congress idea - fortifications

[Tekamthi]

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

no PD was making the comparison that encampments (shoshone) would be the same as the proposed "manned fort" implementation, and for this reason it would be too much overlap -- but encampment doesn't need a unit present in the plot to apply AoE dmg -- it would remain significantly more powerful than these theorycrafted forts, assuming fort dmg was tuned appropriately (should also be 5 dmg max imo).

Further, to accomplish OP's manned fort dmg, nothing new is needed: you'd have fort apply a 'pilum' enabled promotion to unit in the fort plot. That's it -- the database has already been prepared for such an implementation.

Probably the only thing we'd need/want to change is the 'pilum' text that displays when this promo-based aoe is triggered.

 

[FinMc]

I dislike the chip damage mechanic in basically every form it takes in the game. It isn't very fun and there is very little counterplay, it's stressful and annoying.

#2 is a no-go for me. It's satisfying to crack a pesky citadel with a combo of attacks/moves. Free pillage on kill is too easy.

I agree forts need to be buffed, they are basically speed bumps right now, I don't even notice them (does the AI build them?).


I think my ideal scenario is the defense/dmg reduction of citadel/forts is buffed and the chip damage is nerfed. Then they become like mini cities that you need to take some amount of map control around to get the dps to push the defending unit out. I also think it would be fun to have their relative power ebb and flow throughout the ages as they did in real life, although that may be a balance nightmare.

 

[alchx]

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).

There will be a stacking problem and it is unknown whether the AI will be able to take it into account.

If you take this layout Citadel +3 forts, then the tile with raw stone will always receive -10..-30 damage until the last fort is destroyed. If the attacking AI stands as an infantryman on this hill, will it be able to calculate that it needs to destroy 4 defense points instead of 1 (Citadel) to neutralize the aura?

In addition, after destroying the Citadel and 1 fort, the attacking unit will receive -10 damage from the aura of one of the two remaining forts.

If the forts' aura is activated only when a unit is present, then this will only mean that the attacker will have to additionally suffer from the forts' aura the entire time he is trying to kill the rotating fort garrison.

In addition, border forts cause damage in enemy territory, where he should be able to heal. It is possible to cause damage with the aura of a Citadel on enemy territory, but to do this, both empires must install Citadels after 1 tile so that the intermediate tiles change their owner - that is, two generals are required for such a special action of the Citadels. The price of 1 fort and two Citadels is incomparable.

It seems to me that adding an aura to forts will further reduce the AI's desire to attack Citadels in such dense defenses.

Here the Citadel of Japan to the left of the arrow is capable of causing damage to 3 tiles in Zulu territory. But it took 3 Great Generals to achieve such an effect. First, Japan set up its Citadel, and then the Zulus set up 2 of their Citadels.

But, if Japan places the proposed fort on the tile indicated by the arrow, then this fort will be able to deal damage to a unit in the Zulu Citadel. How should the Zulu defend now? Any garrison of them will automatically receive 10 damage regardless of combat strength. I very much doubt that AI Zulu will be able to solve the problem of destroying such a fort between the two Citadels of Japan. It must be remembered that when attacking from their Citadel, the Zulu mounted unit will not move to the fort tile and thus the attack is only available from below, so that the tile can be plundered immediately after the kill.

The Ottomans, having built a fort on a hill, will be able to inflict 10 damage to the Tunsberg garrison every turn. An infantryman with the Stalwart promo and +60% defense (50% fort, 10% hill without forest) is very difficult to kill. A city is unlikely to be able to deal 10 damage to such a unit. And in an earlier era, the city would not be able to deal even 5 damage to the Conquistador.

Technically, the Ottomans can install a new Citadel on this hill if they build a farm on the site of the current one, and inflict 30 damage to the city garrison. But the AI does not move Citadels in this way.

 

[Tekamthi]

If the forts' aura is activated only when a unit is present, then this will only mean that the attacker will have to additionally suffer from the forts' aura the entire time he is trying to kill the rotating fort garrison.

