Fortifying mechanics

[Ryika]

- It doesn't have additional costs to be used.

It comes at the cost of mobility. You can't move that unit without losing the big bonus.

- It works for defender only.

Indeed. You call that a penalty, I'm not sure why. Defender's advantage is an important part of every game (otherwise playing offensively would be the go-to strategy in any situation), I think the more of it we can put into the unit system and the less we require truly stationary defenses such as Cities, the better.

- Before actual game balance, the values are not important, but making the long-term fortification much bigger than 1-turn fortification which is already significant, makes it strong.

I'm still not arguing for an additional level of fortification over what we currently have. I say make long-term fortification have the level of what we have now, and make short-term fortification half of that.

It's exactly the same system that is already active in Civ 5, just that instead of getting the second bonus after merely 1 turn of being fortified you'd now only get it after (for example) 5 turns.

That doesn't make long-term fortifications stronger, they'd still be on the same level as they are now. The difference is that it takes longer to get into that second level of fortification, which strengthens Mobility, because if you can get around them or just attack from a different angle you'd have an easier time pushing into enemy territory and they'd need to leave their fortified position because it has been compromised.

So, to me, if we want strategic fortification, I'd like it to be more than just "fortify for X turns".

Well sure, it's an example. One that I made quickly to show the benefits of having a bigger time-difference between short- and long-term fortification. It may very well be that there's more interesting solutions. Well, Forts in Civ 5 already are exactly that, just that we really never needed them.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It comes at the cost of mobility. You can't move that unit without losing the big bonus.

You loss mobility of 1 unit, that's not a significant cost. In Civ4 you lost mobility of the entire stack.

Indeed. You call that a penalty, I'm not sure why. Defender's advantage is an important part of every game (otherwise playing offensively would be the go-to strategy in any situation), I think the more of it we can put into the unit system and the less we require truly stationary defenses such as Cities, the better.

It's a problem because in 1UPT defender is in very good position already. One of the reason why tall empires are so good in BNW is because they are so easy to defend. Civ6 seem to be better as cities seem to be much weaker, but still additional boosts for defenders are not good idea.

I'm still not arguing for an additional level of fortification over what we currently have. I say make long-term fortification have the level of what we have now, and make short-term fortification half of that.

It's exactly the same system that is already active in Civ 5, just that instead of getting the second bonus after merely 1 turn of being fortified you'd now only get it after (for example) 5 turns.

In this case, it's highly possible the 1-turn fortifications will loose their value. This will be a big loss, because 1-turn fortifications give much more to tactics.

We have some "sweet spot" on fortification bonus (the actual value depends on many things like terrain bonuses) where fortification is not useless, but is also not unpenetratably OP (do you remember fortified Phalanx on mountains from Civ1?). The problem is - you're trying to hit this sweet spot with 2 values which differ 2 times from each other. I doubt it's possible.

Well sure, it's an example. One that I made quickly to show the benefits of having a bigger time-difference between short- and long-term fortification. It may very well be that there's more interesting solutions. Well, Forts in Civ 5 already are exactly that, just that we really never needed them.

Value of Forts is the matter of balance. If they had some gold output on their own, for example (less than gold-focused improvements), they'd become much more common.

 

[Ryika]

You loss mobility of 1 unit, that's not a significant cost. In Civ4 you lost mobility of the entire stack.

Yes, but you also only gain bonus defense for a single unit.

It's a problem because in 1UPT defender is in very good position already. One of the reason why tall empires are so good in BNW is because they are so easy to defend. Civ6 seem to be better as cities seem to be much weaker, but still additional boosts for defenders are not good idea.

Well again, it doesn't make the Defender stronger, if anything it makes him weaker because he becomes more stationary. The real difference comes from the fact that the offensive player can't just create their own line of fortification. Attacks would become more about pushing in or retreating instead of creating ones own fortifications. An offensive player should not "need" to fortify, his goal should be to push into the fortifications. And by removing the tool of "good" fortifications from him the balance can be pushed towards exactly that gameplay.

Then make Ranged Units weaker and <additional balance stuff here> to end up with a "zone defense vs offense"-scenario.

In this case, it's highly possible the 1-turn fortifications will loose their value. This will be a big loss, because 1-turn fortifications give much more to tactics.

What? Why? They're not useless now, why would they become useless simply because the second level can't be reached on the second turn anymore? Fortifying units for one turn and rotating them around is already a good strategy with mods that nerf the defensive capabilities of human-led archer units.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, but you also only gain bonus defense for a single unit.

You gain defense for 1 tile. Which could be really key tile.

I believe you're missing the key point. It doesn't matter whether you double the value for long-term fortification, or halve them for short-term fortification. It's the same. Forget about Civ5, Civ6 is the new game with its own set of bonuses, with new movement rules and so on.

It doesn't matter whether defender gains bonuses due to very strong long-term fortification it uses or due to very weak fortification bonuses for attacker. The results are the same - the system with long-term fortification gives advantage to defender.

 

[Ryika]

You gain defense for 1 tile. Which could be really key tile.

Yeah. So? Currently Fortification already has that effect, but without having to wait for 5 turns.

