An in-depth proposition on how to fix Protective: (Please read and comment!)

[Henrik]

As far as I know gunpowder units ignore the effects of walls and castles anyway. As such all the obsolete date does is prevent you from building them. Therefore it's not necessary to obsolete them with gunpowder

I say if you make them available earlier, give trebuchets a bonus when bombarding them (if they haven't got one allready).

Also for those wanting to strengthen serfdom, technically a castle would only give it's trade route bonus to a government running serfdom. Though this wouldn't be a popular change I suppose.

Not in favour of adding an XP bonus to castles, but if you do, make sure it only works if you're running vassalage. As without a feudalistic vassal system there won't be a lord in that castle training men to help the king.

 

[Calder]

Building castles and using the Nationhood civic are the two least things in the game I use. I wonder if a castle could provide under Nationhood the ability to draft 4 units per turn, and throw in a +1 happy with castle on top of the +2 happy with barracks, whether I might then be tempted to use them both.

 

[Munch]

Some uses I have heard of but not tested myself yet: Sea-bordering forts are navigatable for ships, forts can be used to base aircraft, and forts can be built on top of resources while still harvesting that resource. If any of these are NOT actually in the game then I would suggest they be added, just to help out Forts. But as I list my suggestions, I will assume these are in fact already in the game. However, I will do my best to make some suggestions despite the lack of reliable tested reported uses of Forts.

...

Part 3) "Cheap" Bunkers and Bomb Shelters. Increase these buildings normal cost.

All those uses for forts do exist! Being able to base aircraft in a fort (with adequate fort defence of course) is a great feature, and being able to send boats through 2 adjacent forts is also fantastic.

As for cheap bunkers and bomb shelters, that's a sensible idea, giving the trait some extra usefulness in the late game. Similarly, double production speed of jails could be a good one?

How about this for protective: double production of great general inside own borders?

 

[Bleahdom]

Castle (Requires Construction)
Cost: 200
+3
+2
+1 Trade Routes
25% Defense (Except vs Gunpowder-based units)
-25% damage to defenses from bombardment (Except vs Gunpowder-based units)
Double Production Speed for Protective Leaders
Requires Walls
Double Production Speed with Stone
Obsoletes with Gunpowder

Anything else (apart a better suggestion that is) and it's useless. The idea of free market making it overpowered isn't really an issue anymore, mainly because the AI almost always switches to mercantilism, even those that are supposed to prefer free market.

I was thinking more along the lines of just the trade bonus becoming obsolete and no more building of castles once you reach gunpowder. Since you would be able to build it from construction onwards, you can have the building up and running in all your major cities before gunpowder.
Whilst the defensive bonus has always been rather excessive, I find myself needing to bring accuracy promoted trebs or I lose the initiative.

 

[alpaca]

I don't see why you are complaining about the castles, except for the short timeframe they are available in they're fairly decent buildings (an extra trade route and 25% EP is not to be sneezed at once you found out how to use espionage properly).
That said, it's not too easy to move them back in the tech tree. Depending on the game, both Rifling and Steel often come around for me at about the same time or even earlier than Economics which incidentally makes castles more worthwhile. Since without corporations, Free Market gives a negligible bonus if you already have castles because the extra trade routes in your bad cities where you have castles doesn't even make up for the lost espionage benefits, I'm not too prone to even research Economics for some time (because the period is perfect for waging a high-tech war).

If you want to give them any bonus give them some synergy with Serfdom. In reality, castles served as a way to control the land and the people who lived on the land (as well as trade but that's already represented through the extra trade route). So how about giving castles the ability to draft units under serfdom? It would definitely make me consider building castles and adopting serfdom instead of slavery or caste system because drafting can be a very good way to speed up unit production (especially if you also have Theocracy to get the 2xp).

To fix protective is a difficult task. The problem with the defensive bonuses is that you usually don't even want to defend (especially not in cities where you'll be harassed by collateral damage all too easily) - you want to win the field battles. So how about this:
I think Firaxis should create a special promotion to decrease the effect of collateral damage by 50% or so in friendly territory (to represent that the troops know the land, and it should include newly-captured cities for usefulness reasons) and give that to Protective's Archery, Gunpowder and Melee units instead of the Drill promotion. The effect seems to be weaker at first but if you think about it, you'll see that the actual problem when defending is collateral damage. If you could greatly reduce that, you could get very good effects out of defending your settlements against a large stack which is right now almost impossible (anybody ever played against Shaka?)

