Forts, Castles, Citadels

[Muz]

Here's one thing that bothers me.. what do forts do? For one thing, they do get immensely powerful and even give supply to my troops there. But what's the point when they only help the enemy?!

In most of my military campaigns I find that camping out in forts really helps when waiting for reinforcement. I don't know why the AI scatters forts throughout the map just to give the enemy an advantage. The only time I've seen the enemy fortify the fort, they rushed out to attack me.

OK, well I admit they do have a purpose in defending mountain passes like in FFH ice, but the AI really makes poor use of them

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Forts give defensive bonuses to all friendly units in range (assuming they don't have a larger bonus from something else), unless occupied by an enemy unit.

If I remember correctly, enemies do not get any defensive bonuses from forts that are still within your borders.

 

[leo.]

I don't really need forts/castles and as long AI doesnt know how to use them in a proper way (and there are already some towers), perhaps not workers but another unit should be able to build a fort?

 

[Jean Elcard]

I saw, that I get better odds, when attacking from a fort next to an enemy city. Intended bonus for the attacker or is it just the defenders losing their defense bonus?

 

[Muz]

Hmm.. do the defensive bonuses reach up to a defending city? But I am pretty sure that forts give a bonus to enemies, at the very least they don't need supplies and heal a lot faster. Fast healing is a huge advantage without mages and clerics

leo has a point there though, they'd be a lot more useful if say, a military unit camping in opponent territory could build them

 

[Mortenart]

I think that forts, castles and citadels have been unecessarily complicated, to the extent that a lot of people don`t seem to know exactly what they do and the benefits that they give anymore. Why not just return to basics: +25% defence for a fort, +50% for a castle, +75% for a citadel (+25% if on a hill). I don`t see why they need to be any more complicated than this. If you`re in the fortification, you get the bonus, if you`re not, you don`t - whoever`s borders your within. There is no reason not to give the bonus, just because you`re in enemy or rival lands - the walls are still just as thick.

 

[Alzara]

I disagree. Forts etc would be completely useless if they didn't provide the added bonuses they have. They would only be useful in one-square passes. Real-world castles aren't all found in tiny passes. Often enemies had the option of going around a castle, but this was tactically unsound.

Al

 

[CMHistory]

It was only tactically unsound if the castle/fort was garrisoned. If it wasn't, they could either pass it by or garrison it themselves, providing a stronghold/fallback position/potential logistic point. I agree that fort mechanics should be simpler, either you are occupying them and get the bonus or you are not and you don't.

 

[Kael]

Forts give defensive bonuses to all friendly units in range (assuming they don't have a larger bonus from something else), unless occupied by an enemy unit.

If I remember correctly, enemies do not get any defensive bonuses from forts that are still within your borders.

That is correct. Enemies can turn them off, but they cant use them.

 

[Mortenart]

Real-world castles aren't all found in tiny passes. Often enemies had the option of going around a castle, but this was tactically unsound.

It was only tactically unsound because the castle`s garrison was able to make raiding sorties against the passing enemy. A castle simply being there does not make the surrounding land any safer, it is only the garrison within it that ensures this safety. Improvements surrounding a castle would be safer because any enemy unit ending their turn on that resource would be attacked by the stack within it. If enemy cavalry successfully raided the improvement then moved away to safety within their turn, it would simply show that they were too swift to be intercepted, unless of course, the garrison had its own cavalry, who could ride out and attack the raiders in their turn. To put it simply, castles would be worthless without defenders, but those defenders must be behind the walls.

 

[TheJopa]

I think that forts, castles and citadels have been unecessarily complicated, to the extent that a lot of people don`t seem to know exactly what they do and the benefits that they give anymore. Why not just return to basics: +25% defence for a fort, +50% for a castle, +75% for a citadel (+25% if on a hill). I don`t see why they need to be any more complicated than this.

Because that way Forts would suck greatly. As the combat system works, enemy can simply bypass the fort, and there is no reason not to wait the enemy inside your city.

 

[CMHistory]

Then a combination of effects should be put into play: Whoever has a unit inside the fort has radiating bonuses around the fort, like it is now, but no longer tied to the civ that owns the land....possession of the fort should be 100% of the law, but let the influence extend beyond the fort tile to the neighboring tiles as well, indicating the garrisoned units ability to "reinforce" the units fighting near the fort.

 

[Alzara]

Still tactically unsound if you dont garrison it. There are people in your cultural borders. Medieval wartime saw a lot of farmers on the battlefield. You would never just pass a fort by. It wouldn't be empty at any time when in someone's cultural borders.

Also as TheJopa said, forts would be a waste of time if they did not confer these benefits.

Al

 

[Mortenart]

Then a combination of effects should be put into play: Whoever has a unit inside the fort has radiating bonuses around the fort, like it is now, but no longer tied to the civ that owns the land....possession of the fort should be 100% of the law, but let the influence extend beyond the fort tile to the neighboring tiles as well, indicating the garrisoned units ability to "reinforce" the units fighting near the fort.

Yes, I agree with this.

 

[Alzara]

A captured fort surrounded by angry citizens with completely nullified supply lines is hardly the same as garrisoning the same fort when it is in YOUR territory with access to citizens and food etc

Al

 

[CMHistory]

Certainly it isn't, but there is also no real siege mechanic in Civ IV, whether FFH, BTS or whatnot. With no method for simulating "starving out" the fort, we can only consider the projection of conserved force that the fort represents.

Also, there are only two ways that an enemy occupying the fort will matter, as I see it, and that's during war (in which case you lost the fort fair and square, and the enemy's "supply lines" are strung up the fort as a part of his advance) or by use of a HN unit, which represents an unknown factor as to who is supplying it and how. Either way, the forts ability to conserve and project force in its region is the deciding factor, given the mechanics available to CivIV, IMHO.

 

[Von Evilstein]

In My Mod, I add a Bonus for the castle and a bonus for the Citadel, to make them more useful.

Indeed Citadel/Castle Administrator collect some gold and i'm sure that they are not inactive.

 

[Gelvan]

Then a combination of effects should be put into play: Whoever has a unit inside the fort has radiating bonuses around the fort, like it is now, but no longer tied to the civ that owns the land....possession of the fort should be 100% of the law, but let the influence extend beyond the fort tile to the neighboring tiles as well, indicating the garrisoned units ability to "reinforce" the units fighting near the fort.

I'd say give the radiating bonus only if a unit occupies it and if it's inside your cultural borders. the AI then would garrison them more often, I think. Furthermore, if you occuppy a fort outside your cultural borders you get +25% on direct attack on that field, but no radiating effect.

 

[Gromblmompf]

Would it be possible to include the fort/castle/citadel battle bonus in the combat odds calculating thingie? You know, when you right-click on opponent and see the % for the battle.

And i´ve always been a fan of giving forts a Zone of Control, but that might make them too powerful now?

 

[TheJopa]

In My Mod, I add a Bonus for the castle and a bonus for the Citadel, to make them more useful.

Indeed Citadel/Castle Administrator collect some gold and i'm sure that they are not inactive.

This would be a fine antidote for AI building forts too close to cities. They should give even more under aristocracy. I was thinking +1 gold for each SURROUNDING tile.