I believe you're missing the key point. It doesn't matter whether you double the value for long-term fortification, or halve them for short-term fortification. It's the same. Forget about Civ5, Civ6 is the new game with its own set of bonuses, with new movement rules and so on.

The system that is currently in place for Civ 5 works like this:
If you fortify a unit it gets a 20% Fortification Bonus.
If you let it stay fortified for another turn it gains another 20% Fortification Bonus, for a total of 40%.

So the system that I'm talking about is literally already in place, all I want to do is increase the time span to get the second bonus, because it would make mobile units stronger and increase the difference in play between offensive and the defensive player.

It doesn't matter whether defender gains bonuses due to very strong long-term fortification it uses or due to very weak fortification bonuses for attacker. The results are the same - the system with long-term fortification gives advantage to defender.

You're the one talking about "very strong long-term fortifications", that's not what I'm talking about, as I have told you twice already. But yes, long-term fortification bonuses give advantages to the defender, that's intended. Offensive Players can get around it by using Mobile units - or even just poking these defenses with ranged units before moving in.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yeah. So? Currently Fortification already has that effect, but without having to wait for 5 turns.

That's the difference. Staying for 2 turns is normal for attacker once you break defenses. Staying for 5 turns isn't.

You're the one talking about "very strong long-term fortifications", that's not what I'm talking about, as I have told you twice already. But yes, long-term fortification bonuses give advantages to the defender, that's intended. Offensive Players can get around it by using Mobile units - or even just poking these defenses with ranged units before moving in.

If we speak about Civ5:
1. Do you agree what defender has too many advantages? To me, it's part of the reason why tall empires are ridiculously effective in BNW.
2. Do you agree prolonging full fortification bonus from second turn to fifth will benefit defender even more?

 

[Ryika]

That's the difference. Staying for 2 turns is normal for attacker once you break defenses. Staying for 5 turns isn't.

So? Attackers still gain increased efficiency from Mobility. It becomes easier to break into defenses and once you have broken into defenses it's hard for the defender to fall back onto another position. They cannot simply fall back 2 titles and then get full fortification there, so attackers do not need full fortification. Instead of barricading in front of a city they roll in and start messing things up. That's way more interesting than allowing them to fortify in front of a city and then shoot at it for 3 turns while otherwise nothing happens.

If we speak about Civ5:
1. Do you agree what defender has too many advantages? To me, it's part of the reason why tall empires are ridiculously effective in BNW.
2. Do you agree prolonging full fortification bonus from second turn to fifth will benefit defender even more?

1. Sure, but the problem isn't fortification, the problems are range attacks that simply snipe attackers (both, by Ranged Units and a bit less by cities) before they can even reach the city if done correctly.
2. Therefore no, I don't agree with this, it usually doesn't even play out like that. An AI that breaks into your territory and can fortify in front of your city has already caused way more trouble than it should have. And a player who fortifies in front of a city does so to prevent its units to be oneshot by ranged attacks, which is the actual issue. Fix that and everything's fine.

 

[stealth_nsk]

1. Sure, but the problem isn't fortification, the problems are range attacks that simply snipe attackers (both, by Ranged Units and a bit less by cities) before they can even reach the city if done correctly.
2. Therefore no, I don't agree with this, it usually doesn't even play out like that. An AI that breaks into your territory and can fortify in front of your city has already caused way more trouble than it should have. And a player who fortifies in front of a city does so to prevent its units to be oneshot by ranged attacks, which is the actual issue. Fix that and everything's fine.

Ok, we narrowed it down. You don't think fortification is a part of the problem of defender being too strong in 1UPT, I do. IMHO, ranged units can't be nerfed too much as this way we'll lose most of the tactics, so making defending less strong in other ways needs to be done too. But that's kind of thing we can't resolve without having actual Civ6 to play.

Speaking about the rest:

1. Yes, attackers fortifying near your city could be a problem, because they get double bonus on second turn. That's what I was talking about - it's nearly impossible to balance 2 fortification bonuses.

2. Even if you don't believe my points, ok. I still don't see any reason for this long-term fortification. I'd prefer meaningful fort system instead.

EDIT: Continuing the though what the things may work completely different in Civ6. We already know 1-range units are available from the start and we strongly suggest 2-range units will be able to use terrain to protect them against attack without putting unit in between (as regular 2 move units will be unable to step and attack). If that's the case, this will change fortification usage dramatically.

 

[Valmighty]

I'm fine with that system, but I was talking about the alert system - how to alert the player without breaking fortification and requiring as few clicks as possible.

In Civ4, you can alert a unit without breaking fortification. The icon probably revert back to normal icon, but it's still has the fortification bonus that you can add in the second turn. That's why i said Civ4 already had the perfect (at least better) solution

 

[m15a]

In Civ4, you can alert a unit without breaking fortification. The icon probably revert back to normal icon, but it's still has the fortification bonus that you can add in the second turn. That's why i said Civ4 already had the perfect (at least better) solution

Oh okay. I haven't played Civ 4 in a while. I didn't remember that there was an alert option.