It hasn't been specified in OP, but if this were implemented using existing database functions, unit would also have to fortify. The scenario you describe would still be possible, however the garrison rotation would result in a turn of no damage while unit gets in place and waits to fortify

 

[ma_kuh]

I can see a goal of giving Forts buffs that allow you to build your own "killboxes", by setting one or two in favorable terrain that makes a funnel. So a little bit of what they're already trying to do, but more.

This would mean focusing on defensive temp-promotions, like +5 healing, +25%~35% vs. ranged (maybe with an accompanying -35% or more vs. siege?).

 

[Rekk]

no PD was making the comparison that encampments (shoshone) would be the same as the proposed "manned fort" implementation, and for this reason it would be too much overlap -- but encampment doesn't need a unit present in the plot to apply AoE dmg -- it would remain significantly more powerful than these theorycrafted forts, assuming fort dmg was tuned appropriately (should also be 5 dmg max imo).

Further, to accomplish OP's manned fort dmg, nothing new is needed: you'd have fort apply a 'pilum' enabled promotion to unit in the fort plot. That's it -- the database has already been prepared for such an implementation.

Probably the only thing we'd need/want to change is the 'pilum' text that displays when this promo-based aoe is triggered.

Encampments and Citadels use the same NearbyEnemyDamage column. For "manned" Citadels and Forts to work differently than Encampments, they would need a new ability to be written.

Then there will be two mechanics that are almost identical, but the way to turn them off works differently.

 

[Tekamthi]

Encampments and Citadels use the same NearbyEnemyDamage column.

very true, but the post you're replying to was a comparison between encampments and OP's proposed forts -- citadels entirely separate concern to the point you're muddying here.

they would need a new ability to be written.

database-only changes required. Writing code ie lua or c++ is not necessary, though I suppose some kind of written sql command would have to be used -- such has already been written though and posted in this thread, so really it would just have to be copied/pasted. The work involved for manned fort dmg is entirely trivial; whether its desirable is another question, but there's no dev time-sink involved on that particular aspect.

 

[Rekk]

very true, but the post you're replying to was a comparison between encampments and OP's proposed forts -- citadels entirely separate concern to the point you're muddying here.


database-only changes required. Writing code ie lua or c++ is not necessary, though I suppose some kind of written sql command would have to be used -- such has already been written though and posted in this thread, so really it would just have to be copied/pasted. The work involved for manned fort dmg is entirely trivial; whether its desirable is another question, but there's no dev time-sink involved on that particular aspect.

Downloaded your file and I see how it works. I will note that the OP wants manned forts and manned citadels, so it's relevant to talk about citadels.

 

[Tekamthi]

Downloaded your file and I see how it works. I will note that the OP wants manned forts and manned citadels, so it's relevant to talk about citadels.

yeah certainly, i'm just trying to highlight that encampment will still be relatively powerful compared to an OP-proposed fort -- PD is right on that the dmg value is high in OP, but with it tuned lower, I believe we have a nice contrast between the two, leaving encampments still feeling "special".

Having played with that attachment a bunch of times now, the 'pilum' text thats hardcoded for the aoe fortify dmg is the main drawback. Also it doesn't change much as far as AI's use of these go -- VP seems to have them sorted out to use forts effectively sometimes (years ago it was almost never) -- but stronger forts doesn't necessarily improve AI ability to defend them. Possibly advantage to human, hard to say though really, just anecdotal observations on my part.

 

[azum4roll]

Pilum also doesn't hurt units in fortifications, while Citadel does.

 

[Nightmare Dusk]

I personally would massively buff forts into mini citadels, but would also make it where you can't have citadels and forts next to each other

 

[Tekamthi]

I dislike the chip damage mechanic in basically every form it takes in the game. It isn't very fun and there is very little counterplay, it's stressful and annoying.

i've come to take it for granted, but you're right, there are moments where it seems a little gamey

In lieu of dmg, but where I still want a malus of some kind, I've used -5 or -10 healing instead of the direct dmg -- eg in TreeSuccession, the wildfires don't cause dmg as this would be too chaotic, instead just block normal healing if on the tile. Somehow I find this more palatable even though the effect is similar.