1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Dear Devs: Buff Forts

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by pineappledan, Sep 24, 2020.

  1. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Forts are weak right now, and they should either be made stronger, or have all yields stripped from them.

    forts start with 0 yields.
    1:c5science: at chemistry
    1:c5production: at military science
    3:c5science: at stealth and electronics (information era)
    The last 2 come so late that they don’t really affect the game, so functionally forts have 1 yield in renaissance any 2 yields in industrial and later.

    there are currently 1 policy and 1 wonder that boost forts:
    Imperialism: 2:c5science:1:c5culture:
    Menin gate: 2:c5culture:2:c5goldenage:

    There used to be an additional bonus:
    Autocracy: 3:c5science:

    so, why, if forts are going to fall so desperately behind in yields, do they even have yields on them at all? Why is there a wonder and a policy that boost them if their yields are so atrocious that no city will ever work them? I am of the opinion that forts, with heavy investment in player choices, should be made viable, but failing that, these bonuses only serve to create confused messaging as to what forts are designed to do.

    proposal: add back the 3:c5science: autocracy boost, and add +1:c5production: to forts and citadels at Steel. Maybe another boost in modern is warranted, but baby steps.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
  2. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,246
    Gender:
    Male
    I never built Forts for their yields so I'm fine with them having no yields at all. Forts to me are defensive structures I place between Citadels to strength my front line until I'm ready to push into enemy territory. Between other improvements like Farms, Mines, Villages and such, I honestly don't feel like Forts should be built for yields.
     
    Zuizgond and Delvemor like this.
  3. Deljade

    Deljade Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    I'll chime in since we were discussing Forts on the latest patch thread.
    In my own games, when I had fully stacked Fort yields (except Stealth tech, that's too late) the city manager still preferred to work other tiles such as improved resources, agribusiness farms, or even the fully buffed Coast tiles.
    A consideration is that Fort is the only non GP improvement that can be built on snow and only vilages can be built on desert but are worse without a road. I can justify that in my mind as some sort of research station, there have been several military installments of this nature in recent history. Snow cities will still prefer to work Specialists and Coast of course.
    Right now there is a disparity between civs with Unique Improvements and civs without them when picking Autocracy. Civs with UIs can get a lot more science from Military Industrial complex due to them simply having the option to build an improvement with +3 :c5science: at will. Adding forts to that tenet will equalise this somewhat. Unless there is a specific reason that this got removed.
    I like the +1 :c5production: actually, this may be the only change actually needed in terms of yields on Forts. Of course as amateurgamer88 here says it's also a consideration to not really care about Fort yields at all. Personally I like the variety that they can potentially offer for improvements. And, historically, Forts and other military installations in the broader sense had some values beside purely protecting the armies that occupied them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
    Tekamthi and Bromar1 like this.
  4. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,246
    Gender:
    Male
    I understand that military installations have other values. However, it seems weird that we are trying to make Fort an improvement we would build over Mines, Farms, Villages or any non-GPTI for yields as they use up a tile too. Either we should be content that it gives less yields with defensive purposes or we make it provide no yield and purely for defensive purposes. Buffing it means that we are trying to make it on or close to on par with existing improvements and that's a wrong direction.
     
    Zuizgond and JamesNinelives like this.
  5. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Considering forts aren’t strictly “military forts” in civ, but also stand in for canals and outposts, as @Deljade describes, I support making forts economically viable. Furthermore, devs would have to explain why forts get no yields, but citadels and similar defensive UIs have strong yields, but forts don’t.

    In the end what I need is, at minimum, a clear statement of intent from the devs on what forts are supposed to do wrt yields. Canada, a custom civ, uses forts in its core mechanic, using forts as stand-ins for colonial factories. If yields are stripped of forts, that’s fine, but it affects that civ’s design, and forts are too much in an awkward middle ground of aaaalmost viable right now, so I need this resolved in one direction or the other.

    I agree that, at base, forts shouldn’t be competitive with things like mines, farms etc. However, I like the concept of converting forts into a viable improvement through several civ traits, policy choices, and wonder investments, converting them into economic actors. Feels very ‘military-industrial complex’ to me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
  6. Deljade

    Deljade Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    I agree, Forts should not be something you build over other improvements. We have to consider that there are a lot of build choices that affect improvements in VP. As Industry Order for example, you will ALWAYS build mines on hills no matter what, they are better than manufactories even, sometimes, maybe. Either way, Autocracy as the most military focused build can, I guess, be justified to be making Forts an actually good tile. Is there a specific balance reason this was changed?
     
