Does anybody really use Forts anymore?

Cuneiform

Warlord
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
161
I used to place a lot of Forts in Civ5 and in certain games create a sort of "Maginot Line" with lots of defensive areas. But I find because of how they're currently implemented in Civ 6 that I hardly ever use them and that they're really not worth the hassle.

One of the main reasons is that for me they appear a bit too late in the tech tree, appearing in the Renaissance Era just really isn't soon enough to then spend resources deploying them. Especially since by then the warfare is starting to get increasingly mobile, and also with heavier bombardment class units I'm not sure the +4 defense is really worth a unit digging in for. I know a distinction needs to be made between the Roman Fort & Great Wall which appear much earlier, but I think we should be seeing them in the late Medieval Era at least, where +4 defense is more suited.

Also it seems like that the go to method of protecting your cities approaches in Civ 6 has now been adopted by a strategic placement of an Encampment district, which has the advantage of being able to defend itself. Making the placement of Forts a rather pointless waste of Military Engineers charges.

This is just my impression and I don't know whether other players make more use of them. But I really think that Firaxis need to take a second look at the implementation of Forts in the next update/expansion, because in their current state they don't appear to be worth the investment.
 
Never use them. I don't see the point. If they gave forts a wall strength like cities and encampments have, but with no attack, they would make much more sense. So that the enemy had to destroy the wall before damaging the unit stationed in the fort.
 
Having to build a specific unit for them that can only use so many charges makes them pretty low down my priority list.

I basically only ever build the Great Wall as far as forts go.

Or if I'm way ahead and bored I might create a similar Maginot Line like you described
 
Germany must love playing against you. Build them behind a dense forest, no one will be able to attack through that! (Germany says hold my beer).

But honestly I’ve never even built them with legions. Can you clear them with build charges if you do build one?
 
Yes you can clear them with build charges (at least Roman Forts you can, I've never built a regular Fort).
 
Sure, I build exactly 2 each game in some out of the way tiles I don't plan on working for the Eureka! for Ballistics.

But seriously - they should come sooner and be build-able by regular builders. The military engineer unit should just be scrapped. There is no reason regular builders couldn't build, forts, roads, air strips, and silos - with the appropriate techs (or buildings if you like). Some things could even cost two charges if necessary for balancing.

Actually it would be nice if there were a couple of levels of forts - 1st charge builds the basic +4 one, second charge upgrades it to +7, and perhaps more options. But making them use regular builder charges would really encourage their use.
 
More like “Does anybody really use forts EVER?”

I used to place a lot of Forts in Civ5 and in certain games create a sort of "Maginot Line" with lots of defensive areas. But I find because of how they're currently implemented in Civ 6 that I hardly ever use them and that they're really not worth the hassle.

One of the main reasons is that for me they appear a bit too late in the tech tree, appearing in the Renaissance Era just really isn't soon enough to then spend resources deploying them. Especially since by then the warfare is starting to get increasingly mobile, and also with heavier bombardment class units I'm not sure the +4 defense is really worth a unit digging in for. I know a distinction needs to be made between the Roman Fort & Great Wall which appear much earlier, but I think we should be seeing them in the late Medieval Era at least, where +4 defense is more suited.

Also it seems like that the go to method of protecting your cities approaches in Civ 6 has now been adopted by a strategic placement of an Encampment district, which has the advantage of being able to defend itself. Making the placement of Forts a rather pointless waste of Military Engineers charges.

This is just my impression and I don't know whether other players make more use of them. But I really think that Firaxis need to take a second look at the implementation of Forts in the next update/expansion, because in their current state they don't appear to be worth the investment.
 
Only for ballistics. I still wonder if enemies get the bonus from forts in your territory.
 
I agree, Forts need some significant buffs......move them back on the Tech Tree to Masonry. Make them initially able to be built by Builders, & make it so that new techs allow you to improve existing forts to make them better than before-with techs like Construction, Castles, Siege Tactics & Steel. A basic fort would have a small number of hit-points, exert limited ZoC (even when unoccupied) & give extra fortification bonuses to units occupying them. Each level of improvement to forts would increase their hit-points, their ZoC abilities, the fortification bonuses for the units occupying them, & possibly even adding ranged attacks. Then I think people would build them.
 
I agree, Forts need some significant buffs......move them back on the Tech Tree to Masonry. Make them initially able to be built by Builders, & make it so that new techs allow you to improve existing forts to make them better than before-with techs like Construction, Castles, Siege Tactics & Steel. A basic fort would have a small number of hit-points, exert limited ZoC (even when unoccupied) & give extra fortification bonuses to units occupying them. Each level of improvement to forts would increase their hit-points, their ZoC abilities, the fortification bonuses for the units occupying them, & possibly even adding ranged attacks. Then I think people would build them.

There you go! Talk about a man with a plan!

I don't like the idea of basic forts exerting ZoC unoccupied though. That should be a later perk.