In addition to that, I would buff the walls a bit because right now they're half-useless (it only ever makes sense to build them in cities at the front to buy some time while the AI bombards it). In my personal mod I gave them +1 happiness which makes them somewhat worthwhile to build and is incidentally a nice bonus for Pro.

As for the forts: I agree that it'd be cool if they had a ZOC (incidentally the same goes for cities) - I think SMAC is the answer again. There were similar defensive structures which had a one-tile ZOC which forced units to stop after every turn (movement there was faster than in Civ4 iirc) and allowed garrisoned units to shoot at units moving through their ZOC. I believe that's perfect for slowing down your opponent and preparing for surprise attacks so I really can't understand why Firaxis didn't include something like that.
In addition you could give Pro a construction time bonus for forts.

By the way, against forts you can also use the City Raider promotion (it's kind of obvious but I guess I'd say it nevertheless because there seems to be some confusion about the "works like a city" thing)

@Bleahdom: Strange. I found the AI rarely has Mercantilism in my games (more often, they'll go with Free Market). Maybe it depends on the difficulty setting and map? I often play Emperor or Immortal on Big and Small maps.

 

[Solipsism]

Proposed changes:
For forts I think stationed units given the ability to use their first strikes against all moving in ZOC could be a great idea, combined with ability to build them in neutral territory. As it is now, building a fortified border is useless since you have to place a unit in every single tile, and usually you just don't have enough units to do that effectively.

Would make more interesting strategies than the too common city sieges.

I agree with obsolete with corporation, much more expensive (they were major undertakings), built with const+feudalism. Draft with serfdom (also kind of counters the slightly overpowered nationalism rushes).


Also, not entirely related, I think severely reduced cultural bonuses for cities and instead making that bonus immune to siege weapons (siege weapons have plenty of uses anyway) could make wars, chichen itza and castles a lot more interesting.

 

[Bleahdom]

I play emperor/monarch on standard/large terra maps. The AI tends to switch to mercantilism and stay there till state property unless they don't have much land and rely on trade routes for commerce, so it might just be due to the map settings.

 

[ayien]

Personally, I changed Protective by removing spys from jail and courthouse and allowing 1 from walls (making these actually useful in more than a few border cities) and 2 from castles. Removed the traderoute from castles, but gave them small espionage-defense. Both walls and castles obsolete at democracy (when national security building can be built, this one also gets +100% production speed for protective leaders).
Turns protective leaders into espionage leaders, which I think BtS lacked. I did remove City Garrison from the free promotions of protective leaders, though.

 

[niels251]

i totally agree with you. What i want to be added is an modern fortification building that will have a bonus against gunpowder units and later on tanks. If you look at the history they made certain defence structures for tanks and gunpowder units.

 

[Munch]

i totally agree with you. What i want to be added is an modern fortification building that will have a bonus against gunpowder units and later on tanks. If you look at the history they made certain defence structures for tanks and gunpowder units.

Good idea. Like the defences around Moscow, 1941. Trenches, tank traps etc.

 

[Supr49er]

Part 2) Forts.


2B) Provide a healing bonus to units inside a Fort. I hate to list another suggestion that may already apply to the game, however again, if you can not already use Forts in this way then you should be able to.

3B) Give units in forts the ability to take "pot shots" at enemy units passing by. Pretty sure I remember this from Civ3, and I see no reason why this should not still be in the game, though perhaps I am unaware of some cheese or exploit this caused. So I supposed I will tenatively add this to the list.

Yes, Forts should act as medic I. Pot shots did occur as well as not allowing the enemy to bypass the fort. Pot shots are OK, but the AI should be smart enough to go around the fort.

 

[Diamondeye]

1A) Allow them to be built a little earlier. The timing at which they come in to the game feels somewhat off. Not only would this make them more useful in practice, but it is strange that the same technology that unlocks them (Engineering) also unlocks the same siege unit that historically contributed to obsoleting Castles (Trebuchets) Similarly, in game, Castles do not become available until they are already on their way to becoming obsolete. As for what specific technology they should become available with: just throwing a couple possibilities out there, I would suggest either Construction or Machinery.

I think Engineering is fine. Construction and Machinery are already hi-prio techs and are far too early.

