Instead of a ZOC (which I imagine might be a pain programatically since it was pulled as a concept altogether in this version) how about adding some special features inline with current game features like automatic roads surrounding the fort and/or faster healing in the fort? The reason that fixed fortifications were effective (when they were effective) was rarely that they couldn't be bypassed. Afterall, a horse can traverse much more treacherous terrain than a tank. Forts were dangerous for what forces might sortie out of them to cut supplies and attack rear areas. In CivIV, no land unit can move more than two spaces in enemy territory (without Commando), so making the fort a combo strongpoint/hospital would simulate the effect of a ZOC without having to remake the combat engine. What do you think?
Does anyone use forts?
- Thread starter ewink
- Start date
There's still no real benefit from the fort - I'd rather have a forested square with a unit that has the medic promotion.Catcher said:
Granted, medic promotions are hard to come by in the earlier game, but IMO units heal pretty well within their own territory and Cities are rarely more than a move or two away. If you add occupied forts also giving +1 line of sight then the improvement becomes interesting and more often worth building, though still no truly unique benefit.
edit: actually, what's the point in +1 LOS if forts have to be built within own borders anyway.
MrCynical
Deity
I'd say the best way to make forts useful would be to give them a Civ 3 style ZoC (doesn't block unit movement, but allows units in the fort a chance to damage enemies that move through adjacent squares), as well as boosting healing and defense bonus. They should also be allowed to be built on resources without removing the improvements (should make harder for spies to sabotage them as well), but to discourage building them all over the place have each fort cost say 1gpt.
Nyvin
Unseen Leader
I think the only time I ever build forts is for amusement, just to make my territory look cool,lol.
Other then that I never really see much use for them.
Other then that I never really see much use for them.
The 777 Hoax
future skeleton
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,599
Nope... I think they're dumb.
QuixotesGhost
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 272
Catcher said:
You could borrow the mobilization center concept from MoO 3 (despite how much people hated that game). Instead of spawning at a city, you can choose to have newly built units spawn at a fort of your choice.
My overarching concept for forts is to acheive two basic ends:
1.) The fort acts as an actual barrier of sorts to enemy movement. You can get around it (if there's open land), but it's better to deal with it first.
2.) The fort -- much like forts in history -- can eventually develop into a settlement over a longer series of turns.
Now, how to balance and accomplish all of this is something I agree needs tinkering with. The actual ZOC concept from the first two games is gone, and unlikely to come back (which isn't such a bad thing). But, expansion of cultural borders accomplishes much the same effect. As has been stated, even with roads, enemy units move as if on unimproved terrain. So, this would accomplish the goal of ZOC.
In terms of eventually becoming a city, this is something which, I think, history bears out. Forts can and do become cities, although not always. They typically develop over time and by virtue of necessity. As the fort grows, its needs grow and a civilian population begins to move into the area to provide those needs. Eventually, this can result in a permanent settlement more akin to a city or town than just the basic fort itself.
Here's how I see this developing.
1.) Worker builds fort. May be within territory or outside of territorial boundaries. (as an alternative, a unit promotion called "combat engineering" could be awarded, which allows the unit to do things like build roads, or construct a fort. No chopping, mining, etc., though. Those are strictly worker functions)
1a.) The fort itself is simply a defensive structure at this point, which takes advantage of the surrounding terrain. The fort provides a base +25% defense in addition to the terrain bonuses on the square.
2.) Upon construction, the fort's own square has its own cultural border (like when you take over an enemy city). This is only the single tile.
3.) In five turns, the cultural borders expand to the nine-tile square on their own. No change in defensive bonuses, but the fort, now well established, has created its "ZOC". (Note: to accomplish this, at least one unit must be in the fort or border expansion halts.)
4.) 10 turns later, the fort's "ZOC" expands to a fat cross. The fort cannot work any of the tiles in the fat cross, however, and the "ZOC" will not expand any further at this point.
5.) From this point forward, the player may opt to send a worker unit to the fort, and establish a settlement (the worker is consumed in the process). The settlement will start only by working its own square the way newly established cities do, but will not have the ability to work a second square (unlike new cities). The fort can, however, build units (assuming it has the necessary resources available in its city box).
6.) In ten turns, a second tile can be worked. From this point forward, the settlement develops like any other city. Incidentally, the defensive bonus of the fort disappears at this point, since the tile converts to a city.
