Do people actually use forts?

[Arabian Archer]

Seems to me it's just flashy ding-dong and nothing more, I've never actually had any use for forts.. Do they up the power scores like walls do?

 

[Everest]

I used to never use them, but when I got used to them I started using them using...er...often.

Seriously: Before BTS, forts were just useful to control a choking point (eg. a small pass sourrounded by mountains) that has no forrest.

Under BTS they became quite useful: They can act as a save harbour or channel for ships, air units can use them as an airport, if you're building them on resources then connect them to your trade network, etc.

Imagine you can already see Oil (scientific method) but don't have combustion yet. Now, if you build a fort on your oil tile the oil will be available the very round you get combustion.

 

[Iamcameron]

I think the only time I ever use them is for resources outside of cities' fat crosses that you can see but can't use yet. For example, if you have a fort on some distant oil, as soon as you discover combustion, you can start building stuff without having to waste time building a well.

Edit: Ninja'd by Everest.

 

[Everest]

Edit: Ninja'd by Everest.

Back2topic: IMHO only the owner of a fort (by tile culture) gets the defensive bonus. Enemy troops in your forts ignore them, don't they?

 

[Airefuego]

The canals feature is brilliant. I love chain-linking forts and lakes to let my navy cross my continent in half the time

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I don't like building forts over my resources outside the fat cross. I want my enemy exposed in my territory and don't really want to create a cover that they can capture. But late game, definitely useful for air units, as game-breaking as they are.

 

[Arabian Archer]

well.. I didn't know you could actually use them for ships, sounds cool..

and can somebody confirm that enemies can't use the defensive bonusses of forts?

BTW: they should make forts capturable and make them have a zone of control by making them expand you cultural borders(juz like good old call to power II ) with 1 tile in each direction.



EDIT: I just noticed I posted this in the wrong section..sorry

 

[pi-r8]

Yeah, enemies don't benefit from forts in your territory. Not sure about forts in neutral territory, though- I think those will work for anyone.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Thread moved - not a strategy article.

 

[mystikmind2005]

I stopped using Forts in civ4 because of collateral damage. The effects of colateral damage destroys the advantages in playing a defensive game. Your much better off keeping a couple of cannons than building a fort. Especially against the AI!, Your territorial boarders are the ultimate defensive weapon already that will trap the invaders right in front of your cannons to be obliterated.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Defensively speaking, mounted troops are better than siege oftentimes. Flank the AI's siege, and then laugh as it has nothing to reduce your defenses, since it rarely if ever uses spies for that.

 

[Wilhelmus]

I'v used forts once in an ice/tundra city as a canal for my workboats. One fish resource was not accessible, due to ice caps covering my port and shore. I had to make a four fort canal along the coastline to bypass the ice caps and could hook up the fish.

 

[Airefuego]

See ^^ that is brilliant

I have put my ironworks / HE / drydocks city on the coast of a iced-off bit of arctic ocean. Thanks to canals it can still churn out battleships and get them into the main oceans - but it's basically impregnable to naval bombardment itself

 

[Diamondeye]

Seriously: Before BTS, forts were just useful to control a choking point that has no forrest.

Forts do not erase forests.

Defensively speaking, mounted troops are better than siege oftentimes. Flank the AI's siege, and then laugh as it has nothing to reduce your defenses, since it rarely if ever uses spies for that.

The AI will then either withdraw or suicideattack. I especially prefer the last, Impis against PRO longbows ina castle is always great fun.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Forts do not erase forests.



The AI will then either withdraw or suicideattack. I especially prefer the last, Impis against PRO longbows ina castle is always great fun.

In my experience, it will suicide far more often than it will withdraw .

Forts are pretty good in BTS for aircraft also. Cities have a 4 aircraft limit, but forts themselves can hold planes too (better protect them though!). this means if you share borders and can spare the land, you can have MASSIVE air superiority to stage an invasion.

 

[Pitman]

I have found Forts most useful for basing aircraft and ships, esp. for launching an invasion of a neighboring continent that is not quite close enough to cities of mine.

 

[slobberinbear]

I occasionally will play a game with raging barbarians. Forts are wonderful for that game setting, particularly if you did not build the Great Wall. Essentially, the fort acts as a barb magnet and provides a base from which your anti-barb forces can attack and heal up.

That said, I find it hard to justify the worker time to build a fort unless I'm in that middle ages/renaissance time where I have nothing to do with my workers.

 

[Everest]

Forts do not erase forests.

They did before BTS. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Ariadne]

Seeing as I donʻt have BTS, I consider forts generally useless and donʻt build them.

 

[Sisiutil]

As Airefuego said, the canals capability is my favourite use of forts. IIRC they have a 2-tile limit, but I've been able to combine that with cities and lakes to provide a series of "locks" to quickly move ships to the other side of a continent, if the map allows. That, in turn, gives me more flexibility in terms of the location of my military (Heroic Epic/West Point) cities, and builds as well (cities on one side of the continent don't have to build ships).