congress idea - fortifications

[ilteroi]

some ideas around fortifications which i might propose for the next congress if they aren't shot down immediately ...

1. the big one first: forts and citadels only deal adjacent damage when occupied by a unit
2. when a unit in a fortification is destroyed, the fortification is automatically pillaged (no pillage bonuses for the killing unit though)
3. forts get adjacent damage -10 (when occupied by a unit!)

opinions?

 

[Rekk]

Why?

 

[stii]

The situation where a enemy unit is next to your citadel but you don't have a unit in it seems super rare.

Pillaging them can be a bit of a pain in certain situations, mostly with rivers but I don't see a huge need to remove the defenders advantage here.

So for a human it doesn't seem an issue much so is this meant to help the AI?

 

[Stalker0]

some ideas around fortifications which i might propose for the next congress if they aren't shot down immediately ...

1. the big one first: forts and citadels only deal adjacent damage when occupied by a unit

--Nah, its still a functional tile, still should do what it does.

2. when a unit in a fortification is destroyed, the fortification is automatically pillaged (no pillage bonuses for the killing unit though)

--No, I consider that part of the key aspect of taking out a citadel. It gives a good niche for high mobility units (and especially paradrops).

3. forts get adjacent damage -10 (when occupied by a unit!)

opinions?

--This one I can see, it is weird that you control the citadel but it still does damage to your friends.

 

[Tekamthi]

I like the focus on forts/citadels here, they deserve some attention.

I often play with hex conquer & release mod -- in the versions of that mod I have edited & shared here on CF, forts and citadels play an important role in holding territory (ie they both block tile captures unless occupied directly). They "feel" much more important with that mod running. That's a little outta scope for mainbranch though.

For smaller changes, I commonly run an unpublished personal mod with the following: both fort and citadel give promo to unit in them, granting + heal (2/3 for fort/citadel). Citadel version also gets +1 vision. Fort version gets 5dmg per turn pilum ability (much like OP proposes damage only when occupied). Both give extraflankingpower. I have intentionally left the 'buffs' rather small and almost irrelevant, as I don't like to bend things too far from mainbranch. Attached, could make for an easy starting point for further changes/testing.

re: OP suggestions,

1. & 3. I already play with these in a sense; except for fort only, and smaller dmg value. I enjoy it. I think i'd prefer to keep citadel as-is though.
2. I am not sure about this -- maybe for fort only, citadel should be a special plot, as its derived from GP

 

[pineappledan]

So you want to give two nerds to defenders and a really big buff? What’s the thinking? Is there any balance reason to do any of these?

So basically everyone gets the Shoshone encampment’s universal chip damage at double power? That sounds… bugnuts crazy.

 

[Tekamthi]

So basically everyone gets the Shoshone encampment’s universal chip damage at double power?

I think the unmanned nature of the encampment dmg function is nonetheless a significant boost over having to occupy the fort. That said i'd knock it down to 5dmg/turn if the fort thing were implemented

 

[hokath]

1. and 2., sure.
What's the thinking behind 3.? This seems like it would slow war down a huge amount later in the game?

 

[pineappledan]

If I am permitted to be selfish, I really don’t like #2, because I added that as a special ability for a unit in 4UC. If that’s default behaviour then I don’t know what else I will give them.

 

[azum4roll]

If #2 is melee only I can see the point. It's really hard to pillage a fortification on a desert hill or across a river.

 

[ilteroi]

Why?

if you need to ask that then maybe it's not a good idea

anyway:

1. because i always found it weird that citadels would work without a garrison being there
2. because it seems reasonable that you cannot kill the garrison without destroying the fortification
3. because forts are weak and need a buff

considering the mixed reception and the non-trivial effort for implementation, i won't push this

 

[CppMaster]

considering the mixed reception and the non-trivial effort for implementation, i won't push this

Do you mean you won't even propose it on the next congress, so an entire community could vote?

 

[Anarcomu]

Do you mean you won't even propose it on the next congress, so an entire community could vote?

Feel free to propose it yourself if you like it, nothing forbid from doing this.

 

[CppMaster]

Yeah, but the author would always better explain his reasoning when discussion happens.

 

[Anarcomu]

Fair point.
Although if you really like it, you can have your own point for defending/explaining it.

 

[Tekamthi]

I don't think we've discussed forts & citadels yet via Congress? Strikes me there's a worthwhile proposal on this topic. The OP seems to be on balance a nerf though, whereas I'd lean towards a slight buff to forts, maybe neutral changes (if any) to citadels.

Re: #2, since this is the contentious discussion point so far -- I wonder if this wouldn't end up encouraging a complex rotation of garrisons to avoid losing the fort, that the AI will almost certainly be weaker at than human.

