Forts and Garrisoning in Civ5

[TK42I]

One of the things I have not heard much about is the "fort" terrain improvement we've come to expect in CIV as well as the ability to garrison/base units.

1) Depending on how they implement things, the one unit per tile rule might make the expense of placing a fort not worth the effort.

2) When I play more defensive games I tend to base/garrison my troops in a fort within my territory for easy organization and quick response to situations. With the way I understand how things work now I forsee random units hanging out all over the place within my territory during peace time. The map is going to start looking like an RTS game like C&C.

I hope they consider these game play options.

 

[kdr777]

What if the fort acts like the cities, i.e. they can defend themselves without any units garrisoned in it ?

 

[Ahriman]

1upt will *increase* the value of forts, because you can't just ignore it and send your entire army around.

1upt means congestion effects, which makes forts much more valuable.

 

[CTH]

I wouldnt mind see forts as having their own defence, they should cost upkeep and be quite expensive to build otherwise you could abuse them. Perhpas sacrifice a unit to give the fort HP and strength. I think that could work because a fort would not be able to attack only defend and if you break through a fort-defence-line the forts cant follow you, so you would only build forts where you really want them.

However, even if forts just work like in Civ4 I think they will be much better now. Formations in an army will be much more important (withthe 1upt) so if you walk around a fort that has a garrisoned unit, that unit will be able to flank your archers (that you would presumably have in the rear of your army).

So many intressting strategies, I am really looking foreward to CiV now, so so much....

 

[cramerthegr8]

It'd be great if they could do ranged attacks like cities. It'd make it less likely for the enemy to allow you to keep forts behind their lines, especially in high traffic areas.

 

[Gre_Magus]

I really think forts, if they exist in the game, will either work like cities (i.e., have their own hitpoints and ranged attacks) or simply add to the defense (and maybe offense?) of the unit garrisoned in them. A fort might be a good way to keep a ranged unit that otherwise would be crushed by a melee attacker on the "front line", so to speak.

 

[Crazy George]

Hit points on forts is an interesting concept.

Even if they only had 1HP, the effect of un-occupied forts would be to slow down an enemy advance, and therefor making a line of forts on a hostile border a conceivably worthwhile investment.

Occupied (at 2x defense, or whatever), they will make chokepoints as Ahriman points out.

I would argue against upkeep. Building them in the first place is cost enough. Things like ditches, ramparts, stone structures, and reinforced-concrete tend to last a long time. And other unused improvements (unworked farms or cottages, for example) don't rot away.

 

[quintus5]

I forsee random units hanging out all over the place within my territory during peace time.

I think 1upt will only be "active" during war.

 

[Ahriman]

I think 1upt will only be "active" during war.

Well, if you mean 1upt for the player (ie you can stack military units durnig peacetime) then I think you're wrong, there's no evidence for this.

But I've thought about relaxing 1upt across players [ie both me and my neighbor with open borders can have 1 military unit on the same tile as long as we are both at peace] as a means to try to mitigate the potential for "blocking" exploits (where you use your army to block an open border player), but its hard to operationalize in a simple manner.

What does "at war" mean? One of us is at war, with anyone in the world? Both of us are at war? What if this changes; stacked units are de-stacked by unit teleportation?

 

[TK42I]

I think 1upt will only be "active" during war.

That might solve my concern, but I have not seen anything that indicates that is what is going to happen.

I like to keep a fairly tidy map and I'm not looking forward to "Civ Parking Lot."

 

[CTH]

Units can go through other friendly units (I think but I am not sure, that all units has a movement of at least 2) but can not stop on the same tile. And I dont think that forts should have upkeep if they dont have their own defence and hp, but if they do, they should have upkeep to prevent spaming.

 

[Ddude97]

@TK42I There will be less units (at least thats what they tell us) so you will still have plenty of room I think.
@CTH Not confirmed, bu I've heard something about 1 nation's unit per tile, which would destroy blocking. I agree with you that if forts are self defense capable, they ought to have upkeep.

