Can forts and citadels be captured?

[SeismoGraf]

If they can be captured by enemy units, building forts and citadels could backfire badly. Usually, the better the placement of a fort, the more it hurts, should it fall in enemy hands.

Forgive my question 2 weeks before release, but I'm really curious about the defensive tools Civ5 will offer. From a gameplay perspective I think at least citadels should not give an enemy their huge strength bonus. The last thing a defensive player wants, is an expensive citadel becoming a liability and needing constant protection like a city. From a realism standpoint anything could have happened in a war: forts/citadels could either 1) stay intact, 2) lose their bonus, because they are damaged 3) be completely destroyed and removed.

 

[Diplomat32]

I would have to assume that forts and citadels can be captured. And yes, that would mean that they can backfire badly if you lose them. That would make war planning so important.

 

[Olleus]

IIRC, they only work for the person who owns the tile - ie: you have to capture the city close to them and not just the tile.

 

[Ahriman]

Right. No backfiring, otherwise it wouldn't be worth building them.

 

[Palance]

IIRC, they only work for the person who owns the tile - ie: you have to capture the city close to them and not just the tile.

Hopefully this is the case, it seems balanced. Can citadels and forts be destroyed?

 

[Tylerryan79]

They are improvements, so ya Id think they can be pillaged. If your unit that's in the fort or citadel dies then it can be pillaged.

 

[Ahriman]

Its not clear that improvements are completely destroyed by being pillaged in Civ5.

Some screenshots seemed to imply that pillaged improvements were out of action, but could be repaired by a worker (in less time than building the improvement from scratch).

It would be pretty lame to use great people to construct super-strong improvements if they could just be obliterated by a single pillage command.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Now that there's no more stacking of workers that makes sense, and being able to repair a GP improvement works for me.

 

[Souron]

"Forts do not provide a bonus to units in enemy territory." -- Civilization5.com

 

[Olleus]

That could back fire too. Imagine you've got a citadel guarding a mountain pass just behind a city. You defend that city as well as you can but when you've lost it you retreat to the citadel to defend the rest of your empire. However, as soon as the city gets over run by the enemy, the citadel falls out of your culture and into theres and suddenly its useless!

 

[Ahriman]

So don't build fortifications between your frontier city and the rest of your empire. Build them to defend the frontier.

 

[2K Greg]

Some screenshots seemed to imply that pillaged improvements were out of action, but could be repaired by a worker (in less time than building the improvement from scratch).

This is indeed how it works

 

[Tomice]

Thx for joining the discussion, Greg!

I just thought about it - if we can't pillage an improvement completely, how can we remove a farm that is built over an oil well?

I swould suppose workers can exchange the improvement. But I guess taking a worker with your army to destroy GP improvements is too pointless to be considered an abuse, is it?

 

[SeismoGraf]

This makes perfect sense from a gameplay perspective: the bonus from the fort is linked to who owns the tile. Together with the ability to pillage them, it appears nicely balanced.

So don't build fortifications between your frontier city and the rest of your empire. Build them to defend the frontier.

In this way the forts are facing away from your border cities towards the enemy. When conquering an enemy border city, a new fort line can be built in the same manner. Should the city be reconquered you already have the old forts as a fallback position.

In the ideal case the defender's forts would be of little benefit to an invader who conquered a city. Maybe the conqueror wants to pillage them and then construct new ones facing his enemy. Basicly use the same technique, but mirrored.

 

[Tylerryan79]

There's also a chance of someone building a citadel, or even a fort, near your mutual borders, then using a great artist to claim their fort or citadel, defeating their first line of defense.

 

[Some guy]

What exactly does "bonus" mean?

 

[Palance]

There's also a chance of someone building a citadel, or even a fort, near your mutual borders, then using a great artist to claim their fort or citadel, defeating their first line of defense.

Oh, that is a wonderful idea, especially if its a citadel. Two birds with one stone, I can't wait to try that one.

 

[Tylerryan79]

Bonus would be the defense modifier for the unit fortified in the fort.

 

[Ahriman]

This is indeed how it works

Excellent!
This is a very good design decision IMO. Thanks for confirming.

I just thought about it - if we can't pillage an improvement completely, how can we remove a farm that is built over an oil well?

Build an oil well improvement over the top of the farm.

But I guess taking a worker with your army to destroy GP improvements is too pointless to be considered an abuse, is it?

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.

 

[Schuesseled]

I would have to assume that forts and citadels can be captured. And yes, that would mean that they can backfire badly if you lose them. That would make war planning so important.

You assume incorrectly, the forts are for your use only, just like the roads you build (in your territory.)