2A) Have them obsolete later in the technology tree. One of the reasons that Economics is too early other than simply it's placement on the technology tree is that it also unlocks Free Market. For many players, this is too important of a technology to postpone getting for long, if they do not beeline it all together. Thus, not only is this technology too early in the tree to be obsoleting Castle, but it is also most likely one of the first technologies a player will research upon reaching that point in the tree. Thus, again, as for a couple possibilities I am just throwing up in the air to start discussion for new technologies to obsolete Castle, I would suggest Steel or maybe Rifling.

They should atleast obsolete at a appropriate tech. What has Economics got to do with castles? I say... Steel or gunpowder.

3A) Increase the bonuses offered by Castle. This one is the most difficult to offer good suggestions for, but I will try to suggest some ideas that would not only make the Castle in-game more useful, but also make sense historically. Thus, here are some suggestions listed here for easier viewing: (again, if you reply, please say if you particularly like or dislike any specific suggestions)

a) Increase the Culture generated by Castle. As an important symbol of the Medieval Period, I think it would be justified to have the Culture generated by Castle increased to reflect this. And perhaps, after the Castle is "obsolete", it could lose it's usual bonuses however gain a slight increase in Cultural generation? This would reflect the massive "cultural" value and drawing power that the remaining castles of the world still have today.

I don't think the castle should be a -heavy building. One is fine.

b) Offer a synergy with Hereditary Rule. In the Civilopedia's words, "Castles served as administrative and judicial centers and as a seat of a lord's power." Thus, I think it would make sense to have castles offer some kind of citizen-management type of power, possibly in combination with Hereditary Rule. This could include such bonuses as a discount in city or civic maintenence (for that specific city), less war weariness, etc.

Sounds good... Maybe some kind of mini-courthouse effect?

EDITED IN:
c) Offer a synergy with Serfdom. (credit for the idea to DrewBledsoe) This would both improve Castle's usefulness, but also make Serfdom more competitive with Slavery.

Not that Slavery can't compete with Serfdom in my opinion, atleast with the random event. I usually delay slavery or even skip it now. Serfdom also has a nice low cost. Anyway, good idea.

4A) Increase the amount of Castle costs. Wait - what? Yes, you heard me right, but I have not gone insane, I am well aware that this would be "nerfing" Castles. However consider this: I did not say we should only "buff" Castles, I said we should rebalance them. This means that all of these suggestions should be taken all at once, which in turn means that if we really are going to make Castle significantly more useful, then it should cost significantly more to build. We want Castles to be useful, not overpowered. Obviously, if none of the other changes are ever implemented, then I would not be saying we should increase the cost of Castles as they are in the game right now (3.13).

Good reasoning for a complete logical argument, sounds fair to me.

With some ideas on how to improve Castles out there, I will move on to the next part of my overall suggestion.

Part 2) Forts.

1B) Provide a synergy with the Protective trait. Yes, this is my weakest suggestion. The civilopedia lists Forts as acting as a city for combat purposes, but I have never heard if people could use the promotion "City Garrison" while defending on a Fort. If this bonus does NOT extend, then it should.

2B) Provide a healing bonus to units inside a Fort. I hate to list another suggestion that may already apply to the game, however again.

3B) Give units in forts the ability to take "pot shots" at enemy units passing by. Pretty sure I remember this from Civ3, and I see no reason why this should not still be in the game.

4B) Provide defense versus aerial or naval bombardment, and the collateral damage of siege units. Pretty self explanitory.

5B) Allow Forts to be built on Neutral areas of the map. This could obviously significantly improve the strategic usefulness of Forts, though hopefully not make them overpowered. If you actually got to build one outside the borders of a civilization you were at war with, it would serve as a forward-base of operations and a place for your injured troops to regenerate at.

1, 2 and 5 are already implemented.
3 is not really necessary, have a CG longbow in the fort and then some cavalry and you have a Zone of Control. Same with ships.
4 should definately be applied. Forts should also be harder to destroy with bombardment than, per example, cottages.



My own suggestion to a Castle:

Castle, +1, +25%, +1 Trade Route, 120
Double production speed with Stone.
Double production with the Protective Trait.
+50% city defense (against non-gunpowder units).
+25% resistance against bombardment (against non-gunpowder units).
+2 experience to units trained in the city if running the "Vassalage" civic.
+1 from farms if running the "serfdom" civic.
Obsoletes with Gunpowder(Except for the city defence).

Eventually, to not overpower Vassalage, the +2 exp could be class-specific (either siege or archers, is my guess).

Whatcha think?

 

[bonafide11]

Well, you're not joking that its an in-depth proposition, but one problem: Protective does NOT need any fixing! It's a perfectly strong trait the way it is...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Protective doesn't need Fixing, but I'd say Castles do.

