Fortresses

Fortresses
They exist.
Their graphics are nice.
They would be neat to have around.
They're useless in most situations (a bloomed forest offers more protection).
AI's don't (and don't know how to) use them (and they're usually acting intelligent in not using them).

I'd first like to say I miss forts. I rather enjoyed them in previous civs, but the ones in Civ 4 are dismally useless, so I'd like to find some way of having them made useful for FfH2.

I noticed its possible to keep track of how long a unit has been fortified (in the Kill Hunt thread). I know AI's are incapable of making forts intelligently (though in most cases making forts is unintelligent), so I thought instead of trying to get them to make forts intelligently, to just reward the AI's (and players) activities with forts.

So, a unit has been fortified in a spot (outside a city, maybe force it to be inside its own borders) for 30 turns, it long ago met its max in fortify bonus (after 5 turns i think), so why not reward it with a fort on its tile? after 30 years I'd think it sensical that the unit has dug in enough to warrant a fort type structure. That way, AI's would end up with forts in appropriate places. So, the basic idea is, Forts are placed when a unit has been fortified in a tile for X turns.

Problems
What if there's already an improvement? (AI's love guarding resource improvements)
What if there's a forest there already? (why would you want a fort there, it would remove the forest and its better defensive bonus)

Solutions
Allow two improvements on a tile (doubt this possible)
Turn forts into Features instead of improvements.

The second solution wouldn't solve the forest problem unless some other things were done, like increase the forts to +50% defense bonus, give +1 per fort within city yield radius (to make up for the lost +1 ), and make them give +2 to make up for lost production.


Other Ideas

Possible Fort Benefits
-Forts using city defence (and city raider) promotions
-Higher defense bonus, +50% def bonus or even as high as +100%, but require Stone resource to build
-Buildable in neutral lands, maybe even enemy lands (I think they're only buildable in your own borders)
-Buildable on Forests/Jungles without clearing
-Buildable by military units (long build time, possibly consume the unit)
-Slow XP gain to stationed units
-Some production or trade bonus

Forts having "Zone of Control" effect
-Perhaps enemies lose their terrain bonus when moving in areas ajacent to forts, and units retain their defensive bonuses when attacking from forts. Or forts can produce culture ala Rise of Nations.
-Attrition damage to enemy units adjacent to the fort
-Possibility of spawning basic unit (maybe trigger if cottages or other improvements nearby are pillaged)
-Free Withdrawl Promotion while in Fort attacking adjacent squares (maybe only for Ranged units)
-Adjacency autoattacks (was in Civ 3, but not sure if its in this Civ; a unit from fort attacks any enemy unit that moves from one adjacent square to another adjacent square, with respect to Fort)
-Free attacks from fort that don't involve retaliation (like how siege units works in civ 3)

Forts as specializable
-Castle: +75% defense
-Inn: +x% heal, +1 commerce if worked, and/or +1 trade route in nearest city
-Sentry Tower: Same as existing improvement
-Trade post: +1 culture/turn (centered on the fort) Would have to be availible a bit late or take a long time to build to prevent city blocking early.
-Dungeon: umm, don't know, just sounded cool, maybe sac slaves here for some effect...
-Fortified versions of every improvement (AI's would build them, and it would help them protect their improvements)
-Acts like an Outpost as well (I have yet to see anything in Civ4 like the Outposts in Civ3, but maybe I'm blind; collects resource out of borders)

Forts as gaining power
-Forts gaining more benefits with new techs (like increased line of sight, and other listed benefits)
-Forts gaining more benefits the more troops stationed there
-Forts gaining more benefits by being worked (like a cottage)

Forts as Units
-Would have 0 movement (like Entangling Vines)
-Could grant bonus promotions to units in same tile
-Could gain experience thus increasing the bonuses
-Could be capturable

Forts as resource gathering improvement
-Make Sentry Towers (which Used to be resources and was quite nice heh) connectable using forts (AI's would build them)
-Grant Free Sentry Promotion for scouts for connected Sentry towers
-Grant +2 XP to scouts for connected Sentry towers
-yield in connected Sentry towers: +1 +1

Settlements as Forts
-use the settlement mechanic for all civs, so they can create towns that are only for defensive purposes

Quotes on the subject of forts:

Sureshot said:

Forts need some work I think. In Vanilla Civ they're pretty useless, with Bloom spell they're somewhat useful though it may be a bug (if it is a bug then they're even worse than Vanilla Civ). Why? Fort adds +25% def bonus, and best scenario without Bloom is placing it on a hill (placing it on woods or a jungle destroys them, reducing def by 50%) which is still only +50% and only as good as a forest alone, and worse than a forest on a hill.

