People over at Civ5 strategy have mentioned that the AI will occasionally build forts and man them, but usually at a poor strategic location. I realize that it is a big computational load for the AI to calculate best placement for forts, but what about if fort placement was pre-computed during the initial map generation based on terrain features, and the fort location points stored in a database, so that when the AI get's the urge to build a fort during the game, it simply looks up the database and checks whether the optimal fort location is in it's territory, and then places it there. This would be a fair bit of work to code and it would mean modifying Lua map algorithms to add fort location logic, but could it be worth it?

First question is whether the AI's fort placement even can be intercepted in Lua during the game. Second question is what is a good fort location that can be pre-computed? I think that it must be possible to compute terrain based choke points that fill in a gap in a line of mountains for example. We don't know where cities will be located during pre-compute, but there are positions on the map that are good choke points merely by terrain feature I think. Things like peninsulas etc.

Cheers

Maybe.

On the other hand, the AI fortifying cities with a manned fort next to each city towards the general direction the enemy civ is (if adjacent) could already be a relatively useful obstacle to taking cities. AI usually does have the worked time to spare, even to build/tear down those forts upon war/peace.

I hardly expect the AI to ever want to build forts as I never do it myself.

I hardly expect the AI to ever want to build forts as I never do it myself.
Agreed. I do build some, but very rarely. Most of the time there isn't a fixed defensive position within my territory where I'm willing to give up tile yields.

I think I would use forts more often, if the build time wasn't so long. IIRC, it was around five turns the last time I built one, and by the time its done, the war isn't anywhere nearby usually.


This probably isn't under the purview of VEM, or even possible without access to the core game, but it would be neat if forts could be used as part of a territory capture mechanism. Something along the lines of, if a fort is garrisoned by a player for a certain number of turns, it generates a culture bomb effect for that player. This way, you could end up with paired forts on both sides of the border, similar to how many castles were paired by an opposing castle in real life, and you could have wars over territory, and resources that are on the border.

I was thinking the same, if forts would take the same time to build as roads, say, they might be actually useful. Also the loss of yield bonuses should be harsh enough, no need to make them cost gold per turn in addition.

And even though humans don't really need forts, doesn't mean the AI couldn't slow down human advances by fortifying near cities. Especially before artillery comes around.

And perhaps forts could give cover bonus against bombardments, in addition to the defenses they do now. If forts aren't used now (I certainly don't), then maybe they should be beefed up some to make them a useful option, enriching the game? Downside is that such would increase the AI/human discrepancy.

General question to all:

Would you use forts if they upgraded into Citadels after 20 turns?

I would love to see a mechanic that makes AI's build forts and play a defensive game. SOunds like a good idea, but without knowing where the cities are being placed it seems a bit fruitless.

I my current One city challenge, 250 turns in I have a row of forts beyond the buildable tiles that do not contain any resources. My 4 unit army is holding strong in that line. Just waiting for the first backstab.

I also build forts late game if I am lagging in science to a nearby rival civ. They make all the differnece when my Riflemen are being attacked by Infantry.

@Sneaks: Citadels may be a bit Op. Perhaps if there were other conditions to the upgrade, many turn garrison/ Gold/ possibly the presence of a Great General (doesn't expend)... Perhaps the option to upgrade only one...

Instead I would like to see another version of a fort. Quicker to build and not quite as strong... perhaps call it "Front Line" "Out Post" "Defensive Position" "Trench Line" "Fox Hole"... perhaps that could be upgraded to a fort? Should be able to build these in enemy territory once DOW is declared.

And would like to see any unit able to build them as well.

I would love to see units stationed in forts have the ability to gain experience from training. And give them some other significance to peaceful times. Like influence boost to rival civs.

Instead I would like to see another version of a fort. Quicker to build and not quite as strong... perhaps call it "Front Line" "Out Post" "Defensive Position" "Trench Line" "Fox Hole"... perhaps that could be upgraded to a fort? Should be able to build these in enemy territory once DOW is declared.

It wouldn't be bad, but likely unnecessary complexity. And no, I don't it should be buildable in enemy territory. You have "fortify" for that.

It wouldn't be bad, but likely unnecessary complexity. And no, I don't it should be buildable in enemy territory. You have "fortify" for that.

Right, this.

And no to upgrading to Citadels; if you want a Citadel, use a GG.

I think forts are fine; they are situational but are occasionally useful. The AI is never going to use them very well. So I wouldn't want them to be any more useful.

The fortify bonus already accounts for regular digging in/entrenchement, and the AI can use that fine.

I think forts should simply be a mini-city.

A fixed border radius of 1, plus a garrison slot, but no other city capabilities. Great General citadels could be forts with more hitpoints, a 2-tile border radius, and bombard capability. The AI would understand this well since it already knows how to attack and defend cities. It'd just require some intelligent fort placement algorithms.