Afaik the database supports some kind of functionality for improvement "upgrades".. I've never touched these table entries at all, but I infer that this was left over from when villages grew into towns etc. Say we had a series of fortification levels -- they'd all use the same art, just you'd have level 1, 2, or 3 forts... I could see such an implementation allowing attacking units to downgrade the fort, but maybe not remove it altogether.

Alternatively, from thematic point of view I'd enjoy if seige units had this kind of ability -- the other unit lines already have a method of disabling fortifications via entering the plot and pillaging. That's good enough for my tastes; #2 is probably my least favorite from OP, but with some adjustments and refinements I'd be on board.

 

[Rekk]

I think the unmanned nature of the encampment dmg function is nonetheless a significant boost over having to occupy the fort. That said i'd knock it down to 5dmg/turn if the fort thing were implemented

It's the same ability. You're proposing to make an entirely new ability for forts and citadels.

 

[alchx]

some ideas around fortifications which i might propose for the next congress if they aren't shot down immediately ...

1. the big one first: forts and citadels only deal adjacent damage when occupied by a unit

No. The Citadel is a conditional, static form of the Great General.

GG is able to travel and strengthen units with his aura anywhere on the map. Plus his aura can be expanded and strengthened through the policy tree.

The citadel is unable to move and the resource income from it is relatively small until the late game. Something like 12 income by turn 300, but Holy Site is capable of producing 20-25 income at the same time. Sawmills 15-18. Hills 14-16.

That is, without a protective aura, the Citadel will be a rather weak tile.

2. when a unit in a fortification is destroyed, the fortification is automatically pillaged (no pillage bonuses for the killing unit though)

No. Restoring the Citadel takes 3-4 turns. Repairing something in 3-4 turns during a massive invasion is very difficult and the AI is unlikely to do this, since it likes to run away with its workers to the city (although the AI repairs it in 1 turn). This will mean that the front has collapsed and enemy units will simply enter the city territory and block all the tiles, which will instantly paralyze production.

3. forts get adjacent damage -10 (when occupied by a unit!)


opinions?

No. This will be analogous to a mini-Citadel. If you install a Citadel, you can create 3 forts around it. You will get an incredibly huge protective aura.
-30 in the 1st radius from the Citadel and -10 in the 2nd radius.

The forts are already quite good, although I think they need to increase their defense a little. 50% does not provide sufficient protection for a unit against a massive attack.

The advantage of a fort is that the unit does not leave the fort when attacking - that is, it does not need to spend 1+ movement point to return to the same tile. You can come running with cavalry, strike and run to the rear, placing an infantry in the fort. Although this feature is also a disadvantage if the unit has a promotion with 10 damage to all adjacent enemies when killed and moved to the captured tile, since the movement does not occur and the effect does not work.

But Citadels are of course a huge problem for the AI, as it doesn't find ways to deal with them effectively.
The AI is not afraid to attack units with a melee attack if it takes 30 damage, but for some reason avoids leaving a unit in the Citadel aura for 1 turn if it is not able to immediately occupy the Citadel tile.
Perhaps the reason is that the AI assesses the damage for each specific unit and the risk becomes unacceptable. If the damage for the entire attacking group had been assessed, the situation would have been different. For example, 3 infantry in the Citadel aura will receive 90 damage, but this will allow the next turn to kill the defender with artillery support and advance to the Citadel with cavalry/commandos, while simultaneously looting it. Or put 4 attacking infantry with almost full health in the Citadel, blocking the recapture, and destroy it on the next turn. Here it turns out that a total of 3+ units with 300+ health are involved and the defender will have to generate 300+ (-90 thanks to damage through the Citadel's aura) damage in one turn to kill them all. It can be difficult for a defender to generate the required amount of damage, especially in different tiles, since the distances for attacks are limited.

 

[ma_kuh]

I don't think you need to worry about stacking fort AOE and citadel AOE, they should always just use the strongest effect without stacking. So if forts were 5 and citadels were 10, it would just deal 10 damage. That's a pretty consistent pattern across the game (think of Medic I and Medic II from different units).

I like the idea that forts might provide certain promotions to units within, flanking, healing, even something like Fort Cover (+CS% vs ranged) seem quite interesting and would impact how you approach war around forts (ranged spam would have a counter maybe?).

However, it's still not clear to me what problem is being solved regarding forts. Are they undesirable to build for defense? Do you want forts that the AI has spammed to have more utility and thus provide more of a challenge to fight?

 

[pineappledan]

Yeah, if this were some push to help attackers more or defenders more, and we wanted to give 1 side more of an advantage, I could maybe be more convinced.

I think we've been trying to find more ways to help attackers, and make turtling a little less easy. It's considered optimal strategy to find some part of the map with a natural chokepoint and turn it into a killbox on higher difficulties. Proposal #1, by itself, looks like a good way to keep killboxes viable, but less sticky. If you meant to address this then okay, but is that something we actually want to change?