Forts = canals???
- Thread starter civzombie
- Start date
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
I'd assume so.
Nikis-Knight
Deity
Well, it seems like they can unless you can't move them out again! 
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
Surely there's a limit on that, e.g. forts cannot be built directly adjacent to each other. That might be unfair, though, for defensive purposes. I'm sure they took this into account so you can't exploit it.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
They said ships could pass through Forts now... So I would say yes 
Padraig
Father of future Civver
So anyone worry they may not be too strong?
Or are we just so happy to actually build them and with the possible funtionality of canals, we don't really care.
Or are we just so happy to actually build them and with the possible funtionality of canals, we don't really care.
Rusty Edge
Deity
So anyone worry they may not be too strong?
If the only change to forts was that ships may now enter them, and therefore we could build canals, I'd say
Finally, a use for forts!!"
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
Something good for forts.
mjs0
The 4th X
Alexman, thanks for the confirmation and clarification.
That seems like a pretty elegant piece of design, restricting the length of canals with an easy to understand rule.
It also lets us know that forts can be built on adjacent tiles, so thanks for that also...
That seems like a pretty elegant piece of design, restricting the length of canals with an easy to understand rule.
It also lets us know that forts can be built on adjacent tiles, so thanks for that also...
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
3, as you can have a city imbetween them
mjs0
The 4th X
That doesn't necessarily follow as an inland city may have the same restriction as an inland fort.
In fact that seems quite likely. If forts are now very similar to cities as alluded to in the chat there's a good chance they are derived from a common base class.
Ah well, only 37 more days before we know for sure!
Seeing as to how they share only defensive capabilities and the fact that boats can enter them, it doesn't seem like a very important design choice (you wouldn't gain particularly much code reuse from that).
I might have missed something though, do they share more capabilities?
City garrison and city raider promotions apply to forts. Aircraft (and paratroopers) can be based in forts. It's been stated that forts will now grant access to resources - presumably they won't provide resource improvement tile bonuses - which is also like a city.
fitchn
Civ Fanatic
Hmmm... Here's a thought I had: what if the fort does give you access to the resource, but does not give you any bonus plot yields.
For instance, a Farm on Wheat gives you +3 food (IIRC) in addition to the resource; the fort would give you access to the resource only, and no food bonus.
This would make a lot of sense, as it would finally allow you to protect your most valuable resources even better, but would have a trade-off (in this example, no food bonus).
Thoughts?
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Canals would be interesting
mjs0
The 4th X
I readily admit it was a guess and could be completely wrong.
I based my comment on this exchange in the chat (my emphasis)
The way the answer was given implied to me there was more than what was listed, perhaps effects on culture, trade routes (as implied), healing units, defenses that can be bombarded and other things that would require some common code with cities.
The 'even use them to connect resources' line makes me wonder. I can interpret it one of two ways...
- They can be built either in unclaimed land, or on the border of your land and expand culture to claim a resource that can then be connected by workers.
- They can be built on top of a resource and act as a farm/mine/plantation for the purposes of getting access to the resource (but as fitchn says above just like a city on a resource they may provide no tile bonuses)