I would be very leery of anything that messes up AI tactical movement by adding extra ZoC or reducing movement; AI tactical movement is already very weak.

Slowing enemies is super powerful because it makes ranged attacks incredibly strong.

Yeah, I changed my mind right away when I thought of a better idea. :)

Cities founded on forts get free walls and barracks? Again, ai wouldnt get it

Sneaks, who are you replying to? Your last sentence was a little confusing. :crazyeye:

Myself!

It wouldn't be bad, but likely unnecessary complexity. And no, I don't it should be buildable in enemy territory. You have "fortify" for that.

To me Fortify represents a unit taking a defensive posture by making the best use of the cover that is available in that given terrain. Fortify in a farm tile would mean that they are ducking into farm buildings, hiding behind fence lines, behind haystacks, farm equipment etc.

Forts represent a permanent building that would act as miliatary center, waypoint, strong point in your own territory for some future calamity that may take place.

A lesser version of Fort would be a way for units to change the terrain they are in by digging a trench, foxhole, build an outpost, strong point within an enemies terrain even under fire, that would be a way for you to take a defensive posture in an enemies terrain. They they could Fortify themselves within that terrain improvement to get a further bonus at the expense of attacking.

Imagine if there was a choke point in the enemies terrain where you wanted to hold out for a couple of turns. Build a trench line and hold until your units can attack from another direction finish off another civ or simply get from one side of the country to the other..

Even if you needed a worker to build the improvment, (or better yet an engineer unit), it would be cool.

Ideally, once I can figure out the AI logistics, I am thinking of making a Forward Camp sort of fort that is buildable by Vanguard units, and will essentially be a fort that will destroy itself after 5-10 turns.

Why would you have it destroy itself?

Could you make that happen after it had been abandon? 5 - 10 turns of non-occupancy?

To me Fortify represents a unit taking a defensive posture by making the best use of the cover that is available in that given terrain. Fortify in a farm tile would mean that they are ducking into farm buildings, hiding behind fence lines, behind haystacks, farm equipment etc.
To me, fortification means much more than this; it means constructing foxholes or ditches or trenches or cover, or building the type of encampment used by legions at the end of each day. It means putting up stakes in the ground to deter cavalry.
If means positioning the AT guns in appropriate positions and setting up MG positions with sandbags.

Basically, fortification is everything that isn't constructing a serious long-term defensive structure like a castle or star-fort or major defensive works (concrete bunkers, tank traps, mines, Maginot line/Atlantic wall type stuff, etc.)

There is already a sizeable bonus for fortification. I don't really understand why we would want anything larger than that. The defensive bonus belongs to the unit, and is constructed by the unit, it doesn't need civilian workers to come and build on the tile (replacing the existing improvement).

Basically; we have 4 levels of defense; nothing, fortified, fort, citadel. That seems pretty broad to me.

What is the design goal here? Complexity? Do we really think that defensive screen + ranged attacks (which the human can do well but the AI can't) isn't powerful enough? Do we really need to be about to be super-good at defending while inside enemy territory?

that would be a way for you to take a defensive posture in an enemies terrain
We can already do this, it is called fortification.

They they could Fortify themselves within that terrain improvement to get a further bonus at the expense of attacking.
I don't see why we need a terrain improvement. And we already have defensive units that get no bonus attacking; the various levy unit promotions, and the defensive bonus on spear/pike/AT gun.

Imagine if there was a choke point in the enemies terrain where you wanted to hold out for a couple of turns
Then fortify your unit. That is exactly what existing fortify command is for.

Even if you needed a worker to build the improvment, (or better yet an engineer unit), it would be cool.
It would be MM that the AI would not understand. I don't think its worth it.

On a more practical level; the idea of improvements that you can build in enemy territory has a number of problems; it wipes the existing improvement, which even pillage can't do, and is particularly nasty to do to great person improvements.

So you don't like the idea... that is clear.

I don't like the point that we can wage war, fortify ourselves in a hex, conduct army operations and not have any effect on the terrain.

We fight a battle for years in game time move off to another city and voila the terrain is as pristeen as it was the day we improved it.

Diggin in/ fighting should have effects on the terrain we are waging war in.

I don't like the point that we can wage war, fortify ourselves in a hex, conduct army operations and not have any effect on the terrain.
You stop that tile from being worked. If you want, you can pillage the improvement. So yeah, you affect the terrain.

We fight a battle for years in game time move off to another city and voila the terrain is as pristeen as it was the day we improved it.
But it has lost years of productivity.

Diggin in/ fighting should have effects on the terrain we are waging war in.
There are very few historic examples where large areas of land were devastated in such a way by war that it would take decades to recover production. 30 years war Germany, maybe. But otherwise, what is your model here? Belgian agriculture was pretty productive again not long after WW1 ended.

