Fortify has a problem

[Colossian]

It doesn't work immediately. IMO, fortify should be powerfull than standing on Jungle.

 

[Supr49er]

Yeah, it takes five turns to get the full fortification bonus.
But you still get the terrain bonus.

 

[theKurgen]

It doesn't work immediately. IMO, fortify should be powerfull than standing on Jungle.

Yes, it doesn't work immediately. That's because it takes time to build fortifications, ie/ dig a foxhole, pillboxes, barbed wire, landmines.

 

[Bob the Barbari]

Yeah. Especially in ancient times it was nothing odd to spend a hundred years digging a foxhole.

 

[Pir Lan Tota]

Yeah. Especially in ancient times it was nothing odd to spend a hundred years digging a foxhole.

Yes, because its so nice that when you are attacking an AI before constructions, he whips out an archer and it gets its full fortify bonus....that would definitely be very desirable.....I will roll NA now....

 

[PieceOfMind]

It doesn't work immediately. IMO, fortify should be powerfull than standing on Jungle.

You need to be clearer about what point you are trying to make.

You want fortifying to be more powerful than the modifier from a jungle. Does that mean you want fortify to be more than 50%, or do you want to reduce the jungle bonus?

You also point out it doesn't work immediately. Do you disagree with that?

In the standard game, the actual fortify button does nothing. The fortify bonus simply comes from a unit being stationary for a number of turns. You can keep hitting skip turn and the same bonus applies.

As for game balance, I think the gradual increase in fortification bonus is a good thing. Firstly it means recently produced units aren't already at full fortification bonus. As are units that have just come as reinforcements to the city from elsewhere.

I don't think it's unrealistic that units defending from a jungle get a higher bonus than fortified units on flat ground, but in the end it all comes down to gameplay. It works out well in the end, as terrain can be used for tactical advantage.

Yeah. Especially in ancient times it was nothing odd to spend a hundred years digging a foxhole.

Arguments based on the timespan of game turns are pointless. This is a strategy game, not a simulation, and anytime you attempt to make it more a simulation by removing from the strategy game you ruin the game a bit more.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, it doesn't work immediately. That's because it takes time to build fortifications, ie/ dig a foxhole, pillboxes, barbed wire, landmines.

Yes, this takes at least an entire year. But if you're primitive and are still learning how to dig, it might even take 20, or 60!

 

[theKurgen]

Yes, this takes at least an entire year. But if you're primitive and are still learning how to dig, it might even take 20, or 60!

Yeah yeah times are out of whack, but i still think it makes complete sense for defensive fortifications to improve over time.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I always think about war as "slow motion" anyway.

 

[Shurdus]

I agree with the drill IV defender. Logically it may or may not make sense to have fortification bonusses being this or that size, but gameplaywise it works fine. Since Civ is a game and games that are based on reality defy logic by default I think Civ is no exception, and it does not have to be an exception. If it works, it works.

 

[Bob the Barbari]

Arguments based on the timespan of game turns are pointless. This is a strategy game, not a simulation, and anytime you attempt to make it more a simulation by removing from the strategy game you ruin the game a bit more.

"Sarcasm is a form of speech or writing which is bitter or cutting, being intended to taunt its target."

From Wikipedia. A new word in case you don't know it. I just pointed out that theKurgen's argument makes little sense.

Personally I agree with Shurdus.

 

[PieceOfMind]

"Sarcasm is a form of speech or writing which is bitter or cutting, being intended to taunt its target."

From Wikipedia. A new word in case you don't know it. I just pointed out that theKurgen's argument makes little sense.

Personally I agree with Shurdus.

A phrase you should make yourself familiar with:
"Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour."

I make no apologies for interpreting a statement for what is written, unless you chuck a on the end of course!

theKurgen's statement makes perfect sense. It does take time to build fortifications. Just because it doesn't exactly fit in with the gamedates doesn't make his point invalid.

Also, you agree with Shurdus, who agreed with me, who agreed with theKurgen... ?

 

[Bob the Barbari]

I was refering to the line: Since Civ is a game and games that are based on reality defy logic by default I think Civ is no exception, and it does not have to be an exception. If it works, it works.

And if you "make no apologies for interpreting a statement for what is written" you should have pointed out that what I had written makes no sense at all.
And as for the Krugen statment making sense - gamewise it makes little sense, not gamewise it has nothing to do with the topis (which refers to the game, not the real life) and therefore "makes little sense".

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes but I'd imagine the reason for fortifying not being instant is probably based on the real-life idea that it takes time to prepare fortifcations. Obviously it's abstracted through putting it into game turns, but it's the basic idea.

I suppose your position was more neutral than I assumed. Anyway, the point is, as you said, gameplay trumps all here and if it plays well we're gonna leave it as is. I think even in Civ1 when you fortified a unit it had to be fortified for a turn before it got the bonus. I can distinctly remember that I didn't understand why the grey went more solid after a turn, but now I know.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I rather hate the massively favored defensive bonuses anyway. I could do without fortification at all. Civ IVs power system vs how easy it is to take cities is out of whack ----> part of the reason the AI sucks so greatly at war. It considers garrison troops in its city that are coded to never move as "power" and only takes a marginal consideration about walls/positioning etc.

However, attacking it on most speeds is annoying as hell due to the massive bonuses and the super duper uber defenses that allow one unit to kill 3 unless you do something about them. That's all well and good, but what really irks me is a civ doubling up its already substantial army mid-war, or teching out 2 techs AND having the money to instantly upgrade every defender it has. If you want realism, this fails. If you want balanced gameplay, this fails. It fails no matter what.

So while I was sarcastic about how it randomly takes years to get even a 5% fortify, allow me to be completely serious:

Troop movement vs tech pace vs troop production is completely ridiculous in this game. It's why I repeatedly have said that I WANT to play quick, but that the speed was thrown in as lip service and little else...it SUCKS. IMO even normal is pretty iffy. It just doesn't sit right that longbow civs with 10 cities can get 2-3 techs AND rifles in the middle of a 20 turn war where they do nothing but spam units. Can I work around it? Sure. It still bothers me a lot though.

IMO it should cut both ways too. Players get away with too much at war because of how the AI looks at power. IMO either nerf defenders, make units MOVE AT DIFFERENT RATES AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS, or adjust the hammer/upgrade costs to make war more palatable.

 

[Levgre]

I think fortify should also reduce collateral damage to that unit by 5-25%. As is, seige is a too powerful. It should make your force superior, but it shouldn't make so you can get wins with killing 30 units but only losing half your catapults