Forts in Civ 5

[Garett20]

In BtS I really liked how forts became more useful. You could base air units in them as well as water units and a string of forts could work like a canal. Will this still be the case in Civ 5?

 

[Schuesseled]

they're somewhat different.

 

[Tylerryan79]

A string of forts only works to a degree, in bts. You can't have 3 forts in a row as a canal, if the middle fort has no water adjacent to it.

 

[Zhahz]

Forts making a canal isn't cheese at all. Nope! I'm sure when most people think "canal" they think several forts built right next to each other.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

A string of forts only works to a degree, in bts. You can't have 3 forts in a row as a canal, if the middle fort has no water adjacent to it.

I always found it really gamey how the player could use forts or even cities to move ships through solid landmass anyways. If this feature is gone in Civilization 5 then I am glad.

 

[JaDo]

In the absence of actual canals, I don't see why using forts instead is unrealistic. Surely it couldn't be too hard to have a canal building tile improvement which can be used to improve commerce and perhaps production, as well as being able to get ships through landmasses.

 

[sputnik323]

They are saving strategic improvements for DLC so you have to buy canals, forts, castles, fortresses, citadels, ditches, walls, mines, traps, cloches, pill boxes, barriers, moats, ect ect. 1upt feels so lonely without being able to "build up" an impenetrable line of defense. Why do only aggressive players get some love, us builders like war too!

 

[Tomice]

An actual canal improvement would be awesome, just saying... it could be an powerful economic improvement, but take very long to create. A "ferry line" or "bridge" improvement would also be nice.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

They are saving strategic improvements for DLC so you have to buy canals, forts, castles, fortresses, citadels, ditches, walls, mines, traps, cloches, pill boxes, barriers, moats, ect ect.

I doubt it and truth be told I fail to see how any of those things would add anything to the game. Forts are already in, and that sounds like enough to me.

 

[Drawmeus]

Tiered fortresses makes sense (the way tiered units do), but isn't an absolute necessity to get 99% of what you want out of fortresses. A single "fort" improvement is probably just fine. Sure, that fort will look radically different based on what era you're in, but big deal.

The main thing I want out of my forts is some kind of zone of control such that ignoring them and moving past them just isn't a valid option. We're abstracting away things like supply lines, so we need to create some other reason why ignoring a fort is militarily impossible.

As for canal-forts, I like them as a band-aid if we're not going to get true canals. I prefer true canals. (I do think a 2 tile width maximum is fine, if not overwhelmingly large, given what a tile can represent in terms of land area).

 

[Schuesseled]

I could invisage a game where every possible building could be built, you could build a well, a lawnmower factory, and i also invisage that no one would buy it.

 

[Ddude97]

I could invisage a game where every possible building could be built, you could build a well, a lawnmower factory, and i also invisage that no one would buy it.

I would

 

[SeismoGraf]

The main thing I want out of my forts is some kind of zone of control such that ignoring them and moving past them just isn't a valid option. We're abstracting away things like supply lines, so we need to create some other reason why ignoring a fort is militarily impossible.

Units now have ZoC, which is an indirect and important buff to forts.

 

[Schuesseled]

I would

alright, fair dues, i would buy it too, when i think of such a game, i think of the stargate atlantis gaming episode, if anyones watched that, thats an awesome game.