In previous versions of Civ, improvements were a binary thing, there, or not there. We now have a third option; there, not there, or damaged. This was a big improvement. We now can absolutely model the kind of temporary damage you're talking about, but without needing to completely reconstruct the improvement from scratch.
This is as it should be; military occupation hardly ever puts an area of land back to productivity as if it were wilderness. They might burn some buildings, kill some peasants, cut some railway lines, and so forth, but they seldom destroy towns and roads and farms entirely to the point that they can't recover.

For example:
The idea that Carthage was sown with salt and was unuseable afterwards is a myth. The Romans razed the city, but the farmland recovered quickly and was parceled out to Romans.

*edit*
And again; why should you be able to destroy great person improvements, or to permanently destroy farms or villages or mines?

Point is that someone had to come along and reclaim that land. In game terms a worker. There are still today large areas of France that still have large Trenchworks dug into them. Parts of the middle east that have large areas of duded shells and landmines that will never be cleaned up.

If the Trenches improvement is not used then the land stays as is. Thus not needing to improve it. The land is only damaged as much as you choose to damage it. So it scales with the length and ferocity of the battle.

Who says that the improvement you are replacing needs to be destroyed. Why not have it put the old improvement into the same state as if the hex was pillaged. 5 turns and you get whatever was there back again?

If it is your intent to take the land you are fighting in then you wouldn't want to destroy an improvement to begin with. Unless you really needed to set up a defensive line due to your main army being locked up somewhere else.

Great Person improvements should be indestructable? Would suck to lose one I agree. But all the more reason to defend it/ put it in a spot that won't be vulnerable. Or you could simply not allow trenches to be built on Great Person Improved tiles?

Point is that someone had to come along and reclaim that land. In game terms a worker.
If you pillage a tile a worker has to come to repair it to make it operable again. We have this already. Surely you'll agree that some repair work is easier than literally rebuilding everything from scratch, as if it were wilderness that had never been farmed?

There are still today large areas of France that still have large Trenchworks dug into them. Parts of the middle east that have large areas of duded shells and landmines that will never be cleaned up.
Define "large areas". At the scale of a full hex, dozens of kilometers across? That have a significant impact on regional agricultural yields?

If the Trenches improvement is not used then the land stays as is. Thus not needing to improve it. The land is only damaged as much as you choose to damage it.
Sounds like pillaging to me, which you get to chose to do.

Who says that the improvement you are replacing needs to be destroyed.
The game code. You can only have 1 improvement on a tile at a time.

Why not have it put the old improvement into the same state as if the hex was pillaged.
Why not just pillage and then fortify your unit?

If it is your intent to take the land you are fighting in then you wouldn't want to destroy an improvement to begin with.
Then don't pillage.

Unless you really needed to set up a defensive line due to your main army being locked up somewhere else.
Why do you think you should rapidly be able to set up a powerful defensive line in enemy territory, than can survive while your own army is off elsewhere?
If you want a defensive line for holding off the enemy, then do it in your own territory. Territorial control should be meaningful during wartime; you should be much worse off in my territory than in your own.

Great Person improvements should be indestructable?
Yes. If you could lose them then it would be super-not-fun, and you wouldn't bother to use great people for improvements, better to use their abilities or golden age them.

But most importantly
I can't imagine how you think you the AI would use a mechanism like this intelligently (constructing improvements in enemy territory during wartime).
The AI already is bad enough at pillaging, which is comparatively simple.

There are very few historic examples where large areas of land were devastated in such a way by war that it would take decades to recover production.

Land mines. Those damned things last forever.

I agree there's no need to represent them in Civ, however. It's a modern invention that wouldn't apply to most of the game, and the current pillaging system is close enough. The AI just needs to pillage more! Then we could make the rewards for pillaging greater, and battlefields would truly look devastated.

Land mines. Those damned things last forever.
Sure, but the areas with significant numbers of land mines are still pretty small by world standards. There are still some areas in Cambodia, Vietnam, Sudan, Mozambique, Western Sahara, and a few other places with a fair number of mines, but not large areas by world standards - so not covering a sufficient area to reduce a tile by a single yield point.

Land mines. Those damned things last forever.

I agree there's no need to represent them in Civ, however. It's a modern invention that wouldn't apply to most of the game, and the current pillaging system is close enough. The AI just needs to pillage more! Then we could make the rewards for pillaging greater, and battlefields would truly look devastated.

I believe if we double the value of
<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_PILLAGE</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>false</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>100</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>40</Priority>
</Row>

then the AI should choose pillaging over other combat options in more scenarios..

The AI just needs to pillage more! Then we could make the rewards for pillaging greater, and battlefields would truly look devastated.

This would be fantastic - I hope Sneaks' suggesion works!

