FORTS in BtS... Everything there is to know

[DaveMcW]

You consider it exploitative to have tundra cities that touch the ice with culture just to do this ?

On some maps that is literally the only way to connect 2 oceans

That's the point of ice, to prevent oceans from being connected.

The bug/exploit is the map scripts weren't updated to ice over the shore tiles in BTS.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That's the point of ice, to prevent oceans from being connected.

The bug/exploit is the map scripts weren't updated to ice over the shore tiles in BTS.

Well, I guess. You could make the same argument about the capitulation mechanics and how the diplo interface is inaccurate too...those were never updated...and in particular the cap mechanics are highly exploitable.

Most people would tell you that it's part of the game though and that everything is peachy. I'd say that the cost of building a fort bridge of more than a couple tiles through the ice is a lot greater than abusing other flaws in the game, so maybe everything is exploitative .

 

[PieceOfMind]

Also consider the fact that, realistically, the high and low altitudes on the map are distorted due to a 2D map. Perhaps 6 tiles at the ice is the same distance on a sphere as 2 tiles in the middle of the continent.

I just don't see why it's that surprising that you can build longer canals at the ice considering you can build canals through any other tile. A bigger exploit is that you can build canals through mountain ranges (hill tiles).

 

[Wodan]

Classic blunder: confusing story with gameplay. Fort canal on a hill is not an exploit, it's an element which is more unrealistic than the fort thing. The fort thing, however, is both an exploit and unrealistic.

That said, Bad story is just as bad as bad gameplay.

Anyway I don't see the fort thing as hugely game breaking, as far as exploits go.

 

[PieceOfMind]

If you can build a canal on any waterside tile, and any naval unit can travel through the fort, then why is having a chain of them so exploitative? From a realism point of view, who says the ice on water tiles has to represent solid ice that never moves? Maybe the ice is only there in winter?

I agree it's not gamebreaking but I'm not convinced by the arguments that ice canals are in some way more exploitative than canals in other areas.

Dave's point was that ice was supposedly meant to prevent oceans from being connected. I don't remember reading this anywhere. Submarines can go under the ice. Are they not meant to?

 

[obsolete]

PoMind come on. If this fort/ice thing wasn't such an exploit, then there would be no hard-rule about the chain limit. You should be able then to cross an entire desert continent from one end to the other in a continuous chain.

Surely you understand this is not intended.

Because Firaxis is too lazy to fix this issue does not in any way mean the exploit was intentional.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because Firaxis is too lazy to fix this issue does not in any way mean the exploit was intentional.

I agree with you fundamentally, but until I see them patch things that are more broken and actually detrimental to the human, I'm going to turn the same shameless argument back in favor of this. I really hate the arguments over event balance and capitulation that say something to the effect of "fireaxis put it in, so it must be balanced the way it is for a reason".

I guess laziness is a reason. Not a good one, though.

edit:

Because you feel it's an exploit doesn't mean that Firaxis didn't intend it.

Yes. This is exactly the argument I will use here, because it's the same ridiculousness that people use for events, diplo, and so forth. I HATE THIS ARGUMENT. Basically, it is saying "fireaxis is god, if they put it in the game it must be right". That's BS, and any halfway proficient gamer who's been playing competitively a long time can instantly recognize it as such, and yet somehow people still use this hollow argument.

"That goes against everything we stand for!" Really? To change into nationhood? When your favorite civic is OR? And it only goes against everything you stand for while you're in OR, the SECOND you switch out it no longer goes against what you stand for?

Really? You REALLY think garbage like that was intended?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[PieceOfMind]

PoMind come on. If this fort/ice thing wasn't such an exploit, then there would be no hard-rule about the chain limit. You should be able then to cross an entire desert continent from one end to the other in a continuous chain.

Surely you understand this is not intended.

Because Firaxis is too lazy to fix this issue does not in any way mean the exploit was intentional.

As far as I can see, forts were simply meant to be open to naval units when the fort touched water. What I would agree could have been non-intentional is that units could jump forts without being able to touch water from where they are.

By the way, in Civ1 I think I remember being able to chain cities together to create a canal straight through land.

I guess my position is not that it was intended necessarily, but with the way people have no problem chaining 2 forts together, I think chaining 5 together is no more exploitative than chaining 2 together. It's all fort hopping as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Because Firaxis is too lazy to fix this issue does not in any way mean the exploit was intentional.

