Can forts and citadels be captured?

[Ahriman]

It would add to the strategy and tactics if they could be captured.

It would reduce strategy and tactics, because it wouldn't be worth building them, so you wouldn't see them used.

People don't like mechanics that are so underpowered as to be useless.
I don't want to spend time and give up a productive tile (or sacrifice a great general!) to create a strongpoint for the enemy inside my territory.

 

[Palance]

I don't want to spend time and give up a productive tile (or sacrifice a great general!) to create a strongpoint for the enemy inside my territory.

But actually, what does it matter? If you can't hold back the enemy with a fort/citadel then you certainly can't without one, and at that point you'll be defending the closest city not trying to retake the fort.
Having said that, I still like the way the mechanic works, whoever owns the tile owns the fort.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Personally, I think the added strategy of capturing forts would be a good thing (so it's better to give the bonus to whomever holds it). In addition, it would add extra uses to Roman Legions (by letting them build and use forts in enemy territories).

That being said, with the tile rules, it would be unrealistic to give the benefit to the invader since it's not that hard to take a fort, but it would unfairly penalize the unlucky defender who couldn't fully expel the enemy from their territory because they had lost the fort. This is why I've suggested, at a minimum, that forts have health and, ideally, a ranged attack (although I'd settle for health and allowing Archers to effectively hold the tile). Forts shouldn't just be something to use ZOC to slow invasions. They should be effective obstacles in their own right.

 

[SeismoGraf]

But actually, what does it matter? If you can't hold back the enemy with a fort/citadel then you certainly can't without one, and at that point you'll be defending the closest city not trying to retake the fort.
Having said that, I still like the way the mechanic works, whoever owns the tile owns the fort.

I can think of several scenarios where "underpowered forts" can lose you the game. For example: you have a city with 3 forts nearby occupied with 1 unit each. Now the enemy attacks your city and your 3 units are desperately needed to garrison or fight the enemy, thus must leave the forts. The enemy laughs and occupies the forts, maybe cutting reinforcements and protecting his ranged units from your cavalry. Alternatively, with his smart diversion, he could just sit in the forts and be an immense thorn in your flesh. Backfire.

To sum it up, and as it has already been said, "underpowered forts" would just not be used and add nothing to the game. This is logic:

I don't want to spend time and give up a productive tile (or sacrifice a great general!) to create a strongpoint for the enemy inside my territory.

 

[Palance]

I can think of several scenarios where "underpowered forts" can lose you the game. For example: you have a city with 3 forts nearby occupied with 1 unit each. Now the enemy attacks your city and your 3 units are desperately needed to garrison or fight the enemy, thus must leave the forts. The enemy laughs and occupies the forts, maybe cutting reinforcements and protecting his ranged units from your cavalry. Alternatively, with his smart diversion, he could just sit in the forts and be an immense thorn in your flesh. Backfire.

This is all true but how did the enemy get past three forts and assault the city. IE What was the purpose of the forts, surely they are very poorly placed. And in this case the defender seems destined to lose if he builds forts but has no other defensive army to back them up (hence having tp pull the fort sentries out to defend). I think the scenario you're describing is one of total lack of thought and preparation, the defender deserves whatever he gets. War, both offensively and defensively is won or lost before it even starts, depending on the preparations.

 

[sputnik323]

Glad everyone here can praise the design quality of forts in civ 5. However, after playing mods that actually change the mechanics of forts, I have to totally disagree with everyone here. Frankly I think the design of forts sucks (for gameplay and realism). What is the difference if an army takes something I build *city* or if they take a *fort*? both are not fun to lose. However, from an attackers point of view; it is much better when you are barely winning a battle to hold off in the nice fort you have taken over to hold your lines until the time when you can push the offensive again. Forts in civ 4 were worthless, and in civ 5 nothing seems to have changed except that 1upt forces forts to be more tactical. Try it out yourselves, download the Orbis modmod of FFH2 and see how forts can be an awesome part of the game, and an implementation of the modmod mechanics in a 1upt game would make them even more fun, strategic, and worth the AI to create them. As it stands now, forts are still not worth taking... find a way around no matter how long. There will not always be a "300" type mountain pass to defend. If forts are worth taking over, then people will not just go around them to hit the city - but actually have a reason to attack them.