Forcing the AI to pillage more (instead of attacking) has the risk of reducing its ability to actually take cities, so we'd need to be careful to test this.

I'm not sure changing TACTICAL_PILLAGE values does anything. With settings higher than anything else in the TacticalMoves table (even 999), an enemy unit placed in a field of improvements still ignores them.

Odd. Not entirely sure how priority levels equal out

Any chance to bring this conversation back on track from additional fortification-esque things?

I think (what I think!) the point still remains rather untouched:
Current forts aren't used by anybody for anything really. They take too long to build and are too expensive (both in terms of cost and lost yields). So,
- Can we improve forts so that they are worthwhile, bringing a stale element back into the game?
- Can we make the AI use forts somehow usefully? Just because forts don't belong to useful human strategy, doesn't mean AI couldn't be improved by their use. In particular, if forts provided extra ranged cover, AI could use them to foil the most prevalent human tactic: outmaneuver and bombard to bits.

I think forts are doomed to always be a minor part of the game as long as they are an actual tile improvement, and so replace an existing unit.

But frankly, I think this is fine. I don't think they should be a large part of the game.

Forts *should* have a long build-time. Almost by definition, they are supposed to represent the kind of fortifications that take years to build, and so have to be built before a war rather than during it.

I also think that forts boost strength, and so they make you take less from ranged damage already.

How about this?

Leave fortifying as it is.

Make building forts consume a worker but be built in 1 turn. Have the civ4/Thalassicus's idea of them being mini cities. Give them perhaps a strength equal to that of a size 5 city for that era. Can't bombard, but can be garrisoned by a unit, gives the same healing as a city and has ZoC even without a garrison. Have them cost the same in maintenance as a unit.

Have citadels be the same, but with a stronger defence strength and doing the auto damage it does now.


This way forts will do what forts are meant to do. Being able to hold the line on their own for a short while even without your 'standing army' supporting them; while also being a rallying when your main army gets there. Citadels are the same but uber. The insta build by a worker means that they can be put up quickly in emergencies in war, but the fact that it consumes them and costs maintenance makes it unproductive to spam them.


How the AI could be taught to use this is beyond me though.

I think forts are doomed to always be a minor part of the game as long as they are an actual tile improvement, and so replace an existing unit.
That just depends on what is the actual cost of a fort. If, for example, fort gave 2 gold base, like a village, but didn't get any of village's boosts, then it might support the historical progression of castles dotting landscape in the middle ages, but vanishing later on.


Almost by definition, they are supposed to represent the kind of fortifications that take years to build, and so have to be built before a war rather than during it.

Same is true for roads. You might have a castle have the same build time as a road, not 3 times more than road (or whatisit).


I also think that forts boost strength, and so they make you take less from ranged damage already.
Yes, yes they do. But if they're not useful, then they don't do this enough. Again, AI fortifying cities with forts that have additional defenses against ranged attacks would incline the human to think more varied strategies than the outmaneuver +bombardments galore. And I think that would be a good thing.

Leave fortifying as it is.
Yes, fortification works fine.

Make building forts consume a worker but be built in 1 turn. Have the civ4/Thalassicus's idea of them being mini cities.
Being able to plop down a castle in the middle of a war, when the enemy is right at your door, seems absurd. Making them into impassible wars that will take several turns for the opponent to destroy, for the cost of a single worker, would be incredibly powerful. So in the middle of a war, I just bring workers along and all of a sudden my artillery unit that you're about to kill is massively protected.

Being able to hold the line on their own for a short while even without your 'standing army' supporting them; while also being a rallying when your main army gets there.
This is what cities are for. There is no way you should be able to do this for just the cost of a worker. If you want a long-term fortification that protects your unit and is hard to break into, then build a city.

The AI already struggles to capture cities; can you imagine how much worse it would be if you could add extra cities that it needed siege units to take (or melee units taking lots of damage) in the way?

The insta build by a worker means that they can be put up quickly in emergencies in war
Why is this desirable or realistic?
How the AI could be taught to use this is beyond me though.
Which is a dealbreaker.
* * *
If, for example, fort gave 2 gold base, like a village, but didn't get any of village's boosts
Then I would spam them in the early game to put my archers in them and make it even more impossible for the AI to attack me successfully, and then by midgame (before Economics), when I've already built improvements anywhere, I can use my worker downtime (saving them for railroads) to replace them with trading posts.

Same is true for roads. You might have a castle have the same build time as a road, not 3 times more than road (or whatisit).
This makes no sense to me. Castles usually took a decade to build. A small stretch of road didn't.

But if they're not useful, then they don't do this enough.
They are useful already, in rare, situational circumstances.
The problem with forts is not that they don't give a big enough boost, it is that wars don't usually take place in a small predictable area, and if they do, it is near your cities, and you want to be able to work those tiles.