Because you feel it's an exploit doesn't mean that Firaxis didn't intend it.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

A fort may protect a tile from global warming. The global warming code has it so when it choses a tile it won't pick a tile with a city on it. Forts count as cities for many other purposes, but I'm not sure if this is one of those occasions. I did some limited testing, but when you're dealing with something that occurs randomly it's hard to tell if it can't happen, or just hasn't happened yet.

 

[ahandac]

Yes, vassals can paradrop from the master's forts too. (You can test these things in WB by making yourself the vassal of an AI, it's interesting).

Your explanations re forts and the resource availability are correct, but enemy units in a home or neutral fort do not negate it's port function.

Here is another example to demonstrate the benefits of the usage as a port to connect coastal networks which are otherwise split by ice. I can build Knights in Istanbul by getting Horses and Iron from the islands with a coastal pre-Astro network.

Spoiler :

but how u transported the settler to the isolated ice around city without astro??

 

[v8_mark]

Through the fort on the southern ice tile.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Or for the purpose of building the city, the fort is not even necessary. Just unload the settler on the tile where the fort is and walk it around.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Yes. This is exactly the argument I will use here, because it's the same ridiculousness that people use for events, diplo, and so forth. I HATE THIS ARGUMENT. Basically, it is saying "fireaxis is god, if they put it in the game it must be right". That's BS, and any halfway proficient gamer who's been playing competitively a long time can instantly recognize it as such, and yet somehow people still use this hollow argument.

As opposed to the telepathy that gives people the knowledge of what Firaxis intended and didn't intend? So long as people are slinging around BS, I thought I'd point out that calling them lazy for something you only think is a bug/exploit seems to have an odor of its own.

 

[Wodan]

Or for the purpose of building the city, the fort is not even necessary. Just unload the settler on the tile where the fort is and walk it around.

That's funny I thought the exact same thing. So I'm scratching my head but not for the same reason as ahandac.

 

[popejubal]

That's funny I thought the exact same thing. So I'm scratching my head but not for the same reason as ahandac.

The fort looks necessary for the city to get a trade route to the mainland. If the fort gets blown up, does the satellite city lose its connectivity?

 

[DanF5771]

Yes, the Settler walked and yes, connectivity via coastal trade network would be blocked by the ice tile without the fort.

 

[Calouste]

You consider it exploitative to have tundra cities that touch the ice with culture just to do this ?

On some maps that is literally the only way to connect 2 oceans, but its advantage otherwise is hardly overwhelming. Probably the real draw for me with forts most of the time is the typical 2 across channels or an air/tac nuke base. I don't use them defensively much since it's hard to bait the AI to attack them instead of just going around, and frequently better to just siege smack it anyway.

The defensive use of forts IMO is that it provides a place to safeguard counterattacking units (siege, mounted, Balista Elephants, Guerilla III Cho-Ko-Nus ) that can attack the enemy stack of doom on the surrounding flat tiles. A CGIII Longbowman fully fortified in a fort on a forest hill will have +225% defense, and that cannot be lowered by bombardment or spies. Even if the fort is attacked with siege, the collateral damage is calculated off the damage that is done to the defender, which is going to be pretty low. Add in the 20% heal that the fort gives and maybe a healer unit, and your troops will be undamaged and ready for counter attack at the start of the next turn. Siege of course is not effected by collateral damage from other siege and cannot be flanked inside a fort, so it is invulnerable inside a fort unless all other defenders are severly damaged first.

 

[DanF5771]

A CGIII Longbowman fully fortified in a fort on a forest hill will have +225% defense, and that cannot be lowered by bombardment or spies. Even if the fort is attacked with siege, the collateral damage is calculated off the damage that is done to the defender, which is going to be pretty low.

} Forts can be destroyed by spies. All improvements cost the same EPs when sabotaged with a spy. (thanks DanF5771)

The strength of the defending unit which fights the direct combat only determines the amount of flanking damage other units might receive (not possible in forts as you mentioned), but not the amount of collateral damage from siege/bombers/... This is solely a function of the ratio of base strengths of the siege unit and the collateral targets and the only promotions that matter here are Barrage and Drill.

 

[Yxklyx]

Whoah, some cool stuff here.

Forts with roads function as nodes linking road-networks to coast-networks.

Am I understanding this correctly? Say I have an inland city. In the past that city could only have trade routes to other cities on that continent. If I build a Fort on the ocean and connect it by road to the city can the city now do intercontinental trade? What if I have a big continent with lots of inland cities, would one Fort on the continent allow all inland cities on the continent to trade overseas? Or is this referring only to access to resources?