 

[Tomice]

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.

Ah, thx. I forgot that you can't build something in enemy lands, which makes my thought pointless.

Try it out yourselves, download the Orbis modmod of FFH2 and see how forts can be an awesome part of the game, and an implementation of the modmod mechanics in a 1upt game would make them even more fun, strategic, and worth the AI to create them.

Would you be so kind and tell us what made them so much better in the modmod? Not everyone here is familiar with FFH.

 

[SJSerio]

It would reduce strategy and tactics, because it wouldn't be worth building them, so you wouldn't see them used.

People don't like mechanics that are so underpowered as to be useless.
I don't want to spend time and give up a productive tile (or sacrifice a great general!) to create a strongpoint for the enemy inside my territory.

Actually, it would increase it. Not only would you use them to defend your frontier, but as your empire grows, you would be wise to defend them as well so that your enemy can't get an advantage when campaigning against you. But, I guess that is too realistic... and since realism is chastised on these boards...

 

[Callonia]

As long as forts don't look like tiny bunkers anymore, I'm all for it -.-

 

[SeismoGraf]

This is all true but how did the enemy get past three forts and assault the city. IE What was the purpose of the forts, surely they are very poorly placed. And in this case the defender seems destined to lose if he builds forts but has no other defensive army to back them up (hence having tp pull the fort sentries out to defend). I think the scenario you're describing is one of total lack of thought and preparation, the defender deserves whatever he gets. War, both offensively and defensively is won or lost before it even starts, depending on the preparations.

How did they get past the forts and assault the city? Just some possibilities:

• Naval invasion or naval/embarked by-pass
• Just naval attack weakening the city to a point, where you have to leave the forts or risk losing the city
• Right of passage agreement with another bordering civ
• Instead of they getting past the forts, it is another enemy attacking from another angle

The scenario I've given is just a placeholder for all the worries "underpowered forts" could give the original builder. Even if you can afford to leave a unit in every fort at all times and still have all cities and resources protected at all times (whishful thinking).

Forts only provide a defensive bonus. In open terrain the invader may just ignore and walk past the forts. Then your fort units have 3 choices 1) stay in place and be an idle unit 2) if in range, attack without any bonus 3) leave the fort. In any case I only see life getting a lot more difficult for the defender of "underpowered forts".

To sum it up in a catchy phrase: "The unit should not be forced to protect a fort, but the fort's force protect the unit".

 

[SeismoGraf]

By the way, yesterday I got a PM from 12agnar0k:

Hi, I can't post currently but I can PM your answer, feel free to post it up so others know the answer too.

Fort's and Citadels are not owned as such, like a city or a unit, where by you the player control them, they are a tile improvement, like a farm.

It has already been confirmed that Forts and Citadels don't give a bonus in enemy territory, i.e if an enemy spearman comes into your territory and defeats a unit on a fort, the fort is still just an improvement and will provide no bonus to the spearman. Similarily, if they built one in your territory it would have no effect.

So whomever owns the territory where the fort is built is the only player who gets the defensive bonus, an ally will also get it one would assume.

Neutral territory, (that which has no cities borders on it) would provide the fort's bonus to any unit stationed on it, so if you have your forts built to bolster your defensive line in neutral territory, then yes if this is captured then the enemy gets its benefit, but not on anything in your own borders.

 

[Alki]

How did they get past the forts and assault the city? Just some possibilities:

• Naval invasion or naval/embarked by-pass
• Just naval attack weakening the city to a point, where you have to leave the forts or risk losing the city
• Right of passage agreement with another bordering civ
• Instead of they getting past the forts, it is another enemy attacking from another angle

You missed the dressing up your warriors as sheep option which is how Edinburgh Castle fell the one and only time it was taken. I suppose that would be modelled by a spy in Civ.