AI fortifying cities with forts that have additional defenses against ranged attacks would incline the human to think more varied strategies than the outmaneuver +bombardments galore.
Fortifying cities and protecting units inside them is already modeled with the Walls/Castle/Arsenal/Military base building line.
If the AI had stronger defensive bonuses, then this would just encourage you to focus *even more* on lots of bombardments, because attacking with melee troops would be even more costly, why ranged attacks would remain costless.

If the AI had stronger defensive bonuses, then this would just encourage you to focus *even more* on lots of bombardments, because attacking with melee troops would be even more costly, why ranged attacks would remain costless.
No, of course it didn't if forts only provided more bonus against ranged, like the cover promotion.


Fortifying cities and protecting units inside them is already modeled with the Walls/Castle/Arsenal/Military base building line.

That's a good idea :D If those buildings could provide a defensive bonus to units stationed next to the city to make conquest harder. Something like 10% per building on defense, plus another 10% per building against bombardment.

No, of course it didn't if forts only provided more bonus against ranged, like the cover promotion.
An improvement that provides protection *only* against ranged attacks. That seems really weak and bizarre.

If those buildings could provide a defensive bonus to units stationed next to the city to make conquest harder
The human would understand such a bonus, the AI wouldn't. So it would tend to increase the human player's ability to defend their cities without boosting the AI's ability much.

An improvement that provides protection *only* against ranged attacks. That seems really weak and bizarre.

Of course not. Give +50% defense from forts like they do now (works against melee and ranged) AND +50% defense against ranged (like cover). So you have MORE protection bonus against ranged.


The human would understand such a bonus, the AI wouldn't. So it would tend to increase the human player's ability to defend their cities without boosting the AI's ability much.
That's the beauty of it, I don't think the AI even needs any extra understanding. Analyze an average game you played recently, and if it had any conquest, I bet you that you attacked many more AI units next to their cities, than they did yours. Due to AI hammer&gold bonuses, if this game was at any higher difficulties, I bet those cities had plenty defensive structures as well.

Note that this bonus would not give much benefit to masses of ranged units defending a city. Which is the human trump card. Those ranged units would be better protected when attacked, but they get no attack bonuses. It would help the human defend cities, no doubt, but not in the most common form, that the city itself soaks up the hits.

Sure the AI might play stupid and you might coax their units to leave further away from cities to die. But that takes time and effort, and all in all, I bet the game will become harder for the human. Especially if the bonuses given to ranged defense are more significant than against melee attacks, it will squarly play against the main human tactic for obliterating the AI.

Of course not. Give +50% defense from forts like they do now (works against melee and ranged) AND +50% defense against ranged (like cover). So you have MORE protection bonus against ranged.
So basically you're saying, have forts the same as now but with extra ranged attack defense.
I could live with that.

Analyze an average game you played recently, and if it had any conquest, I bet you that you attacked many more AI units next to their cities, than they did yours.
Well, I'm not confident that this is true, but it is certainly plausible.
I don't have a strong objection to the idea of a mild aura bonus on defensive buildings, if it could be coded.

Supposing you were correct however and it did make city conquest harder, would that be a good thing? It would limit the AI's ability to capture cities even more than the humans, because the human is better at bringing along overwhelming force, whereas the AI often brings just enough force to lose its army while not capturing the city.
[In particular here, I'm worried about the AI's ability to take cities from each other, not from the human. Weaker AI ability to take cities is not a wash, human-difficulty-wise, because it makes it harder for an AI superpower to emerge.]

But it is worth considering if it is possible to code.

But I would urge again; what is the problem you are trying to fix?
I worry that you're arguing for more defensive bonuses just for the sake of them.

Supposing you were correct however and it did make city conquest harder, would that be a good thing? It would limit the AI's ability to capture cities even more than the humans, because the human is better at bringing along overwhelming force, whereas the AI often brings just enough force to lose its army while not capturing the city.
[In particular here, I'm worried about the AI's ability to take cities from each other, not from the human. Weaker AI ability to take cities is not a wash, human-difficulty-wise, because it makes it harder for an AI superpower to emerge.]

This is a good point. We want AIs to be able to take cities so that some AI can become stronger and give opposition to the player in later eras. One way to have this have less effect on AI vs AI than human vs AI is to have the bonus be more against ranged than it is against melee, like I suggested. Humans use vastly more ranged fire than AI, at least in my experience.


But I would urge again; what is the problem you are trying to fix?
I worry that you're arguing for more defensive bonuses just for the sake of them.
It started as spin-off to forts discussion, but the "problem" would here be what you've been saying all along: It's too easy for the human to overrun the AI by tactical superiority and grow in strength. (thus must eg. have happiness to slow down that pace)

Better to slow down the pace of conquest militarily, making the human need to devote more units, and put those units more to risk as opposed to trusting bombards all the time. Making bombards less useful on offensive is a good way to make humans need to devote more resources to conquest (thus playing to AI strengths via economy cheats) and *gasp* even lose units at times!

