View Full Version : Forts & Citadels


GoodRevrnd
Sep 23, 2010, 03:59 PM
I was under the impression that forts, as in Civ 4, can be used to connect resources. However, this did not turn out to be the case the one time I tried. Was this an anomaly for some reason or does this not work anymore? If it does work, will Citadels also connect resources?


Also, will forts/citadels act as canals like in Civ 4?

Insanity_X
Sep 23, 2010, 04:21 PM
The short answer is that forts in Civ 5 are purely militaristic in nature. They have no function other than to provide a tile which provides a significant boost to the unit defending it.

GoodRevrnd
Sep 25, 2010, 03:51 PM
Do forts and citadels defensive bonus stack with rough terrain or does it simply replace terrain modifiers?

Pragmatic
Sep 25, 2010, 04:07 PM
Forts and citadels, from what I understand, can't be built on rough terrain. They MUST be built on open terrain.

Which means that a fort on open terrain is: 67% (-33% penalty from open terrain) x 150% (fort bonus) = 100% of rough terrain. And it gets destroyed if captured by the enemy.

And citadels are 67%x200% = 133% of rough terrain. (Plus 3 damage to adjacent enemy units.) And it only works for the civ that owns the tile.

Platin
Sep 25, 2010, 04:12 PM
Do forts cost maintenance?

GoodRevrnd
Sep 25, 2010, 04:23 PM
Forts and citadels, from what I understand, can't be built on rough terrain. They MUST be built on open terrain.

Which means that a fort on open terrain is: 67% (-33% penalty from open terrain) x 150% (fort bonus) = 100% of rough terrain. And it gets destroyed if captured by the enemy.

And citadels are 67%x200% = 133% of rough terrain. (Plus 3 damage to adjacent enemy units.) And it only works for the civ that owns the tile.

This is wrong, I have built forts on hills and in forest (without destroying the forest) many times. And it still doesn't really answer if the bonus completely overrides terrain modifiers.

12agnar0k
Sep 25, 2010, 04:48 PM
Citadels can be built on rough terrain btw, and as for forts I've never built one so far in Civ 5, but they don't act as cannals I don't think, the Citadel is however a very cool improvement.

Dbob
Sep 25, 2010, 04:52 PM
This is wrong, I have built forts on hills and in forest (without destroying the forest) many times. And it still doesn't really answer if the bonus completely overrides terrain modifiers.

Yeah you can definitely build them on hills. I just won a cultural OCC using this tactic... with some artillery behind it citadels are extremely powerful. Held off a much larger empire of the same tech level. :cool:

Pragmatic
Sep 25, 2010, 04:58 PM
In that case, this is very promising for my "Vauban Fortress Island" map I want to design. :)

GoodRevrnd
Sep 25, 2010, 04:59 PM
Yeah you can definitely build them on hills. I just won a cultural OCC using this tactic... with some artillery behind it citadels are extremely powerful. Held off a much larger empire of the same tech level. :cool:

Ya, it's crazy good. I made myself a little Maginot Line (except mine actually worked) for my Bollywood achieve.

Rathelon
Sep 25, 2010, 05:19 PM
I like the forts and citadels. The citadels damage any enemy unit that comes into an adjacent hex, and give 100% defensive bonus to the unit inside. I just wish you could build the citadel outside your territory, like you can with forts.

Bibor
Sep 25, 2010, 05:23 PM
Indeed forts are very powerful, although citadels... depends. If you have a spare great general then yes. Otherwise I prefer him being alive for that 2-hex-wide +25% combat bonus.

Drew the Great
Sep 25, 2010, 06:30 PM
Where do you guys place your forts/citadels? I've been wanting to utilize them and other than one time where I had my capitol wedged in the corner between two mountains I always feel like I'm not providing any real strategic use by plopping them down.

Bibor
Sep 25, 2010, 06:50 PM
Where do you guys place your forts/citadels? I've been wanting to utilize them and other than one time where I had my capitol wedged in the corner between two mountains I always feel like I'm not providing any real strategic use by plopping them down.

If there isn't any strategic use then don't plop them :)

Rathelon
Sep 25, 2010, 08:02 PM
Since you have to put the citadel inside your borders, it's hard to find a place to put it (in my opinion). But in my current game, one of my cities has a single desert tile next to it, so I put one there and stationed an archer in it.

GoodRevrnd
Sep 25, 2010, 08:19 PM
On my Bollywood game, my ONLY aluminum popped up under my citadel. This citadel was honestly in an absolutely critical place and while I didn't need the aluminum that badly to finish out the game (Germany was too far behind in tech to matter) I was still pretty pissed.

QuixotesGhost
Sep 25, 2010, 09:50 PM
On my Bollywood game, my ONLY aluminum popped up under my citadel. This citadel was honestly in an absolutely critical place and while I didn't need the aluminum that badly to finish out the game (Germany was too far behind in tech to matter) I was still pretty pissed.

It's much easier to trade for strategic resources now. In fact AIs seem to give them away with almost every trade.

Drew the Great
Sep 25, 2010, 10:21 PM
If there isn't any strategic use then don't plop them :)

I guess I'm more curious as to when they would have a strategic use. It's rare to find a nice bottleneck so most of the time an enemy can just go around rather than even have to deal with the fort.

I mean I would love every map to have a Thermopylae style bottleneck where I can just toss a citadel and pray some poor fool would try to break through, but 90% of the time I'm on the coast with a full spray of open hexes.

adrianj
Sep 25, 2010, 10:36 PM
one of my cities has a single desert tile next to it, so I put one there and stationed an archer in it.
Do citadel's provide offensive bonuses or only defensive?
If the bonuses are only for defense, wouldn't it make more sense to put great defensive unit (eg, melee unit) in there with the archers behind? +100% to an archer's defensive combat strength is still woeful.