With bloom you're better off just putting a forest instead of a fort (+50% instead of +25%) [assuming that the ability to Bloom on a fort is a bug]

Are there special bonuses I'm missing?

If not, Forts need something, some ideas:
+50% def bonus or even +75%, but require Stone resource to build
Buildable in neutral lands, maybe even enemy lands (I think they're only buildable in your own borders)
Buildable by military units (long build time, possibly consume the unit)
Slow XP gain to stationed units
Adjacency autoattacks (was in Civ 3, but not sure if its in this Civ; a unit from fort attacks any enemy unit that moves from one adjacent square to another adjacent square, with respect to Fort)
Free Withdrawl Promotion while in Fort attacking adjacent squares (maybe only for Ranged units)
Ability to build in forests/jungles without removing the forests/jungles
Acts like an Outpost as well (I have yet to see anything in Civ4 like the Outposts in Civ3, but maybe I'm blind; collects resource out of borders)
Unit promotion City Defense is applied while defending in Fort (could already be, not sure)
Some production or trade bonus
Possibility of spawning basic unit (maybe trigger if cottages or other improvements nearby are pillaged)

Anything to make forts better, they just seem so useless currently, and they should be fun.

Maybe do different grades of Forts using the Cottage system of growth (possibly requiring certain resources for better Forts), like:

Woodfort
requires iron or copper or clay (something to bond wood)
+25% def bonus
some of the lesser bonuses listed above

Stonefort
requires stone
+50% def bonus
some of the better bonuses listed above or in better amounts

Castle
requires stone and copper(or iron or mithril)
+75% def bonus
some of the best bonuses listed above or in even better amounts

That would make them not only useful, but also fun investments to be protected and worked on/towards.

Click to expand...

Sureshot said:

I've checked ingame on some of the things I wasn't sure about, and fortresses don't have any of the neat things it had in previous Civs, only +25% def bonus, nothing else, no benefits of any kind are stated in the Civilopedia (in Civ 3 I think they also ended an enemies turn in they entered it, basically making it a high movement penalty square to enemies as well).

The AI is quite smart about its usage of the current Forts (they intelligently don't bother making them ), I can see how some of the ideas would definately require some AI changes (worrying about adjacency moves and the like). Still it'd be nice to build useful forts.

Click to expand...

Sureshot said:

I'd like to mention forts again because I miss them being useful. I've been thinking about the arguement of "the AI doesn't know how to use them" and I realized that happens regardless: Instead of forts I just use bloom on hills as my "forts." The AI doesn't know how to do this either, but its possible.

Forts are in the game, but they are so uselesss... I just wish they had +100% def or something (like City def promotions adding to fort def % as well) to make them worthwile (atm you put an archer on a hill/forest with the second forest defense promotion and you get +25% from hill +50% from forest +100% (woodsman 2) which is nearly 4 times better than a hillfort (+25% from fort +25% from hill with no promotions that are gonna help except hills ones.. but the hill forests get that possibility too).

If it's just me who thinks so it'd be nice to figure out a way to just improve them myself, I miss good forts!

Click to expand...

Nikis-Knight said:

Maybe forts could be upgradeable a couple different ways, only one way per fort. They'd all retain the original +25% defense, and I think making city garrison (and raider) work with them is a good idea, the same bonus or perhaps half as much. Also, I don't know hos it is now, but forts should not be able to be built w/in 3 (or so) spaces of each other.
Fort upgrades:
Castle: +75% defense
inn: +x% heal, +1 commerce if worked, and/or +1 trade route in nearest city
Sentry Tower: Same as existing improvement
Trade post: +1 culture/turn (centered on the fort.) Would have to be availible a bit late or take a long time to build to prevent city blocking early.
Dungeon: umm, don't know, just sounded cool, maybe sac slaves here for some effect...

Click to expand...

Neo Guderian said:

Also, while im on the subject of Siege Engineers as a unit type, (yeah this part of the post should be in the unit design post) why not also give them a promotion to build forts outside of city borders. Possibly even lookout towers too?

Click to expand...

Xereq said:

What if Khazad defensive city improvements and forts raised the land around them a step (by raised I mean elevation; i.e. flat to hill, hill to mountain) and the land lowered when the improvement was destroyed, or the city defense went below a certain threshhold. You could create new mountains that could not be improved, but would allow for some rock solid defense.

Click to expand...

Sureshot said:

i really like the idea of using Forts are a resource gathering building... but maybe for Sentry towers?!

wow thats a good idea! since sentry towers are considered resources, why not make forts be the building they need? then AIs would atleast build forts on sentry towers, itd prolly look neat, and protecting it would be useful!!

maybe have it give some promo, like free Sentry promotion for scouts.

a few more like your Dark Eye thing would be fun too, and we'd see forts being used more often! great idea

Click to expand...