If the problem is that human strategies that use lots of bombardment are too effective, then surely the right response is to weaken bombardment units (by lowering their ranged attack values).

I certainly think that the VEM buffs to crossbows were not necessary, and VEM longbows are totally insane, the best unit in the game by a long way. Longbows remain effective until the mid industrial (infantry/light infantry don't take much damage from longbows, but everything before then does).

If the problem is that human strategies that use lots of bombardment are too effective, then surely the right response is to weaken bombardment units (by lowering their ranged attack values).

But here you run into the catch that then AI's bombards will be equally nerfed. It's not strength of bombards itself, but the value of correctly positioning bombards to first clear a city of defending units by picking them off from outside the range of the city and it's ranged garrison, and then capturing the city. The picking usually involves catapults and horses (or advanced equivalents). This a human can do very, very well, and it means loss ratios of units between human/AI is what, probably less than 1/10.

Simply reducing ranged attack strengths, though I think some of this could well be done especially for the artillery line of units against other units and for crossbows, would likely reduce effectiveness of AI as well. And it would reduce the danger the AI presents to the human. Rarely do I lose a unit that isn't bombarded first, because knowing from where the AI can bombard come his turn is harder than melee attacks. Usually I lose units to a surprise bombard on a unit that I figured can withstand what threat it seems face.

But here you run into the catch that then AI's bombards will be equally nerfed.
But the AI is very ineffective in using bombardment, and uses them much less often. They'll use their siege units on my cities if I don't have an army, but I hardly ever have my units bombarded much, in part because the AI is horrible at screening and preserving ranged units, and in part because it builds fewer.

The only AI ranged attacks I ever get hit by a lot are those with 3 range.

In contrast to you, I normally lose units not to bombardment but to being unexpectedly surrounded; the bombardment doesn't do much of the damage, most of the damage comes from melee units. Many of the units I lose are also due to AI units with 3 or more movement or range (particualrly since it can be hard to tell which vanguards have 3 moves or not).

It's not strength of bombards itself, but the value of correctly positioning bombards to first clear a city of defending units by picking them off from outside the range of the city and it's ranged garrison, and then capturing the city. The picking usually involves catapults and horses (or advanced equivalents). This a human can do very, very well, and it means loss ratios of units between human/AI is what, probably less than 1/10.
Right, but weakening bombardment will make this kind of strategy less effective, and will make it harder to kill off AI swarms of melee units before they can take some of yours with them.

Adding a Fort/ Base to an area, can significantly increase the economy of that area due to the needs of the large host that is occupying it.

I like the idea of making Forts similiar to villiages/ trading posts. They should take a significant time longer to build than Villiages so that Ahriman's idea of spamming them early on will put a player behind improvement wise due to longer build times.

Also if it does not get the expansion bonuses from techs or policies that would make them less desirable later on. Perhaps a culture bonus later on as it becomes more of a tourist attraction.

<edit>
double post sorry

Adding a Fort/ Base to an area, can significantly increase the economy of that area due to the needs of the large host that is occupying it.
That doesn't make sense. Having to maintain a garrison is a fiscal drain, not an economic boon.

I like the idea of making Forts similiar to villiages/ trading posts. They should take a significant time longer to build than Villiages

I still think this kind of attempt is doomed. How is the AI supposed to know where a good place to build a fort is? Making this kind of decision intelligently relies on so many different factors; on terrain, on diplomacy, on relative military threats, etc.
The AI just isn't ever going to be able to combine all of these together, particularly given our very limited ability to influence the AI.

And if the AI can't place them intelligently, then it either won't build them, in which case what is the point, or it will build them haphazardly, in which case it is wasting worker time.

And if they have no upkeep cost, then the human can spam them later in the game (when they do have spare worker time) in every tile that they aren't planning to work.

That doesn't make sense. Having to maintain a garrison is a fiscal drain, not an economic boon..

Apparently you have never owned a store near a miliatary base. Try telling this to the communities that have lost the bases they relied on for a strong economy for years.

The garrison is represented by the unit inside it that cost maintenance all ready.



I still think this kind of attempt is doomed. How is the AI supposed to know where a good place to build a fort is? Making this kind of decision intelligently relies on so many different factors; on terrain, on diplomacy, on relative military threats, etc.
The AI just isn't ever going to be able to combine all of these together, particularly given our very limited ability to influence the AI.

And if the AI can't place them intelligently, then it either won't build them, in which case what is the point, or it will build them haphazardly, in which case it is wasting worker time.

Have the AI build them on unoccupied hexes on the borders of hostile Civs. (Or if they are Afraid). In front of hills being better than not. On a road bing better than not. On a point on a line from city to city. More often than not that would be decent. With a little thought could be better.


