Community Feature: Worker Improvements

[stealth_nsk]

yeah, that's weird.

The reason for forts on enemy territory to not give any defense is to increase the fort value.
I could also imagine a lot of reasons to make this look realistic (for example locals know all secret entrances and will use them against attackers)

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Windmill are also iconic of the lower countries and Valmy. Maybe windmill locations in spain can settle the debate.

 

[Dunkah]

So roads cost 1 GP per tile RR 2 per tile. This means you will need to keep the coast of the road/ RR in mind as you are building it. Assuming that until you actually connect the city you are building a road to the cost in maintenance could be quite considerable depending on how long it takes to build the raod.

If a road is going to be built to a city that is 5 hexxes away and it takes 5 turns per hex to build after turn 5 you start to incur 1 gp per turn maintenance, at Turn 10 you have paid 5 gold and incur 2 GP etc...

Turn 05 = 1 GP (0)
Turn 10 = 2 GP (5)
Turn 15 = 3 GP (15)
Turn 20 = 4 GP (30)
Turn 25 = 5 GP (50 GP cost) Connected, start to recieve benefits of trade route. Double this for New Cities that will be connected by RR.

 

[Dunkah]

The reason for forts on enemy territory to not give any defense is to increase the fort value.
I could also imagine a lot of reasons to make this look realistic (for example locals know all secret entrances and will use them against attackers)

You could think of the Maginot Line. All of the gun emplacements were facing Germany. Useless once the Germans had outflanked it.

 

[Schuesseled]

then the best way to build a road in 1upt would be to have a worker on each tile of the new road and build it that way.

 

[Mr_Wonka]

why the heck are mountains useless once again? They should at least earn some science in the modern era. whats the deal 2k Greg?

 

[Ahriman]

Well since you dont get the benefits from the tile unless you are working it, maybe they could implement it where you dont incur the maintenance cost unless you are working it.

This would be very confusing, to have your maintenance costs change as you allocate workers/specialists.

The reason for forts on enemy territory to not give any defense is to increase the fort value.

Precisely. Why build a fort if the invading enemy army can shelter in it?

 

[Le Sage]

You could think of the Maginot Line. All of the gun emplacements were facing Germany. Useless once the Germans had outflanked it.

Yeah, forts in warfare during and after WW2 were pretty much useless. The Germans just went around them and stormed onto the great cities in their Blitzkrieg and I cannot imagine the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 (the schoolbook example of offensive warfare) being bogged down by fortifications.

I am thinking about Medieval forts though. Castles in the landscape that should have a mega impact on the strategic considerations during wartime. Such castles should not be rendered useless once you take them, but there should be the possibility to indeed use them against the enemy. In the Middle Ages, castles were the rulers in the landscape, and they were not only the homes of the landlords, but also important bricks in the wargame.

It should be easily moddable though.

 

[King Jason]

I am thinking about Medieval forts though. Castles in the landscape that should have a mega impact on the strategic considerations during wartime. Such castles should not be rendered useless once you take them, but there should be the possibility to indeed use them against the enemy. In the Middle Ages, castles were the rulers in the landscape, and they were not only the homes of the landlords, but also important bricks in the wargame.

But castles are city improvements and, furthermore, the cities in civ perform the exact function that you're asking for.

The forts aren't castles, they're walls and towers and checkpoints across the lands, etc.

Plus from a gameplay perspective it's more functional. Most likely would never construct a fort if they knew it could be used against them if they lost it.

 

[Szpilman]

Only that for an enemy to use your fort, it would mean not advancing his offensive (at least one less unit), while for you to use your fort it means keeping your ground against invaders, exactly what you're supposed to do.

Further, if someone is coming, it's in your best interest to occupy your own fort first and not lose it easily. If you do however, you're likely screwed anyway.

I mean, if you have a well placed fort, then you're gonna shift the whole battle from near your city to near the fort. That means having most of your defenses there, your 'big shot'. I don't see how the enemy might use a fort that's already been left behind in where the next battles will take place (or you already lost the war) to his great advantage. You, on the other hand, have every reason to.

 

[fromeast2west]

I've never understood the connection between Biology and Oil.

'Oooh, look what I found under the microscope... that gives me a great idea for extracting and using that black stuff that's coming out of the ground...'...

It's one of the artificial connections in Civ that I've always wanted removed. By setting up requirements they way they do it limits the ability to play 'what if' scenarios, which is something I really liked in Alpha Centauri.

 

[Lyoncet]

Plus from a gameplay perspective it's more functional. Most likely would never construct a fort if they knew it could be used against them if they lost it.

Particularly true with 1UPT. If you lost that one garrisoned unit, your opponent would have a fortified flank on your line.

 

[Szpilman]

Particularly true with 1UPT. If you lost that one garrisoned unit, your opponent would have a fortified flank on your line.