I think this is balanced because of the time involved as compared to the benefits. The actual defensive structure bonuses don't change until the fort develops to a city, at which point they disappear. The "ZOC" is created through the expansion of cultural borders, but it takes a relatively long time for this to happen. Also, while the fort can grow into a city, consider how many turns this would take.
First you'd have the construction time of building the fort itself (which is, what, 12 turns currently? Something like that, I think). Once the fort's built, you have five turns to get the fort to nine-square status. Another ten turns expands it to fat cross, after which you need a worker to get to "settlement" status, followed by ten more turns to actually become a city.
So...
Fort construction time + 5 turns + 10 turns + worker + 10 turns = city (from a fort)
vs.
Settler.
The fort serves its purpose this way, and can eventually develop into a real city, without being "spammable" and unbalancing the game.
1.) The fort acts as an actual barrier of sorts to enemy movement. You can get around it (if there's open land), but it's better to deal with it first.
2.) The fort -- much like forts in history -- can eventually develop into a settlement over a longer series of turns.
Now, how to balance and accomplish all of this is something I agree needs tinkering with. The actual ZOC concept from the first two games is gone, and unlikely to come back (which isn't such a bad thing). But, expansion of cultural borders accomplishes much the same effect. As has been stated, even with roads, enemy units move as if on unimproved terrain. So, this would accomplish the goal of ZOC.
In terms of eventually becoming a city, this is something which, I think, history bears out. Forts can and do become cities, although not always. They typically develop over time and by virtue of necessity. As the fort grows, its needs grow and a civilian population begins to move into the area to provide those needs. Eventually, this can result in a permanent settlement more akin to a city or town than just the basic fort itself.
Here's how I see this developing.
1.) Worker builds fort. May be within territory or outside of territorial boundaries. (as an alternative, a unit promotion called "combat engineering" could be awarded, which allows the unit to do things like build roads, or construct a fort. No chopping, mining, etc., though. Those are strictly worker functions)
1a.) The fort itself is simply a defensive structure at this point, which takes advantage of the surrounding terrain. The fort provides a base +25% defense in addition to the terrain bonuses on the square.
2.) Upon construction, the fort's own square has its own cultural border (like when you take over an enemy city). This is only the single tile.
3.) In five turns, the cultural borders expand to the nine-tile square on their own. No change in defensive bonuses, but the fort, now well established, has created its "ZOC". (Note: to accomplish this, at least one unit must be in the fort or border expansion halts.)
4.) 10 turns later, the fort's "ZOC" expands to a fat cross. The fort cannot work any of the tiles in the fat cross, however, and the "ZOC" will not expand any further at this point.
5.) From this point forward, the player may opt to send a worker unit to the fort, and establish a settlement (the worker is consumed in the process). The settlement will start only by working its own square the way newly established cities do, but will not have the ability to work a second square (unlike new cities). The fort can, however, build units (assuming it has the necessary resources available in its city box).
6.) In ten turns, a second tile can be worked. From this point forward, the settlement develops like any other city. Incidentally, the defensive bonus of the fort disappears at this point, since the tile converts to a city.
I think this is balanced because of the time involved as compared to the benefits. The actual defensive structure bonuses don't change until the fort develops to a city, at which point they disappear. The "ZOC" is created through the expansion of cultural borders, but it takes a relatively long time for this to happen. Also, while the fort can grow into a city, consider how many turns this would take.
First you'd have the construction time of building the fort itself (which is, what, 12 turns currently? Something like that, I think). Once the fort's built, you have five turns to get the fort to nine-square status. Another ten turns expands it to fat cross, after which you need a worker to get to "settlement" status, followed by ten more turns to actually become a city.
So...
Fort construction time + 5 turns + 10 turns + worker + 10 turns = city (from a fort)
vs.
Settler.
The fort serves its purpose this way, and can eventually develop into a real city, without being "spammable" and unbalancing the game.
JaniSpetke
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2005
- Messages
- 13
I disagree with most of you, because I think forts are useful in the middle of the game and I use them in almost every time I play.
The defence bonus of the fort is rather low, it could be higher. The fort does not have ZOC, and IMO it should not have! There's nothing in the fort construction itself, that could create ZOC. It is created by active usage of units IN the fort!