And if they have no upkeep cost, then the human can spam them later in the game (when they do have spare worker time) in every tile that they aren't planning to work.

Who said no upkeep?

Apparently you have never owned a store near a miliatary base. Try telling this to the communities that have lost the bases they relied on for a strong economy for years.
You are mistaking local economic benefits from aggregate economic benefits.
If the central government pays a whole bunch of people in area X, then that is good for people in X, but it comes at the cost of all the other taxpayers. This is a transfer payment.

The garrison is represented by the unit inside it that cost maintenance all ready.
So, you're saying that a military unit provides economic benefits if it is in a fort, but not if it is in a city, or in a village or farm or mine? That doesn't make sense to me.

Have the AI build them on unoccupied hexes on the borders of hostile Civs
How? We don't have access to code that could do that. Worker task code isn't connected to diplomacy code.
Worker code also isn't connected to terrain preferences.
People have tried getting AIs to use forts intelligently before - in Civ4 for example, where we had lots of code access. It is very hard to do.

Who said no upkeep?
It doesn't really make sense to have both upkeep and gold income. They cancel out.
And if they have upkeep, we're basically back to the status quo, where they aren't worth building, especially if they aren't near a city.

- Can we improve forts so that they are worthwhile, bringing a stale element back into the game?
- Can we make the AI use forts somehow usefully?

Any significant changes to forts would require the game core only Firaxis has access to. The discussion is just hypothetical... for whenever we do get core access.

I certainly think that the VEM buffs to crossbows were not necessary
VEM actually nerfs crossbows -2:c5rangedstrength: compared to vanilla. I think I reduced them -1 in July, then another -1 in August. I can take this further if you feel it's needed.

VEM actually nerfs crossbows -2 compared to vanilla.
Really? Did they get buffed in vanilla then? I didn't follow the vanilla changes closely enough.
Because in release vanilla the longbow and CKN had ranged strength ~10, and then 12 on crossbows.

In... June I believe, whenever the big Firaxis "balance patch" came out, they removed the -25% damage penalty ranged attacks used to have. They also added a large strength bonus to all crossbow class units (xbow, ckn, longbow). I felt the double buff was excessive and have been nerfing it since then.

I think crossbows are currently at 13:c5rangedstrength: in VEM, longbows at 12, and ckn 9. I could drop them another -1... I've been doing small increments because I don't want non-UU crossbows to go back into the "useless" territory of vanilla release.

I think crossbows are currently at 13 in VEM, longbows at 12, and ckn 9.
Really?
I could have sworn that crossbows and longbows were at ranged strength 14. [I haven't played China for a while.]
I'll check tonight.

I didn't find them useless in vanilla.

It's only regular crossbows that were a problem, but that's much less of an issue now that Machinery has multiple useful things on it. The lumbermill boost, foundry, and armory are post-release.

Looking at the files I see...

Vanilla:
15:c5rangedstrength: Crossbows
15:c5rangedstrength: Longbows
11:c5rangedstrength: CKN

Vanilla Enhanced:
-2 for all crossbow class units
-1 extra for Longbows

I haven't played China or England in a while, so I'll double check this ingame to see if I'm overlooking something in the files.

Update: I accidentally reduced the combat strength of these units, not ranged combat. Oops! :lol: I've fixed this bug for v108.1.

Update: I accidentally reduced the combat strength of these units, not ranged combat.
Ah! So were both sorta right and sorta wrong.
Cool. I think that will be good for balance, these guys are so deadly. I have wiped out entire civs with only 4-5 longbows and a levy.

I still think this kind of attempt is doomed. How is the AI supposed to know where a good place to build a fort is? Making this kind of decision intelligently relies on so many different factors; on terrain, on diplomacy, on relative military threats, etc.
The AI just isn't ever going to be able to combine all of these together, particularly given our very limited ability to influence the AI.

I think you're shooting at the wrong target here: Do not ask yourself how is the AI going to play like a human. It just can't. Ask what does the AI need to do improve the game it is currently playing. AI can't put down forts smartly like human, but it doesn't mean it's current game couldn't be improved by not so smart fort placement.

If the AI would, dumbly, just build a couple forts next to every one of its cities, and seek to maintain a garrison in these 3 tiles, I think it would improve the AI's ability to withstand extermination by the human. Without it being so easy to pick off all units around the city before assaulting it, the human would much more likely face losses in the attack as the AI counterattacks.

If the problem is that AI can't create large enough forces to attack and take cities for the love of anything, then surely the answer is to edit the AI to muster more forces before attacking. Not keeping city defenses so low that the human can coast over a continent without a sweat.