    JamesNinelives, InkAxis and Hinin like this.
  7. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,246
    Gender:
    Male
    Assuming that all those conditions are met with traits, policy and Wonders, what improvements are you expecting Forts to replace? After all, they won't be built for yields unless they do something better than the other improvements. Otherwise, I'd still pick other improvements over this for yields since I can't build a Fort and another Improvement on the same tile.

    In the case of Autocracy, I'm going to war so Forts will be on the front line with puppet Cities as opposed to being built back home in my Capital that will ideally be far from the front line by the time I adopt Autocracy. The irony is that, if I war often, I'd probably have plenty of GG for Citadels so why would I care about Forts as much? I might get a few but certainly not enough to really justify them.

    In addition, are the AIs capable of being taught this? Will they realize that Forts are a better alternative and will build this over other improvements?
     
  8. Deljade

    Deljade Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    Well, since Imperialism buffs farms alongside Forts, I would say that SOME mines and non triangle farms and lumber mills as well as non-road villages could be reasonably be replaced by Fort on eligible tiles and always considering each individual city's needs, remember that forts cant be next to each other.
    Thematically, just because a nation is fighting far from home it doesn't mean there will be no military complexes, on the contrary, they can be used to train troops and test weapons and tactics. Gameplay wise you would do it because they would provide yields that you city might prefer, utility with coast and defensiveness, just in case.
    I do think the AI considers tile yields.
     
    JamesNinelives and pineappledan like this.
  9. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    You would build boosted forts in places where you want :c5culture::c5science::c5goldenage:, non-standard improvement yields, in Places away from roads (villages), and not on resources. But you don’t need this explained to you. You have played this game enough to know this.

    I have a preference, but I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. forts could be stripped of their yields, but they should be rescued from their current limbo. They currently have yields and boosts from stuff, but none of those boosts amount to a viable improvement.

    the AI can build forts and can assess yield potential of tile improvements. There is no problem there.
     
    JamesNinelives and ElliotS like this.
  10. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,804
    I think at minimum they should get Their autocracy science bonus back
     
  11. LifeOfBrian

    LifeOfBrian Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2019
    Messages:
    299
    My wish for forts (and citadels!) is two-folded (either would be great, both would be awesome):
    1.) have them be buildable on top of jungles, forests and marsh (like Kasbahs),
    2.) enemy unit entering a tile with a fort or citadel (that has not been pillaged) loses all its movement points.

    Either one would be enough to make them much more worthwhile to build.
     
    Tekamthi likes this.
  12. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Beijing
    Forts are an alternative to off-road villages or farms without adjacency. They can be useful as a way to generate science with a citizen without getting urbanization.

    They only do well with specific social policies and I'd support buffing them a bit.
     
    JamesNinelives and ElliotS like this.
  13. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,432
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    I have zero issue with their getting their Autocracy boost back - it's situational and it makes perfect sense thematically!

    I think the other aspects of this discussion may be distracting from that. I like to work forts in desert and snow cities. Arguing that if they don't get a buff they shouldn't have any yields at all makes no sense to me and seems unhelpful. Forest and jungle already have excellent defensive modifiers, they doesn't need more by allowing forts on top. UIs are intended to be significantly stronger than standard improvements, so they're really not a good point of comparison.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2020
  14. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warmonger

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,861
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    I'd like to see them get +1 :c5science: base and +1 :c5production: at metallurgy as well as the autocracy bonus back.
     
    SuperNoobCamper likes this.
  15. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    What about this for tech progression?
    1:c5science: at steel
    1:c5production: at chemistry
    1:c5science: at military science
    3:c5production: at electronics
    3:c5science: at stealth
    Add back the 3:c5science: from Autocracy
    Menin and Imperialism bonuses stay the same

    It seems like there is a majority for people to push forts up a little more. Would you like me to make a commit for this, @Gazebo?
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2020
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  16. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,432
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    I like it, excepting the 3 hammers at electronics. That seems a bit much.
     
  17. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
  18. ElliotS

    ElliotS Warmonger

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,861
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    I'd rather keep it as 3 science. That's the niche.
     
  19. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,457
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
  20. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,432
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    Maybe swap the science/production from steel and chemistry? That gives us alternating yields again. It kinda makes sense to me in the terms of what those technologies represent, and means you're not potentially getting a lot of early science at steel from forts. I can see arguments for either.
    1:c5production: at steel
    1:c5science: at chemistry
    1:c5production: at military science
    3:c5science: at electronics
    3:c5science: at stealth

    Alternately maybe like this, so that it scales more gradually? Not super fussed though.
    1:c5science: at steel
    1:c5production: at chemistry
    2:c5science: at military science
    2:c5production: at electronics
    3:c5science: at stealth
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2020
    ElliotS and pineappledan like this.

Share This Page