I never build fort on a borderline, I build them within three or four spaces behind it in a place which is naturally easy to defend, like on a riverside or on a hill. I put a couple of good units to protect the fort itself, usually longbowmen with hills defense bonus, if possible. I also garrison several mounted units to act as a task force. Usually there are eight knights. The key point of the fort is to protect the countryside around the cities and not letting the enemy to pillage it. The task force is there to weaken the enemy before it gets to my city gates with it's catapults.
Place your fort between your cities and you can easily protect two or even three of your cities, and you don't have to build vast amount of strong city defences in every one of them.
Here's the typical case just for an example:
The enemy declares a war and crosses the borderline. In the middle of the game, when the forts are the most useful, the typical enemy army consist of several macemen, longbowmen, couple of catapults and maybe some knights.
Because the enemy is on the hostile territory it can move only one or two spaces per turn.
I unleash my knights and attack the enemy. I am on a friendly territory so I can easily outmove the enemy. The knigts usually retreat the battle if they're losing, especially if they have Flanking bonus. I can take several rounds of attacks before the enemy reaches my city. In that case the enemy army is usually in ruins so it's not a real threat anymore. Two or three longbowmen behind a city wall don't have a problem in defending the city. After a while, the remaints of the enemy army can be wiped out completely by the knights. The fort act as a resting place for the knights.
The enemy may try to advance in your heartland to pillage key resources, like Iron. But because of the greater movement, knights can control a large area of your countryside.
--
In the modern era, when there are tanks and bombers, the fort is of no use, because you don't get a real advantage of greater movement anymore. I think the fort should be upgraded then. In CivIII I liked the idea of upgrading your fortress with barricade, which slows enemy movement. I want that feature back. Then you could build a line of fortresses to protect your inland, and the enemy would have to bomb it's way open to attack. Or make a landing from the sea, which is totally a different case.
The defence bonus of the fort is rather low, it could be higher. The fort does not have ZOC, and IMO it should not have! There's nothing in the fort construction itself, that could create ZOC. It is created by active usage of units IN the fort!
I never build fort on a borderline, I build them within three or four spaces behind it in a place which is naturally easy to defend, like on a riverside or on a hill. I put a couple of good units to protect the fort itself, usually longbowmen with hills defense bonus, if possible. I also garrison several mounted units to act as a task force. Usually there are eight knights. The key point of the fort is to protect the countryside around the cities and not letting the enemy to pillage it. The task force is there to weaken the enemy before it gets to my city gates with it's catapults.
Place your fort between your cities and you can easily protect two or even three of your cities, and you don't have to build vast amount of strong city defences in every one of them.
Here's the typical case just for an example:
The enemy declares a war and crosses the borderline. In the middle of the game, when the forts are the most useful, the typical enemy army consist of several macemen, longbowmen, couple of catapults and maybe some knights.
Because the enemy is on the hostile territory it can move only one or two spaces per turn.
I unleash my knights and attack the enemy. I am on a friendly territory so I can easily outmove the enemy. The knigts usually retreat the battle if they're losing, especially if they have Flanking bonus. I can take several rounds of attacks before the enemy reaches my city. In that case the enemy army is usually in ruins so it's not a real threat anymore. Two or three longbowmen behind a city wall don't have a problem in defending the city. After a while, the remaints of the enemy army can be wiped out completely by the knights. The fort act as a resting place for the knights.
The enemy may try to advance in your heartland to pillage key resources, like Iron. But because of the greater movement, knights can control a large area of your countryside.
--
In the modern era, when there are tanks and bombers, the fort is of no use, because you don't get a real advantage of greater movement anymore. I think the fort should be upgraded then. In CivIII I liked the idea of upgrading your fortress with barricade, which slows enemy movement. I want that feature back. Then you could build a line of fortresses to protect your inland, and the enemy would have to bomb it's way open to attack. Or make a landing from the sea, which is totally a different case.
KillerCardinal
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2005
- Messages
- 71
JaniSpetke said:
My biggest problem here is that as far as I can tell, your strategy doesn't rely on the defensive bonus that the fort gives you in the first place, if you are simply using it as a launching point for the knights. Unless you actually use the defensive bonus somewhere, your strategy remains sound, but can be done with no fort, with no change. Now if you are suggesting having waves of knights(or anything else with multiple moves, and preferably decent withdrawal), and retreating to the fort for defense by the longbowmen after a nasty skirmish, then I might see your point.