Agreed that a fort can't simply be a village with a defensive bonus and longer construction time. Spamming them would be silly. But if they would give 1 gold instead of costing 1 (still having a cost relative to village), and couldn't be constructed to neighboring hexes, I think it would be an improvement (pun intended ;)). It's not at all unreasonable that the protection offered by a fortification increases trade in early eras. And in later eras, the civilian infrastructure that grows around a garrison is capable of wealth creation as well, not just soaking up trickle-downs from tax money spent on the soldiers.

I think you're shooting at the wrong target here: Do not ask yourself how is the AI going to play like a human. It just can't. Ask what does the AI need to do improve the game it is currently playing. AI can't put down forts smartly like human, but it doesn't mean it's current game couldn't be improved by not so smart fort placement
I think you're shooting at the wrong target. A change that helps the AI isn't really a boost to the AI if it also boosts the human player just as much or more.

If the AI would, dumbly, just build a couple forts next to every one of its cities, and seek to maintain a garrison in these 3 tiles, I think it would improve the AI's ability to withstand extermination by the human
But it would weaken its economy, so it would have (slightly) smaller cities, fewer units, less tech, fewer buildings, fewer policies, etc.
If the fort has a maintenance cost, the effect is even worse.

If the problem is that AI can't create large enough forces to attack and take cities for the love of anything, then surely the answer is to edit the AI to muster more forces before attacking.
No, not really, because congestion problems kick in, and adding more force really doesn't make much difference. Sending a huge swarm of units into an artillery killzone where they die every turn isn't going to be changed by adding a few more units.

But if they would give 1 gold instead of costing 1 (still having a cost relative to village), and couldn't be constructed to neighboring hexes
Without a maintenance cost, I can spam them freely in every tile that I am not planning on working, giving a huge advantage to the human player on defense.

But it would weaken its economy, so it would have (slightly) smaller cities, fewer units, less tech, fewer buildings, fewer policies, etc.
If the fort has a maintenance cost, the effect is even worse.

This is extremely easy to answer: More economy bonuses and/or harder difficulty! If we can improve AI tactical ability at cost of these, it should be a no-brainer to go for it.

So the argument is... the AI is too weak, so lets add something which weakens it relative to the human player, and then move to a higher difficulty level with higher bonuses.

Why not just skip the middle step?

I don't see why having lots of fort improvements dotting the landscape is a desirable goal.

Why not just skip the middle step?

Oh, come on, you know the answer to this. To quote yourself:

No, not really, because congestion problems kick in, and adding more force really doesn't make much difference.

AI tactical capability and it's economic capacity are widely different beasts. You know this. And if we can give it some tactics at the expense of economy, compensating for the latter is trivial. Tactics is also in-your-face to the player, whereas AI economic bonuses are "under the hood".

Building on my earlier idea...


Garrisonable forts.
AI builds forts on shortest-path to each neighbor.


The garrison capability makes forts mini-cities. Forts are built by workers over time and limited to friendly/neutral territory. Shortest path between the center of two areas is easy to calculate. The AI places forts on the edge of friendly cultural borders, 1 fort per shortest-path to each individual neighbor.

Attackers face a decision to take short & difficult routes, or avoid forts with a longer route. Whenever borders shift significantly, the AI can raze forts and rebuild new ones. The mini-city approach has these advantages:


Protects ranged units within forts.
Siege becomes important against forts.
Provides access to resources underneath it.
AI code to to attack and defend cities already exists.
Citadels could have bombard capability, more hitpoints, and expand borders.

If forts are mini-cities that can garrison a ranged unit, while defending about like a melee units, I think their construction should at least, for example, cost the worker, or otherwise more than current forts. A fort that protects a ranged unit inside it is worth much more than the current one. On the other hand, I do like the general concept, since it brings utility to forts in a novel way.

I agree, balancing factors could be determined after some playtesting. The value of a fort like that would depend on its hitpoints, combat modifiers, heal rate, construction time, if it consumes the unit, minimum spacing distance, and so on. I'm just thinking about general concepts for now, since I believe anything in this discussion would require game core access. :)

I love this idea.

Would be great to see either buildings or policies, or even techs that allow these to get larger, more hit points.

Will these be allowed to the human players?
Will players be able to build them side by side?

Will players be able to build them side by side?

Well, in the realm of the hypothetical...

Spamming them next to each other would very easily lead to nigh-unassailable positions. At the very least there should be 1, perhaps 2 tiles in between.
But then a problem is how do they intertwine with cities. On one hand I'd like forts preventing city building right next to them, so that forts could claim land without happiness costs of making a city (in the late game so that it'd claim land from enemy, not pristine land). That, on the other hand, will likely make AI shoot itself in the leg with fort placement. And building a couple forts right next to a major city to make for a combined ranged garrison that challenges the player is likely how AI could best use them. But then that would make it possible for a human to rather easily make an unassailable strongpoint.

Interesting, in any case.