 

[innonimatu]

In civ4 bts I gave up on building forts for military reasons. That only paid off in strategic choke points, but with the more aggressive AI use of sea-borne attacks I just relied on defending cities.

But with the one unit limitation forts might really become necessary. Will forts continue to deny the possibility of building tile improvements? I always thought that allowing a normal tile improvement and just subtracting a fixed amount of resources (say, one production and one food) from the normal output of the tile would make more sense.

 

[chongli]

Units can go through other friendly units (I think but I am not sure, that all units has a movement of at least 2) but can not stop on the same tile. And I dont think that forts should have upkeep if they dont have their own defence and hp, but if they do, they should have upkeep to prevent spaming.

I don't think fort spamming will be that big of an issue so upkeep should not be necessary. Forts are immobile, battle lines are mobile. As the war progress and territories change, many forts will wind up in bad positions. Combine this with the time investment required to build them and it makes it difficult to justify spamming.

 

[mboettcher]

The way to prevent fort spamming as an issue is to make them expensive. Also fort spamming is kind of what a successful civilization did in the past and still does to an extent. Forts should be invaluable. You shouldn't be even able to bypass a fort. It should have a zone of control. Why? cause you can't supply an army on the other side if your supply lines run right next to a fort. Also forts should be expensive to upgrade and there should be numerous fort tech options. I think that this would create a lot of strategic options and make the game a lot more fun not only in planning wars but in defending oneself to play towards a vertical development oriented goal.

Also wouldn't it be kind of cool if forts gave economic and development bonus in their regions? Allowed for more valuable trade routes, faster 'cottage' or town (if we still have those) development or even small city development. I mean look at most major western European nations. The successful ones grew up very much around successful fortification. The fractured German states were able to remain sovereign and allowed to develop their long term complex economy because of the quality of their fortifications. Louis XIV's France achieved enormous success because of Vauban's fortifications solidifying the border and the French decline in the 18th century was in large part due to Marlborough's destruction of these very forts and the subsequent destabilization of their national security.

So in other words GO FORTS

 

[Ahriman]

successful ones grew up very much around successful fortification.

I think in general the causality is reversed; rich countries/monarchs could build more/better fortifications, rather than better fortifications causing wealth.

Its much simpler to model any benefits from fortifications like in Civ4, where castle buildings in cities give a trade bonus, rather than using Fort improvements to buff other improvements.

Its also messes up their role. Fort improvements on the map should be about military. If you want economy, build cottages.

 

[Jheral]

I think in general the causality is reversed; rich countries/monarchs could build more/better fortifications, rather than better fortifications causing wealth.

I tend to think that it's a bit of both; trade would be of vital importance to a nation, and therefore they would strive to protect their trade by building military fortifications. These would then grow into successful settlements due to the trade coming through, and more wealth would be accumulated, allowing for more such settlements to be created.

Still, the game shouldn't really move in that direction; much too complex a system.

 

[Ddude97]

I tend to think that it's a bit of both; trade would be of vital importance to a nation, and therefore they would strive to protect their trade by building military fortifications. These would then grow into successful settlements due to the trade coming through, and more wealth would be accumulated, allowing for more such settlements to be created.

I think that this will end up as a mod, if that; I don't think this will be in the vanilla release, although that would be awesome!

 

[mboettcher]

I think in general the causality is reversed; rich countries/monarchs could build more/better fortifications, rather than better fortifications causing wealth.

That it is not entirely reasonable. Why would so many leaders spend enormous fortunes if forts did not offer a huge benefit. It was Louis XIV's most expensive building program. The Romans spent a fortune fortifying their frontiers. In both cases historians give significant credit for the wealth and success of these nations to the stability that the fortified frontier had provided, allowing for a great deal of safe business and trade to accrue not only across the borders but in the regions that were now made far more safe. defensive construction, while the result of the investment of wealthy nations, has tended to make those nations far more successful when those fortifications did their job. Forts should not be trivialized in CiV

 

[Ddude97]

Yes, but that can't be simulated without for spamming.