Fortresses, to be, or not to be?

[Jamesds]

Hello, I was wondering about fortresses. I don't usually use them unless I have lot of units next to a city, or maybe I want to section off a bit of land, late in the game, so AIs can't get in! I think the computer goes CRAZY with them. What a waste for the 'poor' computer player!

Anyway, can anyone thnk of better reasons for fortresses, I like using things when they are available!

I hope you know a lot more about how to use them then I do!

 

[Smash]

You know one use by plopping them next to cities.Only other one I would consider would be to establish a choke point or to draw off resources from a civ by either taking a resource or parking it on a mountain and watch the slaughter as countless troops hurl themselves to a gallant demise at the hands of your defenders.

Yes the ai is very cooperative at building these for you and leaving them undefended.

oh there is another use.Barb leaders will beeline for them if unescorted and will actually stack in them.Then you can pick them off one at a time.

 

[duke o' york]

It is a good idea to gift opposing civs Construction as the endless building of fortresses will waste their settlers' time for centuries!

 

[Sodak]

Used in groups, they are very good for preventing AI units from going where you don't want them to go. Also, a pair of strong defenders on a mountain or hill will cost the AI countless units when at war. If you choose a spot near their cities, they will beat against your defender endlessly.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I never use them, as they interfere with the mass use of airbases.
I might occasionally plonk one on a mountain top as a choke point, but apart from that, I do not have a fortress fetish.

The AI absolutely loves them, though. In scenarios I try and labour, cities will produce settlers for the sole purpose of building fortresses, as there are no other terrain improvements to make. Not that it ever does them any good

 

[Darius]

It's good to make entire strategy out of mountain choke points. If you're in no position to make an invasion force, for one reason or another, just set up a dozen or more in crucial areas in the other civ, and you can manage to waste hundreds and hundreds of their shields, meanwhile tying the fight to their backyard so they will be too preoccupied to take it to yours.

 

[unknown_spirit]

I never used to build them, but in my last game, as some may have read in another post, I placed them around my city like so:

101
0C0
101 key:1:fortress
0:no fortress
C:city
This of course changes if there are squares in the sea, but you get the idea.
I will also garrison enemy fortresses near enemy cities. This lets me keep them off my borders while I summon reinforcements, and, depending on positioning, let me get a stranglehold on the enemy. A defensive structure with an offensive purpose! Marvellous!

 

[Darius]

I like this fortress configuration better:

101
10001
00C00
10001
101

(guess that didn't work, but the top and bottom lines were indented to the right)

If you have your fortresses right next to your city, then enemies or more likely barbarians will pillage any road, farmland, etc. outside of your defenses. Put them on your frontiers and everything your city uses will be defended. Also, you of course don't need fortresses deep into your civ, but rather entire front lines of them only on your frontiers:

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Fortresses are expensive to man, so I don't build them in large numbers. I do use them on rough terrain to act as decoys for my actual invasion force. Most of the time, I just use the ones abandoned by the enemy to act as bases to stack artillery with infantry for a siege.

And I do love seiges done properly!!! [plasma]

 

[unknown_spirit]

Originally posted by Darius
I like this fortress configuration better:

101
10001
00C00
10001
101

(guess that didn't work, but the top and bottom lines were indented to the right)

If you have your fortresses right next to your city, then enemies or more likely barbarians will pillage any road, farmland, etc. outside of your defenses. Put them on your frontiers and everything your city uses will be defended. Also, you of course don't need fortresses deep into your civ, but rather entire front lines of them only on your frontiers:

Trouble is with that, Darius, is that enemy dips can get through smiling since u can't get great surveillance on them with 2 or even 3 squares between forts. Also, with regards to the deep within civ, that's where barbs appear! If they pillage my railroad, I use Armor on unpillaged bits to waste them! U see, I don't use standard roads

 

[Darius]

I've never seen an uprising within my civ, U_S. As for the reconaissance, there is no need since barbarians are always visible.

 

[geofelt]

I like to build lots of wonders using caravans. I like to store these caravans on a square which is connected to several cities three squares or less away. This lets me be flexible in building a wonder in the most appropriate city, making the decision at a later time. It also lets me build two wonders at once which you need to do sometimes. It is easy to look at this stack of caravans and readily see how many you have. As a precaution to prevent losing the entire stack if a barb or enemy should show up, I build a fortress. If available, I occasionally station a defender there also.

 

[unknown_spirit]

Originally posted by Darius
I've never seen an uprising within my civ, U_S. As for the reconaissance, there is no need since barbarians are always visible.

You should read more carefully. I said dips and spies could infiltrate between the forts! In my experience, uprisings happen more often inside your civ, just where you don't want them. By civ, do you mean inside your borders, as that's how I take it to mean?
Also, on a different note, why don't I have the custom title box?

 

[Old n Slow]

I think I average about one fortress a game. In additiaon to Smash's thoughts, I noticed that a few manned forts really help developing settlers from ravaging Babs.

 

[Darius]

I said dips and spies could infiltrate between the forts!

But they can with your configuration too, since they ignore zones of control. Also, you actually have less recon, not more, because your troops are nearer your city and you can't react until the spy has already gotten into it.

As for barbs, I don't just mean in city-occupied squares, but also just generally within your civ. For instance, if the borders of two cities are separated by two or three squares of wilderness, the odds are still very low that you'll have an uprising. Regardless, I always try to have my city borders next to each other so there is no barb-loving wilderness. Then they come outside of my national borders, like in the picture I've shown, and that's where the fortresses go.

 

[unknown_spirit]

It's not like I fear enemy Dips and Spies. All the AI ever does is steal techs anyway. I give them all to all civs at the end anyway. (see Warfare the Unorthodox Way) Sure, I don't like being stolen from, but they can only steal one tech, that you already have. They aren't improving on you. It dosen't matter, though, as I use their Phlanx's spears as tent-pegs whenever they nick my stuff.

 

[Enforcer Talen]

I've never built them, never missed them.

 

[sethos]

I build them for invasion purposes:
Let two engineers rush build a fortress and then stack one howitzer armour and so on it.

 

[Ace]

The only time I have ever built a fortress was once when I hit the "F" key by mistake when I thought I was building a road!
I do use AI abandoned fortresses on occasion, but I never build them. They are a waste of engineer time. If I every run into a "chokepoint" situation I might build one, time permitting.

 

[Rowan]

Im with Sethos,that is what I use them for;the invaders are stacked right next to the city.
Another use is instead of stacking the army you are building in side a city[it gets messy],i'll build a few fortresses to stack the different units in!
[dance]