Forts in Warlords

[Elhoim]

Ok, different idea:
Fort provides LOS +1, and upgrades another LOS +1 with each of Iron Working, Optics, Chemistry, and Flight.

A Sentry Promoted unit on a hill in a fort in the Modern Age seeing 7 squares seems fine to me. That might provide a little advance warning in key areas.

That´s a good one. I also think that they shouldn´t replace other improvements... Perhaps a model that goes around the lines of the tile would look good...

 

[ekanata]

But city raider promotions work against forts as well right?

Still, you'll just need some CG promoted unit to defend it. In previous version, a mixed army is required (multiple units with different native bonus against specific unit class).

Nope, fortresses do NOT give bonus's to enemy units in them.

Perhaps it'll be better if fortress can act as mine field for the invader. Not that they'll get damage, but they should be less mobile since they need to sweep it as they pass or take longer route. Being a mine field would also justify the absence of other improvement.
As a mine field, enemy unit must end its move in it (fast unit can't easily pass it), and they can only move 1 tile away from the mine, allowing the defender to prepare. A mine field may deal minor damage to force enemy to stop and heal, thus slowing them further.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Maybe we should leave forts as they are, because I for one find them useful. To give some of the silly attributes you guys would give them would be massively exploitable in multiplayer.

The LOS idea being the worst...jeez, want to make invading even harder...

 

[Salah al-Din]

I think the forts are fine now with the changes in warlords. They certainly help a protective civ and I often use one or two on outlying forested hills. Basically my forts do have a zone of control, aside from the one or two garrisoned troops its where I put my cavalry or later tanks & gunships.

 

[Paeanblack]

Maybe we should leave forts as they are, because I for one find them useful. To give some of the silly attributes you guys would give them would be massively exploitable in multiplayer.

The LOS idea being the worst...jeez, want to make invading even harder...

I think making invading harder would be an overall benefit to the game. Civ 4 currently feels like too much wargame, not enough SimCiv. Previous versions had better balance.

 

[Andraeianus I]

Forts not only work well with chokepoints, but also when you have a long border. In a recent game I built a fort along this long border on a forrested hill to provide a place to retreat to when counterattacking invading forces. Give it a try!

 

[Tennyson]

I think making invading harder would be an overall benefit to the game. Civ 4 currently feels like too much wargame, not enough SimCiv. Previous versions had better balance.

Build a big military if you don't want to be attacked.

 

[BARBEERIAN]

Forst kinda do suck, I guess this change improves them a bit. generally any chokepoint I want defended I do with a Hilled city w/ Barracks/Walls/Castle and drop a Culture Bomb on it for visibility, and to radiate culture onto my neighbours.

I really wish they would implement something like SMAC's 'auto artillery shots' when units move within range of Garrisoned Forts or Cities. Then i might actually use some forts in key areas in the heart of my empire to slow/weaken enemies.

 

[Elhoim]

What really sucks is that you can´t build it on top of another improvement....

 

[sigmakan]

Ok . . . if you could build forts on top of other improvements then pillaging would become near impossible. Being able to strategically pillage an enemies metals is an important combat feature of civ. Taking this away would be . . . well . . . stupid.

 

[Randolph]

Maybe we should leave forts as they are, because I for one find them useful. To give some of the silly attributes you guys would give them would be massively exploitable in multiplayer.

The LOS idea being the worst...jeez, want to make invading even harder...

You mean that, god forbid, if forts were improved they might, *gasp*, make builder strategies effective in multiplayer! That would upset the grand tradition of reducing all multiplayer “strategy” games to building masses of units and throwing them at the enemy.
Besides CIV is, and has always been, primarily a single player game. Multiplayer is a novelty that appeals to a small proportion of civ players, it’s not “the real game” like many multiplayer enthusiasts like to think.

 

[Paeanblack]

Build a big military if you don't want to be attacked.

It's not so much about being attacked, it's just that the most cost-effective way to succeed is by rampant unit pumping and warmongering. It would be nice if wars were far more expensive, and there was actually a reason to remain peaceful.

 

[Rathelm]

Forts would be extremely worth building if they could be built over other improvements and if they gave a zone of control. Zone of Control with anything in this game would be great.

 

[Sibben]

I've only used them once, but they where quite effective. I had a giant border towards two civs I knew would come after me at some point (Monty and Cathy).

I built a Maginot line along the border with forts 3-4 tiles in between and roads (later RR:s) between them and a few defenders and one mobile skirmisher in each. I had a good lead and that meant I could keep them from pillaging very easily.

In other situations, apart from the one tile bottleneck somewhere, I have a hard time seing an extreme use with them.

 

[NKVD]

For forts to be really useful, I'd like to see it control adjacent squares, so that no unit could move through an adjacent square without capturing the fort. So if you had 3 spaces between mountains/sea, you could build it on the middle square and block access. Or, with 6 spaces between, you could build 2 forts, to block access. 1 square chokes are very rare.

exactly...

 

[Leif Roar]

One option would be to give units attacking out of forts a sallying bonus -- an extra first strike or a flat 20% withdrawal chance, for instance. This would give a "soft" zone of control in the squares around the fort, but one you'd have to exert manually.

 

[Skudor]

I don't often have much use for forts - but they can be effective as a base for mobile forces even when there is no chokepoint (I did have a couple of good chokepoints to defend in a recent game, so forts came into their own). Mostly I have only used forts as a marker on the map for where to send my mobile army, tanks and the like.

One improvement that I think is a must is to allow forts to be built on top of existing improvements. It's simply logical - the enemy will go after them so you should have the option of fortifying them. Other bonuses would be nice, but might start verging on making forts overpowered.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I agree that a zone of control is needed, and also they shouldn´t replace other improvements.

what he said.

ps. thanks for your mod, its one of the only ones i use

 

[parachute4u]

Since you cant build a line of 10 forts and keep 5+ units in each of them, I usually build ONE fort at the border (on a hill (with a forest)) and put one or two defenders (archers, longbowman) inside. The AI will attack the fort and it will be damaged from the attack. This gives me one turn of pillaging less, one or two dead/wounded AI units and a place to start the counter-attack from.
I never built more than 3 forts ever though....

 

[Elhoim]

ps. thanks for your mod, its one of the only ones i use

You are welcome!