for some length (I dunno, maybe 5 tiles). A stipulation would probably be that the forts be held by units of the same culture, and the cultural control would be lost as soon as that was no longer true. Also, the culture generated this way would be weaker than that generate by cities/current cultural projection.
With this, colonies/cities wouldn't be necessary in some cases to import resources, and it'd simulate a Great Wall/Hadrian's wall better than that Wonder.


Alternatively, using the units-claiming-cultural-tiles idea above, then if you had fort, it'd be grounds for a unit to culturally subjugate the adjacent tiles (in the manner of the first idea), to some diameter, maybe that equal to a city. That subjugation would still be challengeable, though, by like means by other Civs (Cultural tiles within a city's zone would be impervious to culture pillaging, but not so if the tiles were claimed by virtue of a fort).


AND Alternatively, using the units-claiming-cultural areas (or in addition to it) and the string of forts, the string of forts could delineate an area that your civ claims, but hasn't settled. Once you've used a string of forts to enclose an area of 'uncultured' tiles contiguous to your civ's normal city/cultural projection, then units could be used to culturally attack the tiles (as above) in your favor.




Thoughts?

With the combination of those ideas it'd be possible to civ a civ that was very hegemonious (like the real Romans), using forts and violence, without settling cities. This would be great for a Domination victory scenario

But then there needs to be the possibility that cultured tiles far from cities can spontaneously revolt without being flipped by another civ, and also possibly some kind of happiness calc for those tiles to determine revolt possibiliities. Putting down such a revolt would simply be a matter of re-conquering tiles.
Such a tile happiness calc would be the natural limit on the ability to project culture with war, but without cities. It would actually probably be quite limited, being dependent upon distance to the nearest city, and probably require a road path to said city.

Also, the idea that ALL 'uncultured' tiles are always populated, though they produce barbarians, is probably false. The first idea of conquering 'uncultured' tiles by unit would probably have to be limited to river valleys, bonus food tiles, and the areas within a cities hypothetical economic zone, since some 'uncultured' tiles probably are just rocks.
__________________