[DLL] (7-NS) defend against Citadel placement exploits using forts

[Tekamthi]

Proposal:

Forts, and tiles adjacent to forts, are blocked from being claimed by rival citadel.

For consideration in future rounds (not part of proposal): Restriction applies while worker is actively building a fort, but not for an incomplete fort that has no worker actively building it. (See rationale on this point a few posts below)

Proposal purpose: gives player option to block enemy from tunnelling through territory with citadels, without flat restrictions. Improves general fort/Citadel interaction, and buffs vp's underwhelming forts without actually making them directly stronger in combat

 

[Rekk]

Restriction applies while worker is actively building a fort

Please no. Why do you want this?

 

[Tekamthi]

Please no. Why do you want this?

Okay.

But consider rationale as I remove it: defending player has a line of forts setup to block citadels from tunnelling. Attacker has stack of GG's initially contained behind the fort wall. Attacker breaks through fort wall and starts first Citadel for tunnel. Defender needs a QUICK option to block the tunnel from progressing unless it has pre built multiple fort lines (not reasonable expectation imo). A worker must still be defended while building and can be chased off the plot or captured easily. The balance between defend and attack option against the tunnel is more or less preserved as the battle continues, provided defender is quick with its workers. Without this, the defender will crumble quickly to a stack of GG's after initial forts are broken

 

[Rekk]

Ah, I see.

And this would really only be a multiplayer solution. The AI isn't going to do this.

More and more, all of these ad-hoc solutions are pointing to just getting rid of the ability.

 

[Tekamthi]

Well the AI also doesn't try to tunnel generally speaking, and human can restrain themselves if they really want to play exploit free. AI does build some forts as is, enough to defend against at least some tunnelling. But yeah their priority for forts would have to be cranked up

 

[pineappledan]

I agree with @Stalker0 that these proposals don't seem ready for a vote.

I think what ought to be done with Lebensraum is a question that needs more time in the oven.

 

[Rompersenor]

This not only solves Lebensraum but also gives a lot of tactical depth for fort placement (will you build fort instead of that plantation on banana tile just to be protected against landgrab? EDIT ok this may not be possible but anyway). Cool.

 

[pineappledan]

I don’t think you can build forts on resources

 

[Tekamthi]

I think the fort/citadel play and counter play might be improved here generally, in addition to providing player option against the exploit. You may not be able to build fort on resource but you can adjacent to it, there'd be some added weight there.

For this to work well we'd probably at least need some small AI support for it in their analysis, a higher priority on getting forts installed when a neighbor has a general

 

[pineappledan]

While I like the idea in general, I don't much care for the idea of having incomplete forts block steals. I know you're trying to address tunneling, but I feel like this will favor defense too much, and I like the idea of allowing players to have a breakthrough.

Having forts/citadels block steals is already considerably more power in the defensive toolkit than we have now.

 

[Tekamthi]

Aye it's somewhat simpler that way too -- see a fort, can't do citadel til you clear it. Can always add on the other piece later if necessary

 

[rkkn]

I don’t think you can build forts on resources

you indeed can't, which is very annoying

 

[azum4roll]

The AI is way behind on Citadel placement (can't abuse Lebensraum, can't place Citadels at all while at war). This just adds to their list of restrictions further.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.