Forts = canals???

[Gaius Octavius]

The reason forts will now give access to resources is because we all complained about them being useless on tiles that require mines, etc., to give resources. We said these are the ones that need to be defended the most, yet forts can't be built without sacrificing the resource. So now, in BTS, if you have an iron supply outside a city radius, this gives you a good reason to build a fort there.

 

[r_rolo1]

A question popped in my mind: forts on a square adjacent to a lake will have the same boat pass ability? That can lenghten some canals....

 

[TheLastOne36]

Also if you make a canal then isn't it possible to irrigate some of the water for farmland? just asking.

 

[Thedrin]

Fitchn:

Me:
*snip*
It's been stated that forts will now grant access to resources - presumably they won't provide resource improvement tile bonuses - which is also like a city.

Hmmm... Here's a thought I had: what if the fort does give you access to the resource, but does not give you any bonus plot yields.

For instance, a Farm on Wheat gives you +3 food (IIRC) in addition to the resource; the fort would give you access to the resource only, and no food bonus.

This would make a lot of sense, as it would finally allow you to protect your most valuable resources even better, but would have a trade-off (in this example, no food bonus).

Thoughts?

Possibly unclear but that's what I just suggested (and that's taken from what someone else said in this or another thread).

Consider flat grassland copper. You can mine it or build a fort on it. Both options provide access to the resource. Mining the copper provides the resource improvement tile bonus while a fort (just like a city) doesn't.

 

[fitchn]

Possibly unclear but that's what I just suggested (and that's taken from what someone else said in this or another thread).

Consider flat grassland copper. You can mine it or build a fort on it. Both options provide access to the resource. Mining the copper provides the resource improvement tile bonus while a fort (just like a city) doesn't.

Oops! Sorry! I mis-read your post; in re-reading it, you did say the exact same thing! (I had the idea a bit ago, and your post reminded me of it... I got a little too eager to post and didn't read carefully enough!)

 

[Nikis-Knight]

A question popped in my mind: forts on a square adjacent to a lake will have the same boat pass ability? That can lenghten some canals....

A ship can enter coastal forts only, so the maximum width of your canal can be two tiles (unless it gets help from inland lakes)

Yes, although remember, only coastal cities can build boats, so there must be an ocean connection somewhere for it to matter.

 

[playshogi]

Maybe forts will allow for an expansion of cultural borders, like a new city, (but never expanding beyond 1 square of control). That way, you could use aggressive placement of forts to claim territory for later filling in with real cities. Or, it could be used to grab those tundra resources, without the expense of a whole new city.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

The <bActsAsCity> tag in XML defines whether the fort will "act as a city." What this simply means is that units inside of it heal faster, air units can be based in it now, etc.

I wonder if you can build them outside your borders?

 

[r_rolo1]

I bet than no

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I've always wanted a canal improvement anyway, so this is good enough for me. Maybe it does make as much sense as it could, but I can live with it.

 

[winddbourne]

This is awesome news. It raises a lot of questions in my mind though, as me and my room mate are talking about now.

How like a city is the fort?

Can one fort be built next to another? Or are they like cities and require several squares in between.

Do forts have upkeep costs?

Can we build improvements within the fort? Such as mines or cottages? Or maybe military improvements of various sorts?

Does the fort give you any sort of "cultural" radius? If so how does the fort gain culture? From having military units in it?

That's all the questions that pop up right off the bat. Can't wait to hear more.

 

[r_rolo1]

I can only anwser to one

Do forts have upkeep costs?

No ,they don't

 

[winddbourne]

yes I read the thread, and the other thread on forts as well, neither one has definite answers to any of my questions, I also read the original chat log. Which seems vague in my opinion compared to some of the comments I'm hearing on both threads.

The closest I've seen to a definite answer in the thread is a "firaxian" saying that forts could only work as canals when in coastal squares. Which does suggest that they can be built next to each other, but not whether or not they have upkeep costs or any of the rest.

I posted the questions for clarity. Things I think haven't been actually addressed, or addressed in any real depth. Because I'd like to know, and I think a lot of others would to, exactly what we're looking at with the totallty changed fort system.

If they are as good as they sound I can only hope they have upkeep costs OR can't be built next to each other, or they will become the new roads improvement for civ IV. I certainly don't want to see them on every square.

If they CAN be built next to each other, and they don't cost anything (As R rolo 1 suggests) then I hope they have some serious drawbacks to keep fort spam down to a minimum.

 

[r_rolo1]

From the AfterPartyQA.txt in the sticky thread in the top of this forum page:

Fanatic:
Do Forts have a maintenance cost?

Jon:
No cost.

Not a suggestion...

 

[winddbourne]

I missed that, and it is good info, thansk rolo. Did I miss anything saying how they are preventing/discouraging forts from being built everywhere? Assuming they do give access to resources now, and act as canals?

 

[r_rolo1]

I'll let the firaxians speak :

Fanatic:
Now that forts allow ships through... can they be chained together in a canal?

Jon:
Possibly .

It was the only other reference to forts that I found in the quoted file
But it was said in another Thread that forts could be built over resouses and still give acess to it ( searching ... )
In post 11 of this Thread alexman ( one of the firaxians) said :

A ship can enter coastal forts only, so the maximum width of your canal can be two tiles (unless it gets help from inland lakes)

so admiting the posibily of putting forts right next to each other ( stating too that the max length of a fort canal would be 2 tiles).

 

[winddbourne]

thanks, those two I did see. Hopefully somebody with more info will read the questions and give us some more definite answers. Maybe a firaxian, or a beta tester, or even the marketing department seeing that we're really interested. I also saw a couple other comments that make forts sound good. I'm just worried they'll be too good and be spammed everywhere. So I'm looking for info. Especially related to the downside of forts.

 

[r_rolo1]

From the bts_prerelease_chat_'clean'_first_half.txt file in the quoted sticky thread:

<Gogf> :40pm] Rince: have you improved forts?
<alexman> Yes, forts are GREATLY improved
<alexman> Forts act like cities in many ways
<alexman> So you can base aircraft in them, you can enter them with ships, and you can paradrop from them
<alexman> You can even use them to connect resources

 

[r_rolo1]

@Gaius Octavius, from Chat After Party.txt file in the quoted sticky thread:

(Steiner-Davion) can you now build Forts outside of your cultural borders?
(Virote) I'm off
(@Gogf) Are there any plans to add a FIRAXISDEATHROBOT unit to the game?
(+Solver) You're not sure about the Mausoleum?
(@Gogf)
(+FXS_JonShafer) not sure about Forts, sorry

Not sure ....

 

[Traitorfish]

A ship can enter coastal forts only, so the maximum width of your canal can be two tiles (unless it gets help from inland lakes)

Well, at least that'll be enough to secure strategic points- something like the Suez canal- without needing to build a city that may be otherwise useless.