I would make it so that forts can only be repaired by a builder a certain number of turns after the last attack. Much like city walls.
 
Honestly, they seem pointless to me no matter how you rebalance them. Between districts and wonders, you don't have many tiles left for basic yields. Sacrificing another tile to defense seems really needless, especially when defending against the AI is so easy.

Heck, I already see no incentive to build encampments and they're way more useful (albeit with a higher opportunity cost).
 
I agree, Forts need some significant buffs......move them back on the Tech Tree to Masonry. Make them initially able to be built by Builders, & make it so that new techs allow you to improve existing forts to make them better than before-with techs like Construction, Castles, Siege Tactics & Steel. A basic fort would have a small number of hit-points, exert limited ZoC (even when unoccupied) & give extra fortification bonuses to units occupying them. Each level of improvement to forts would increase their hit-points, their ZoC abilities, the fortification bonuses for the units occupying them, & possibly even adding ranged attacks. Then I think people would build them.

I still think there's some merit to having them built by a separate unit, but a small adjustment that shouldn't break any existing games systems could be:

Military Engineer (Classical) - Unlocks at Engineering - Requires Barracks - Can only build Wooden Stockades (+3 Defence)
Military Engineer (Medieval) - Upgrade at Military Engineering - Requires Armory - Can build Wooden Stockades (+3 Defence) & Roads
Military Engineer (Renaissance) - Further upgrade at Siege Tactics - Requires Armory - Can build Stone Forts (+6 Defence) & Roads, plus existing Wooden Stockades & Roman Forts automatically upgrade.

Obviously the Unit cost of the Military Engineer would scale through each Era and all would require an Encampment. I think it's important also that the Roman Fort (+4 Defence) is not de-valued and maintains a slight edge on the Wooden Stockade (+3 Defence). Both Stockades & Forts would also still give 2 Turns of Fortification.

This approach would give Forts a modest buff without breaking the current game balance and enable the player to use them much earlier than is currently the case.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, they seem pointless to me no matter how you rebalance them. Between districts and wonders, you don't have many tiles left for basic yields. Sacrificing another tile to defense seems really needless, especially when defending against the AI is so easy.

Heck, I already see no incentive to build encampments and they're way more useful (albeit with a higher opportunity cost).
Well, from encampments, a bit of production, housing, and ultimately the ability to build/buy corps. Seem okay to me. Not sure why they get such a hard time.

But if you assume you never need defense, then of course a defensive building is going to seem like a moot point.
 
Do they get used in multiplayer? It seems like there aren't enough choke points in the game to make the use of forts worthwhile. There's also the possibility of them becoming a liability if you lose control of them. That's in addition to the issue that @Wingednosering brought up where they'd be taking up a tile that would probably be better used for yields or improvements. Their description on the wiki states:
  • Occupying unit receives +4 Defense Strength and automatically gains 2 turns of fortification.
After reading up on fortification a bit, it seems like it means a unit in a fort gains +10 defense, with 6 coming from the 2 turns of fortification? That's good. Maybe they should just changed the bonus to +10 defense to make it easier to understand (assuming my interpretation is correct).

I like the suggestions in this thread, hopefully some of them get implemented. Or of course we could mod them in.
 
Between districts and wonders, you don't have many tiles left for basic yields. Sacrificing another tile to defense seems really needless, especially when defending against the AI is so easy.

Well if Forts are deemed to be useful enough then sacrificing a tile would nearly always be worthwhile and that goes for the A.I. player as well as the human. But it's quite obvious that at the moment they're not used, because currently they're just a way of getting the Eureka for Ballistics and nothing else.

Something needs to change with them, they at least need to be available earlier and in later Eras be made a bit stronger. After which maybe the A.I. player would benefit from being taught to build more of them, I seem to remember they did so in previous Civs.
 
Forts are pretty strong as they basically give +10 combat strength on defence and I think your units can attack and still get the fort bonus as long as they stay inside of the fort.

Tiles are not all that valuable, as you can simply throw most of your people to work in the districts and have a few farmers working mega farmland for huge amount of food.

The cost of units mean that if a fort manage to save a unit it have probably paid itself back several times even if you lost a tile because of the fort. Also if you don't need a fort you can simply replace it as it don't cost a charge to remove improvements.

In my opinion they are most useful with ranged units as ranged units gain alot from the fort defence buff while they can fire upon any enemy. A ranged unit in a fort can fight melee units on equal terms while wrecking any enemy with fire. Maybe that is why you get eurka for ballistic from forts.

Blocking the enemy's ability to enter your territory is huge because you do not want them to pillage Everything and get major Resources as well as the more mobility they have the easier time they have at taking out your units.

If you have a line of forts you can rotate units to the front line without much trouble allowing damaged units to heal which also grant support bonus to the frontline units if they get attacked by melee units.

Basically forts role in this game is something like trenches.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom