Community Feature: Worker Improvements

[wapamingo]

"Forts do not provide a bonus to units in enemy territory"

I think this is silly, and particular has no factual ground - we just have to look at medieval history to see so many battles fought over key strategically located forts.

The Fort tile improvement should have been re-engineered as it stands right now it is a useless tile improvement. It functions worse than in Civ4.

In any case, if they could change it then I think Fort improvement should be:

> can garrison a single unit absorbing the HP of the garrisoned unit
> a unit can sit on top of it, and while there gets defensive bonus and if ranged +1 range.
> forts can only be built 1 hex away from other forts (that is, 1 hex empty between forts)
> if conquered, fort grants all bonus to occupying army - in order to have fort function it must be garrisoned (thereby consuming 1 unit)

This makes forts much more valuable from a strategic point, and more difficult to conquer.

 

[MkLh]

Interesting!

admittedly, the missing production improvements were hardly ever useful (and hills almost always better). Mines on hills was all the production needed far to often.

I think everyone who played CIV on Immortal+ found a good use of workshops, windmills, and waterwheels.

 

[Schuesseled]

"Forts do not provide a bonus to units in enemy territory"

I think this is silly, and particular has no factual ground - we just have to look at medieval history to see so many battles fought over key strategically located forts.

The Fort tile improvement should have been re-engineered as it stands right now it is a useless tile improvement. It functions worse than in Civ4.

In any case, if they could change it then I think Fort improvement should be:

> can garrison a single unit absorbing the HP of the garrisoned unit
> a unit can sit on top of it, and while there gets defensive bonus and if ranged +1 range.
> forts can only be built 1 hex away from other forts (that is, 1 hex empty between forts)
> if conquered, fort grants all bonus to occupying army - in order to have fort function it must be garrisoned (thereby consuming 1 unit)

This makes forts much more valuable from a strategic point, and more difficult to conquer.

Forts are much more useful in a 1upt system than they were in Civ IV with SoD's.

And having forts benefit enemies would devalue them, why build forts if they benefit enemies.

 

[Schuesseled]

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

they're unworkable because it fits with the fact that units can't walk on them in the game, and there to be used a strategic chokepoints.

 

[mjs0]

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.

At the 50,000ft level:

What is crude oil?
A. It is a mixture of hydrocarbons.

What is the study of hydrocarbons called?
A. Organic Chemistry.

Organic relates to Biology => Oil relates to Biology
QED

 

[Ahriman]

Which clearly explains why it doesn't come from the Fertizilizer tech; everyone knows that Organic foods can't use fertizilier.

More seriously, yeah, I miss having combustion and refining as specific techs. Some of the tech requirements here are just weeeird (Battleships come from.... telegraph? Seriously, thats what it takes to build massive cannons and a huge steel ship that burns oil?)

 

[Szpilman]

I'm also disliking the simplification of the tech tree. But that's for another topic.

 

[weakciv]

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

Im not advocating it but just trying to think of a way it might work. Im not sure how confusing it would really be. The city screen could show a Red or (minus) gold icon on tiles that are currently costing you maintenance. Similar to how you see a Food/Hammer/Science icon when your citizen is working on that tile.

Oh well. just an idea.

 

[Guardian_PL]

"Forts do not provide a bonus to units in enemy territory"

I think this is silly, and particular has no factual ground - we just have to look at medieval history to see so many battles fought over key strategically located forts.

The Fort tile improvement should have been re-engineered as it stands right now it is a useless tile improvement. It functions worse than in Civ4.

In any case, if they could change it then I think Fort improvement should be:

> can garrison a single unit absorbing the HP of the garrisoned unit
> a unit can sit on top of it, and while there gets defensive bonus and if ranged +1 range.
> forts can only be built 1 hex away from other forts (that is, 1 hex empty between forts)
> if conquered, fort grants all bonus to occupying army - in order to have fort function it must be garrisoned (thereby consuming 1 unit)

This makes forts much more valuable from a strategic point, and more difficult to conquer.

I disagree. All you need to do in order to make use of enemy's forts is to conquer the land they're on and voilla - your forts are yours, your enemies' forts are theirs. Simple.
And during war, on actual war front how many times the defenders were abandoning fortified positions because they knew all ways in and out (including secret passages), in order to surprise assailants who feel now confident, probably even celebrating their "victory"?
I think that feature is fine. How fine it is we won't know until the game release ^^

 

[Sonereal]

I disagree. All you need to do in order to make use of enemy's forts is to conquer the land they're on and voilla - your forts are yours, your enemies' forts are theirs. Simple.
And during war, on actual war front how many times the defenders were abandoning fortified positions because they knew all ways in and out (including secret passages), in order to surprise assailants who feel now confident, probably even celebrating their "victory"?
I think that feature is fine. How fine it is we won't know until the game release ^^

Technically, the USA was using forts (or just a fort) in the CSA so....it may make sense if you can use enemy forts. I'm sure the USA knew the ins and outs of that fort but they certainly didn't abandon it. Forts aren't as easy to get back as you're making it sound. In any case, being able to use enemy forts should be a strategic option. To be fair, it looks like they've completely forgotten the improvements to forts in BTS which might weaken their use a tad bit but still.

Of course, just going by what I've heard about forts so far, they really aren't that useful anyway. By the sounds of it, all they do is increase defensive bonuses.

 

[AriochIV]

Why do not forts provide a bonus to units in enemy territory? Why aren't my forces able to use fortifications just because they are on enemy soil?

For the same reason that enemy roads have no benefit: it's to encourage players to build them, without worrying that they will benefit the enemy. It's not terribly realistic, but I think it's reasonable from a gameplay perspective.

 

[12agnar0k]

Its for gameplay reasons, you dont really want armies marching into your territory and have workers build thier forts and then they just "camp" your territory with great defensive bonuses, thats your territory, if anyone is getting defensive bonuses it will be you, not the aggressors.

 

[Stalker0]

I could go either way on whether forts should be capturable or not.

Overall though I think forts will be more useful.

1) Zone of control is back. In key land areas, have a unit there can slow down a whole slew of guys.

2) More emphasis on terrain modifiers. With the new battle system, terrain modifiers seem to play a bigger deal, so the +25% for a fort is probably a very nice bonus.

 

[Schuesseled]

its been confirmed, roads only give movement bonus to your stuff.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Better example of forts in enemy territory, the forts built by the legions were often in enemy territory.

 

[wapamingo]

Better example of forts in enemy territory, the forts built by the legions were often in enemy territory.

very good point - so with the current fort not benefiting in civs in other civ lands makes the legion a bit less powerful than I originally envisioned.

 

[Dunkah]

Also keep in mind that a Fort only helps with a defensive bonus. If you attack someone else from a fort you don't gat a bonus. So for an army trying to gain ground and get to a city, stopping to occupy a fort and allowing the enemy to attack you in order to get it's bonus just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Unless of course you are regrouping.

 

[Schuesseled]

oh but it does make sense if your capturing a choke point inside enemy territory thats the only path that leads directly to your new cities.

 

[Szpilman]

very good point - so with the current fort not benefiting in civs in other civ lands makes the legion a bit less powerful than I originally envisioned.

I thought Legions could only build roads.

 

[Schuesseled]

no they can build forts too