Rathelon
Sep 25, 2010, 10:59 PM
Do citadel's provide offensive bonuses or only defensive?
If the bonuses are only for defense, wouldn't it make more sense to put some sort of tank unit (eg, melee unit) in there with the archers behind? +100% to an archer's defensive combat strength is still woeful.

Citadels give 100% defensive bonus, and deal 3 damage to any enemy unit that enters an adjacent hex. I would probably put a tank there, but I havent played a game that far yet. ;)

adrianj
Sep 25, 2010, 11:03 PM
Citadels give 100% defensive bonus, and deal 3 damage to any enemy unit that enters an adjacent hex. I would probably put a tank there, but I havent played a game that far yet. ;)
Oh sorry... I was thinking the metaphorical tank unit, not an actual tank. One that can defend very well - which would typically be a high strength melee/gunpowder unit.

QuixotesGhost
Sep 26, 2010, 12:53 AM
I guess I'm more curious as to when they would have a strategic use. It's rare to find a nice bottleneck so most of the time an enemy can just go around rather than even have to deal with the fort.

I mean I would love every map to have a Thermopylae style bottleneck where I can just toss a citadel and pray some poor fool would try to break through, but 90% of the time I'm on the coast with a full spray of open hexes.

Funneling the enemy armies into a narrower column is pretty handy, even if they can go around, since it means less units that your archers and artilery have to pick off per turn.

Bibor
Sep 26, 2010, 12:56 AM
I guess I'm more curious as to when they would have a strategic use. It's rare to find a nice bottleneck so most of the time an enemy can just go around rather than even have to deal with the fort.

I mean I would love every map to have a Thermopylae style bottleneck where I can just toss a citadel and pray some poor fool would try to break through, but 90% of the time I'm on the coast with a full spray of open hexes.

That's not their only use. As you know, units now have Zones of Control. This can be used to your advantage as it helps protecting your artillery/archers. Thus, a fortified "generic unit" (i.e. not having vunerabilities), possibly the best unit for the era (longswordsman, rifleman etc) in a FORT that is adjacent to your city (or any other critical spot basically forces enemy units to move 1 tile a turn. This gives your arty enough time to burn them down.

This also works well with river crossings. The unit becomes super-tough especially if its promos are planned for the terrain type the fort is on.

Also forts can be used to protect your flanks while your arty/archers focus on the main enemy offensive.

I once had 3 forts surrounding my city located on a giant riverside grassland because of stupid Arabs constantly declaring. It really did help me win. Loosing a longswordsman that takes 10-12 turns to build to lazyness is just bad economy :)

slowjames
Sep 26, 2010, 01:13 AM
Since you have to put the citadel inside your borders, it's hard to find a place to put it (in my opinion). But in my current game, one of my cities has a single desert tile next to it, so I put one there and stationed an archer in it.Get ready to have your mind blown. GA + GG = Citadel inside enemy culture.

Bibor
Sep 26, 2010, 01:20 AM
Get ready to have your mind blown. GA + GG = Citadel inside enemy culture.

You're doing something wrong if you are on the offensive and you need this kind of a citadel to help you win.

slowjames
Sep 26, 2010, 01:31 AM
You're doing something wrong if you are on the offensive and you need this kind of a citadel to help you win.No doubt, but it strikes me as a pretty excellent kind of FU move. GA could also be used as a kind of ultra pillage, because can you even get back those lost tiles? If you can I do not know how. If you could get a 7-hex covering of some important enemy resources, for example his only copy of gold, etc., it could prove very painful even if you can't take his city.

Bibor
Sep 26, 2010, 01:33 AM
No doubt, but it strikes me as a pretty excellent kind of FU move. GA could also be used as a kind of ultra pillage, because can you even get back those lost tiles? If you can I do not know how. If you could get a 7-hex covering of some important enemy resources, for example his only copy of gold, etc., it could prove very painful even if you can't take his city.

You'll get more everything by burning that artist and general on a Golden Age.

slowjames
Sep 26, 2010, 01:40 AM
You'll get more everything by burning that artist and general on a Golden Age.Granted, and once again, I'm not trying to say it's the right strategic call. It's just interesting.

Thalassicus
Sep 26, 2010, 01:59 AM
In one game I had a single fort on a flank of my empire, with a musketman in it and cannon behind, both on hills. The musketman's zone of control made it difficult for enemies to reach my cannon. Those two units alone held off their whole army while I conquered cities on the other flank of the empire. Siege units can dominate a 5-tile-wide stretch of terrain (7 with artillery!) making that single fort guarding nearby much more powerful.

Citadels desperately need to give access to resources under them, though, given the massive cost incurred in producing one (lose a golden age).

evanbgood
Sep 26, 2010, 02:39 AM
One thing to note (and I'm 90% sure this is true), while Citadels must be built within your own territory, forts can be built in neutral land by a well-protected worker. Though this is certainly not a solution for every war, a long road leading to a fort could be an interesting way to hammer a tough enemy's border and to field well-protected arti units quickly.
If I was to say there should be any improvement to this aspect of the game, I think it would be handy if forts or citadels had a minor great general effect of surrounding tiles, perhaps even just a defensive one, or one that works only on ranged units. And, I think it would help if an archer was considered beefier inside a fort than, say, a swordsman. After all, one of those two people doesn't need to use a door :P