Thorburne
Centurion
Right. No backfiring, otherwise it wouldn't be worth building them.
It would add to the strategy and tactics if they could be captured. But that is right... people don't like it when negative things happen to them!
Right. No backfiring, otherwise it wouldn't be worth building them.
It would reduce strategy and tactics, because it wouldn't be worth building them, so you wouldn't see them used.It would add to the strategy and tactics if they could be captured.
I don't want to spend time and give up a productive tile (or sacrifice a great general!) to create a strongpoint for the enemy inside my territory.
But actually, what does it matter? If you can't hold back the enemy with a fort/citadel then you certainly can't without one, and at that point you'll be defending the closest city not trying to retake the fort.
Having said that, I still like the way the mechanic works, whoever owns the tile owns the fort.
I don't want to spend time and give up a productive tile (or sacrifice a great general!) to create a strongpoint for the enemy inside my territory.
I can think of several scenarios where "underpowered forts" can lose you the game. For example: you have a city with 3 forts nearby occupied with 1 unit each. Now the enemy attacks your city and your 3 units are desperately needed to garrison or fight the enemy, thus must leave the forts. The enemy laughs and occupies the forts, maybe cutting reinforcements and protecting his ranged units from your cavalry. Alternatively, with his smart diversion, he could just sit in the forts and be an immense thorn in your flesh. Backfire.
Since you can't build improvements in enemy territory, this is impossible unless you capture the city nearby and make the great improvement yours.
In which case, you're probably better to keep it than to paper over it.
Try it out yourselves, download the Orbis modmod of FFH2 and see how forts can be an awesome part of the game, and an implementation of the modmod mechanics in a 1upt game would make them even more fun, strategic, and worth the AI to create them.
It would reduce strategy and tactics, because it wouldn't be worth building them, so you wouldn't see them used.
People don't like mechanics that are so underpowered as to be useless.
I don't want to spend time and give up a productive tile (or sacrifice a great general!) to create a strongpoint for the enemy inside my territory.
How did they get past the forts and assault the city? Just some possibilities:This is all true but how did the enemy get past three forts and assault the city. IE What was the purpose of the forts, surely they are very poorly placed. And in this case the defender seems destined to lose if he builds forts but has no other defensive army to back them up (hence having tp pull the fort sentries out to defend). I think the scenario you're describing is one of total lack of thought and preparation, the defender deserves whatever he gets. War, both offensively and defensively is won or lost before it even starts, depending on the preparations.
12agnar0k said:Hi, I can't post currently but I can PM your answer, feel free to post it up so others know the answer too.
Fort's and Citadels are not owned as such, like a city or a unit, where by you the player control them, they are a tile improvement, like a farm.
It has already been confirmed that Forts and Citadels don't give a bonus in enemy territory, i.e if an enemy spearman comes into your territory and defeats a unit on a fort, the fort is still just an improvement and will provide no bonus to the spearman. Similarily, if they built one in your territory it would have no effect.
So whomever owns the territory where the fort is built is the only player who gets the defensive bonus, an ally will also get it one would assume.
Neutral territory, (that which has no cities borders on it) would provide the fort's bonus to any unit stationed on it, so if you have your forts built to bolster your defensive line in neutral territory, then yes if this is captured then the enemy gets its benefit, but not on anything in your own borders.
How did they get past the forts and assault the city? Just some possibilities:
- Naval invasion or naval/embarked by-pass
- Just naval attack weakening the city to a point, where you have to leave the forts or risk losing the city
- Right of passage agreement with another bordering civ
- Instead of they getting past the forts, it is another enemy attacking from another angle
You missed the dressing up your warriors as sheep option which is how Edinburgh Castle fell the one and only time it was taken. I suppose that would be modelled by a spy in Civ.
Lol. This sounds like a mixture of the Trojan Horse and Monthy Python. Also, one should not forget another big threat to the forts - cruel joke warfare.
It is incorrect to suppose that holding back the enemy and holding the particular fort tile are the same thing.But actually, what does it matter? If you can't hold back the enemy with a fort/citadel then you certainly can't without one, and at that point you'll be defending the closest city not trying to retake the fort.
Why would you build forts when they provide a minimal benefit, while hurting your economy?Actually, it would increase it. Not only would you use them to defend your frontier, but as your empire grows, you would be wise to defend them as well so that your enemy can't get an advantage when campaigning against you.
Actually not realistic at all. Historic forts needed only a small garrison, not an entire army stationed there.But, I guess that is too realistic...
Which makes culture bombs sligtly more useful in actual warfare.You assume incorrectly, the forts are for your use only, just like the roads you build (in your territory.)
It is incorrect to suppose that holding back the enemy and holding the particular fort tile are the same thing.
Why would you build forts when they provide a minimal benefit, while hurting your economy?
They've never really been useful in previous versions of Civ.
Actually not realistic at all. Historic forts needed only a small garrison, not an entire army stationed there.