 

[SeismoGraf]

You missed the dressing up your warriors as sheep option which is how Edinburgh Castle fell the one and only time it was taken. I suppose that would be modelled by a spy in Civ.

Lol. This sounds like a mixture of the Trojan Horse and Monthy Python. Also, one should not forget another big threat to the forts - cruel joke warfare.

 

[Alki]

Lol. This sounds like a mixture of the Trojan Horse and Monthy Python. Also, one should not forget another big threat to the forts - cruel joke warfare.

Btw In reality it was taken several times and one time at least by Skullduggery where the soldiers sadly dressed themselves as merchants not sheep.

 

[Ahriman]

But actually, what does it matter? If you can't hold back the enemy with a fort/citadel then you certainly can't without one, and at that point you'll be defending the closest city not trying to retake the fort.

It is incorrect to suppose that holding back the enemy and holding the particular fort tile are the same thing.

Actually, it would increase it. Not only would you use them to defend your frontier, but as your empire grows, you would be wise to defend them as well so that your enemy can't get an advantage when campaigning against you.

Why would you build forts when they provide a minimal benefit, while hurting your economy?
They've never really been useful in previous versions of Civ.

But, I guess that is too realistic...

Actually not realistic at all. Historic forts needed only a small garrison, not an entire army stationed there.

 

[Elenhil]

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

Which makes culture bombs sligtly more useful in actual warfare.

 

[SJSerio]

It is incorrect to suppose that holding back the enemy and holding the particular fort tile are the same thing.


Why would you build forts when they provide a minimal benefit, while hurting your economy?
They've never really been useful in previous versions of Civ.


Actually not realistic at all. Historic forts needed only a small garrison, not an entire army stationed there.

Way back when CIV V was first announced, their was a good discussion about how forts could better be implemented before OUPT was officially confirmed. I would have to dig far back in the forum to find it.

Personally, forts should be like micro cities (defense wise). They would provide small bonuses and, more importantly, act like cities for defense (just maybe not AS strong).

Oh, and BTW, with 1UPT, there is only a small garrison in a fort... not a full army!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, my thought is, at a minimum, give it health like a city. That way, you can station an Archer in the fort and exercise control over the surrounding area. In order for the Archer to be hurt, the fort's health has to be removed. That way, forts are physical obstacles, not super fortified units. Of course, if a fort was unoccupied, then it's health bonus would disappear. There are actual historical examples of armies screwing up and a bold commander takes their forts. Forts should also be upgradable, so old forts could fall quickly to new units (like gunpowder obsoleting medieval forts).

 

[SeismoGraf]

Oh, and BTW, with 1UPT, there is only a small garrison in a fort... not a full army!

Ok, another realism discussion. In real life a castle, fort, bunker or other defensive structure could be permanently garrisoned by a few dozen men. Lets say 100 for sake of simplicity. In real life, this is no big risk, because an army will not appear out of nowhere; the defender usually has enough time to bolster the garrison.

Forts require Engineering, which is a medieval tech. How many units will you have in the medieval era? Nobody knows, lets say it is a whopping 50 units. So the 1 unit garrisoned in the fort represents 1/50 of your whole medieval military.

This is by no means a "small garrison". Historically, I wonder how many men 1/50 of all Chinese medieval troops would approximately be. For modern times, I don't see how the USA would put 1/50 or 1/100 of their troops in a single fort. Packed like sardines in a can

 

[Louis XXIV]

Medieval armies were quite a bit smaller than modern armies. The English only had 6000 troops at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, Hastings is usually estimated at a max of 8000 for each side. Obviously, this wasn't their full army (Harold had trouble marshaling men to fight William, William had to leave a garrison to guard Normandy). But if you double the number to 16,000, 1/50 is what, 300 men? Not too unreasonable for an abstraction.