However, this is close to how I handle my basic border defense anyway, except that I use the cities themselves as the fort. Hmm,this could actually help, as(especially before engineering) I'm not always able to completely make the return trip to the city in the same move(especially with one move units like catapults and macemen). Doing it from a fort just outside your fat cross could fix this problem. The only downside that I see from that, is that you get less healing in a fort than a city, to my understanding.
This still requires some good geography, but it isn't as rare that it may work as my previous thoughts.
Sorry about the rambling in the second paragraph, I pretty much wrote it as it occurred to me, so there may be some aggregious errors in it
.
Pantastic
King
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 922
JaniSpetke said:
Are you playing on very low levels or something? 3-4 spaces in from the border would usually put you at a city in the games I've played. Even with a bit of space, that's still right in the middle of your improvable land, so you're giving up a tile improvement.
The notable thing about your description of how you use forts is that it never mentioned the fort serving any purpose whatsoever. You say that the key point of the fort is to protect the countryside, but you don't actually say how it manages to do that. Yes, you prevent the enemy from roaming through your land - but it's bringing 8 knights to fight that does that, not the forts. I'd rather mine the hill and get production out of it, and have the garrison units you'd permanently station there as reserve forces to move in once the enemy is spotted.
Rathelon
Prince
In theory, forts are usable in any space outside the fat cross (which are the only spaces your citizens will work). There is no reason to improve every tile in your cultural border, because a lot of tiles within your cultural border are not workable.
That said, I've found that forts are still of limited use because of the fluxuation of cultural borders, especially in areas where you would want a fort. Either your border expands, and then your fort isnt in the optimal position, or the enemies cultural border expands and they take over the tile where your fort was built.
That said, I've found that forts are still of limited use because of the fluxuation of cultural borders, especially in areas where you would want a fort. Either your border expands, and then your fort isnt in the optimal position, or the enemies cultural border expands and they take over the tile where your fort was built.
Forts pretty much suck in Civ4. I use them occasionally, on a hill near my borders outside of a cities fat cross, to slow down an enemy invasion, but generally they just suck. If they had, say, a 50% defence bonus and a one tile ZOC, then they would be worthwile. But as it is, they are nearly useless.
migthegreek said:
The trick was to build a fort outside the city you're besieging; and keep a musketeer or higher inside, to defend all the catapults/cannons/higher units you're using to bombard the town.
All you would need were enough engineers to build a railroad up to the door of the enemy city and to throw up the fort fast enough.
3 and 4 have destroyed that strategy, of course.
JaniSpetke
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2005
- Messages
- 13
Pantastic said:
I tend to build my cities so that there might be small gaps between the fat crosses. I try place my cities in positions where there are extra resources and/or fresh water available. I don't build cities just to fill the gaps. Do you think I am wasting land space here? I also usually build lots of culture, so the borderline is often relatively far away.
The fort itself doesn't protect anything, it serves as a safe healing point for the units. And yes, units may rest in the forest also.
If I have to bring more units to the warzone, I always end my movement in the fort, so the units don't end up standing in open space unprotected.[/QUOTE]
I agree the fort would be more usable in the city radius if it's defence bonus was higher. It would be cool if you could upgrade it during the game.
Now if you look the fort presented in the game, it looks like it is made of wood. So it is more like forts they used in America to garrison cavalry. They're not like European style castles or strongholds.
Manno
Chieftain
Hah, I didn't even know forts existed on civ4 
never seen the option
never seen the option
JaniSpetke
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2005
- Messages
- 13
shivute said:
If I build them closer, I might fit in two more cities, but then cities will overlap each other. I'd rather build cities in best places possible and let them grow huge.
Usually this tactics worked quite well for me.
Forts are worthless. They should change them to minefields.
Minefields should remove all movement points from enemy units and deal a one-time 25%-50% damage (maybe even collateral damage).
It aids your defense, can only be within your own cultural borders, doesn't require ZoC.
This shouldn't be too hard to develop. When a worker creates a minefield, an invisible unit (like a spy) with 0 movement points should be put on top of that tile.
Minefields should remove all movement points from enemy units and deal a one-time 25%-50% damage (maybe even collateral damage).
It aids your defense, can only be within your own cultural borders, doesn't require ZoC.
This shouldn't be too hard to develop. When a worker creates a minefield, an invisible unit (like a spy) with 0 movement points should be put on top of that tile.