I think that the Forts should use city defence (and city raider) promotions like they do in Warlords.

The main problem with forts is that they can simply be bypassed. They really need to somehow exert an "area of control" effect. Perhaps enemies lose their terrain bonus when moving in areas ajacent to forts, and units retain their defensive bonsues when attacking from forts. Or forts can produce culture ala Rise of Nations.

@ Maian

I agree without an area of control forts are not realistic, if you can just walk right pass them its pointless. You would suspect that the defenders of a fort would harass any enemy that came close enough. Maybe not enough to destroy the units but enough to keep them from advancing so freely.

Unless of course the unit had a promotion that negated the forts effects. I wonder though how useful a fort would be as just a defensive structure though. I mean if i have a stack of 20 mages and send an army of undead following a fireball barrage its not going to last long

Good forts would still be fun though hehe

That reminds me of this post:

CoheeLunden said:

I was thinking recently that it might be cool to make it possible for the kuriotates to build different types of settlements. Traditionally you can think about how there were exploatory/financial settlements, military settlements (advanced forts), or religious settlements. It might be interesting to give the kurioates abilities to construct different settlement flavors...

Financial settlements are much of what you have now, made explicitly to grab resources and increase money at little cost to the mother nation, but not able to build anything.

A military settlement might be able to build a single unit but would have a larger financial drag. For instance imagine builing a calvary settlement that popped the highest level horse unit every 15-20 turns.

Religious settlments would actually produce culture ( or perhaps pop disciples), but resources in their borders might actually be useless, or become untradable....

Just an idea

Click to expand...

in the civilizations thread.

Basically, make a unit that is like a settler but makes fort cities instead, that serve only the purpose of military defense and area control, not for becoming a metropolis. But the problem with using cities to do it is that its a bit much, cities have many more complications then would be needed for a fort type city.. I can't figure out wheter itd be a good idea or not. My main issue with it is that cities don't use the cool lookin fort graphic lol.

tyrantpimp said:

@ Maian

I agree without an area of control forts are not realistic, if you can just walk right pass them its pointless. You would suspect that the defenders of a fort would harass any enemy that came close enough. Maybe not enough to destroy the units but enough to keep them from advancing so freely.

Unless of course the unit had a promotion that negated the forts effects. I wonder though how useful a fort would be as just a defensive structure though. I mean if i have a stack of 20 mages and send an army of undead following a fireball barrage its not going to last long

Good forts would still be fun though hehe

Click to expand...

What about any enemy unit adjacent to a fort getting a wither type promotion (as per the spell). That is to say, any enemy unit adjacent to a fort suffers attrition damage each turn that only goes away when they leave the area (much like sentry towers giving and taking away the Sentry promotion when you leave them).

Those are neat ideas sureshot

I like the thought of specializsed pseudo cities, not exactly cities but outposts. Would certainly make playing the one city challenge in custom civs more interesting.

Another thought into adding some flavor to forts might be to allow wizards to create them via spell. Maybe they only last as long as the wizard is alive and fortified in them. But this could allow for some more interesting options.

Maian said:

The main problem with forts is that they can simply be bypassed. They really need to somehow exert an "area of control" effect. Perhaps enemies lose their terrain bonus when moving in areas ajacent to forts, and units retain their defensive bonsues when attacking from forts. Or forts can produce culture ala Rise of Nations.

Click to expand...

To me, this is a tactical issue, not an issue with forts. I protect my borders by positioning troops at very defensible spots. Enemy units can and frequently will bypass these spots, but I can easily make sorties out to attack them when the time is right for me. In essence, ignoring the def. spot (or fort) does somewhat increase the vulnerability of your invading force.

Having said that, I think forts should definitely get a boost. I really liked that mod for Vanilla that gave forts bonuses, and these bonuses increased when certain techs were gained. For instance, increased line of sight. I also agree with such things as combat bonuses that apply to any combat that is conducted against an enemy unit that is adjacent to the fort (such is a retreat bonus). I also think forts should be buildable in neutral lands.

I would like forts to not suck and, frankly, I don't care if the AI doesn't use them (well, I do care, but I don't think this should keep the fun from us).

- Niilo

tyrantpimp said:

Those are neat ideas sureshot

I like the thought of specializsed pseudo cities, not exactly cities but outposts. Would certainly make playing the one city challenge in custom civs more interesting.

Another thought into adding some flavor to forts might be to allow wizards to create them via spell. Maybe they only last as long as the wizard is alive and fortified in them. But this could allow for some more interesting options.