The simplest would probably be to make them obsolete with Corporation rather than Economics. Reasonably late, but still a key tech for getting to the Industrial Revolution (Assembly Line)
I wouldn't want to add more abilities to those overburdened buildings

Walls also need to be improved (hence suggested Great Wall requirement of 1 and a 10-25 spydefense bonus)

Both of those improvements are needed to allow some benefit to the buildings for the player who is not under continual attack

On a Side Note.. Serfdom should probably also be Improved, I'd just give it No Maintenance (so there's a reason to switch to it from Tribalism, if you have enough Workers)

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I thought that castles should reduce maintenance. The reason being that castles weren't just an extra good wall, they were also the home of the local government. That's kind of modeled by the extra trade route, but I think castles should also take 50% off distance from palace maintenance.

 

[MrFrodo]

/agree

The sentiment of this post is absolutely right on. By the time I get Engineering, I'm typically beelining to Liberalism, and Economics is gonna happen soon. So what is the point of Castles?

Protective Trait has zero appeal to me. On rare occaisions I will be forced to play a defensive war against a civ with more military power. But typically I can defend myself fine, can get out of the war diplomatically, or have Statue of Zeus, etc to make the war end soon. Or they are just overwhelming and destroy me, in which case Protective might allow my civ to survive, but probably never win. If I go to war I want to be offensive and win quickly.

The suggestions are all excellent too. Make Serfdom/Vassalage/Heriditary Rule/Protective intertwine with Castle in oder to make them viable options as well. You could imagine a style of play where you build up Castles starting at Construction and use these Medieval Civs to augment your economy/military and perhaps get an advantage before Gunpowder makes the defensive bonuses useless. I really see no reason at all to make any cultural or financial modifiers from a Castle expire. Perhaps they would degrade, but I love to go visit castles in modern life and they still provide tourism income, culture and are a source of pride for many European communities. Gunpowder ruins then enough.


I have really enjoyed picking up BtS and playing Civ again, more than any other version of Civ. I belive one of the reasons is that the gameplay options feel much more diverse. There is no one right way to play, no one economic model that is completely superior, no one unit you can get to in order to dominate, no one tech path that works best. It really depnds on many factors. Making another viable path to success that gave the Medeival period more play, made those civic important again and gave Castles a part in the fun, which would be augmented by taking Protective trait leaders, is an excellent concept.

Some more suggestions:

Knights created in a city with a castle gets an extra 2 xp. Also, they get their defensive bonus in a Castle.

Every Castle in your civilization adds +1 commerce to the Palace.

 

[MrScorpio]

A quick suggestion on Forts. What do you think about them providing, in addition to the current benefits, +1 production, +1 commerce after Civil Service and an additional +1 commerce after military tradition? I think that would at least give them some relevance before flight.

 

[Larklight]

Knights created in a city with a castle gets an extra 2 xp. Also, they get their defensive bonus in a Castle.

Every Castle in your civilization adds +1 commerce to the Palace.

Very cool idea about the knights- maybe you could sacrifise a knight to produce a castle if they're expensive, or get a free knight (or free knight upkeep) with a castle?

 

[seasnake]

Currently I have them obsolete at chemistry, and that seems to help a lot.
I like the idea of a slight bonus, the synergy with Serfdom would be fun. Maybe an additional food? Would that be useful at that point in the game? Or maybe some more money?

 

[Honorable_Pawn]

I agree 100% that castles or even walls for that matter should be a more important factor in the game. Both because it would be more historically accurate but also would lead to more interesting combat. Definitely you should be able to build both sooner in the tech tree. I like your suggestion about forts too. It would make it easier to set up lines of defense and make strategic attacks to lessor defended cities more worthwhile and interesting. My suggestion would be to reduce the defense bonuses from culture. In my mind it makes little sense that culture should play a large role in the defense of a city. Maybe in the industrial and modern ages when you have rebels and guerrillas but in ancient times it makes littles sense to me how having built Notre Dame is going to help you fend off attacks.

Agreed.

The whole reason people use spies instead of catapults...

I don't like the culture defense thing at all. I think it should be completely eliminated. A more developed city probably is harder to conquer. Nevertheless, I think the defense modifer that culture tries to emulate should be based upon the number of building (or something else) and not the accumulated culture.

How does a catapult reduce culture anyway? Isn't culture an abstract concept? How do we use a physical object to bombard an abstract concept?