Though it may not be the best realism-wise, an ideal scenario might be that one couldn't take a fort on the same turn he dispatched it's defenses (especially not with an adjacent, full health, unit). That'd give the defender a turn to outmaneuver the enemy as to not lose control over the fort. Clever offensive might still claim it, though.

I think it would make for more exciting plus unrestricted warfare.

Edit: Also, additionally or alternatively, a unit claiming a fort might see penalties on the first turn settling in it, due to falling prey to it's interior traps, as well as being harassed by locals at night.

 

[Le Sage]

But castles are city improvements and, furthermore, the cities in civ perform the exact function that you're asking for.

The forts aren't castles, they're walls and towers and checkpoints across the lands, etc.

Plus from a gameplay perspective it's more functional. Most likely would never construct a fort if they knew it could be used against them if they lost it.

Yeah. Those ideas are worth thinking about indeed. I always imagined the early era forts in Civilization being these Medieval landlord castles I was talking about earlier. In my mind, modern forts went to being representations of the Maginot Line or the Trenches of World War One in the Modern Era.

Oh well. I bet they've thought it through though, and we'll see how it works when we get the game.

 

[King Jason]

Only that for an enemy to use your fort, it would mean not advancing his offensive (at least one less unit), while for you to use your fort it means keeping your ground against invaders, exactly what you're supposed to do.

Further, if someone is coming, it's in your best interest to occupy your own fort first and not lose it easily. If you do however, you're likely screwed anyway.

I mean, if you have a well placed fort, then you're gonna shift the whole battle from near your city to near the fort. That means having most of your defenses there, your 'big shot'. I don't see how the enemy might use a fort that's already been left behind in where the next battles will take place (or you already lost the war) to his great advantage. You, on the other hand, have every reason to.

This is a silly argument. Example of a fort's defensive bonus sucking if it were lost;

A battle is taking place an an area, say 5 v 5 units... 1 of my units, the one occupying the fort perhaps, is killed, thus the enemy takes the tile... now there is a unit in the fort that is tougher to kill.

I'm not talking about holding grounds, the pros and cons of not advancing. I'm talking tile to tile combat mechanics. Losing a fort doesn't mean you lost the battle in that entire area, as you so implied. It means the unit inside the fort was killed and per the way the game functions, was occupied by an enemy unit.

So no... for the enemy to use the fort, it wouldn't mean halting his offensive. It would mean occupying the tile that it's on during a particular point where I'd like to attack him.

Sure, I could draw him out of the tile, but considering it's my fort, and thus in my territory, and I'm being assaulted... naturally, that would mean retreating deeper into my territory. Something I wouldn't exactly want to do. I'd rather not have built the fort in the first place.

 

[Lyoncet]

This is actually getting me really psyched to see how warfare will pan out in CiV. Who's ever heard of "giving up ground" in civ before?

 

[Szpilman]

This is a silly argument. Example of a fort's defensive bonus sucking if it were lost;

A battle is taking place an an area, say 5 v 5 units... 1 of my units, the one occupying the fort perhaps, is killed, thus the enemy takes the tile... now there is a unit in the fort that is tougher to kill.

I'm not talking about holding grounds, the pros and cons of not advancing. I'm talking tile to tile combat mechanics. Losing a fort doesn't mean you lost the battle in that entire area, as you so implied. It means the unit inside the fort was killed and per the way the game functions, was occupied by an enemy unit.

So no... for the enemy to use the fort, it wouldn't mean halting his offensive. It would mean occupying the tile that it's on during a particular point where I'd like to attack him.

Sure, I could draw him out of the tile, but considering it's my fort, and thus in my territory, and I'm being assaulted... naturally, that would mean retreating deeper into my territory. Something I wouldn't exactly want to do. I'd rather not have built the fort in the first place.

I see now how it's silly on it's own, thus I had to make another post with some gameplay considerations

I think it's actually not bad the way it is, since it seems to work out pretty well. Only I'd love to see modding towards my ideal as explained over the two posts above.

This is actually getting me really psyched to see how warfare will pan out in CiV. Who's ever heard of "giving up ground" in civ before?

Me too! And here's coming from someone who seldom enjoys a warmongering expansionist civ game. Silly were the SoD. Good riddance.

It now puts CiV as a mix of classic Civ and Total War in my wishful head (never played board wargames à la PG).

 

[Thyrwyn]

I am 100% certain that 2K_Greg confirmed that only roads/railroads have a maintenance cost. No I do not have a link. I can't remember which message board it was on, much less which thread. . .

 

[pi-r8]

This is actually getting me really psyched to see how warfare will pan out in CiV. Who's ever heard of "giving up ground" in civ before?

...I've done that often in Civ 4.

 

[Lyoncet]

...I've done that often in Civ 4.

My statement was a simplification for simplicity's sake. Guess it wasn't too bright of me to assume that web forums are conducive to getting your point across in such a way.