Click to expand...

for the wizard thing, maybe make "Wall of Stone" spell do that? a temp fort.. would make sense.

The problem with not building forts is that Civ4 lacks zones of control...

Why build a fort and give a 200% defence bonus when it can simply be avoided... ZOC need to be solved first.


On the other hand i've been thinking about a similar concept which came to me in my current game. It's the guardian vines... The AI seems to know how to use them to guard strategic positions, but even when these positions are either lost or on ally territory or far away from combat area, it keeps them. Maybe teach the AI that after, lets say, 25 turns of inactivity the vines should be disabled so that they may be cast again on more needed positions.

Also the vines can be avoided easily so maybe give them a feature to randomly cast entanglement on adjected enemy troops to force them into combat...

I like your idea of giving units inside the fort free withdrawal promotions. This would fit the concept of being able to harass nearby enemies, but being able to retreat to the base if necessary. This combined with city defense promotion working in forts (as in Warlords it seems...) could make them useful already, only the AI needs to learn how to use them.

ya, free withdrawls allows an active Zone of Control in a sense, since you can attack anyone who enters your Zone of Control with impunity.

and it doesn't sound so difficult to implement (note: I have no idea ). If the thing with city defense promotions didn't work (maybe this needs SDK/ hardcoded changes), you could still improve the defense bonus of the fort.

Then you had some sort of zone of control which gives the enemy a reason to attack the fort, and then some improved defense.

Talking about the AI, I wonder if there is a way to teach them to recognize choke points. It can already define routes, after all, so a tile would be a chokepoint if it would greatly decrease the amount of possible routes or increase the time needed to a target destination *if it was blocked*...

one way to consider an area a choke point is if it has impassible terrain or water on two tiles that are opposite adjacent and nondiagonal (i.e. the tiles directly north and south or east and west).

about protecting improvements and city raider/defense promotions, maybe city raider/defense promotions should work on forts and cottages/hamlets/villages/towns, it would make them much easier to defend (though make the elven cottages not receive the bonus, since they already focus on forests anyways and have poor city defense anyways).

I too miss forts for many of the same reasons already expressed, and i believe that many of the ideas (outside of production bonuses) are very good ones. My main issue is with ZOC. I MISS ZOC. In civ 2 it was a viable and very important feature of the game, used to create FRONTS during warfare with an enemy. It became a viable strategy to use DEFENSIVE units offensively, to form an area in which the enemy could not bypass your units and attack you. Therefore on attack defensive units were very important for their ZOC and abilties to hold off armies. Forts in civ2 were great (and horrible) in that if there was a mountain square, with a fort....it was nigh impossible to kill a defensive unit in that square. We now have collateral damage and promotions with CIV 4. So why not SOME units with ZOC again? Or, like this thread suggests, forts should GRANT ZOC. Maybe the "Commando" promotion eliminates the ZOC issue for units trying to bypass defenses. But I MUST say that sea warfare was designed throughout the ages specifically to bypass defenses. That is the first role of sea superiority. With this tacit (remember smac? Doctroine:Flexability) one can isolate enemy strongholds and travel without fear. Well, theres no need to travel without fear if fear is never firstly implemented.

I say BRING BACK ZOC, and give it to forts. Keep forts an improvement so it IS a sacrifice of something else. The ai can treat it as a "non-workable" improvement. They dont plant cottages or mines if the space isnt worked, or going to be. Frankly many of my hills in games are naked until windmills. They could have forts. But I agree, maybe connect the building of forts with the locations that computers commonly like to place units. In this, perhaps its better if it is a Feature. And I beleive that forts should be +100% defense. It should be a pain to capture a fort. Razing a fort would be an important strategy if you didnt plan on holding the area.
-Qes

well ive started messing around with forts as features because i cant stand the poopness of forts lol

Giving units inside a fort a 75% or higher withdraw rate would be nice. It would be an effective ZOC, in a way. Hm, it might not be necessary to add any terrain defense bonus at all to forts. It might be possible instead to give them, perhaps, a +100% strength bonus, so that they're stronger in both defense and attack on adjacent tiles. I'm not sure if this would work with the combat mechanics we're using (does a unit keep a promotion they get from a location when attacking a square adjacent to that location?), but I think it would solve some problems.

Sureshot said:

well ive started messing around with forts as features because i cant stand the poopness of forts lol

Click to expand...

You mean the poopocity? -ness often means a quality that affects outside conditions, -ocity is more of an inner quality.

Feel free to ask for any more BS whenever you need it.
-Qes

strength instead of defense modifier, thats a good idea