Forts should give loyalty

[Craig_Sutter]

As the title says, this most useless improvement in the game should provide a loyalty buff of +1... if so, I would otherwise limit their placement by terrain and nonadjacency restrictions. And maybe pillaging them might cayse negative loyalty like Mapuche ability.

 

[criZp]

Or just make the forts provide more defense.

 

[Bad Wolf]

No, that would actually make forts useful, and we apparently can't have that...

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Good idea.

More defence I'd agree with, too.

I've wondered whether you shouldn't be able to build them in neutral territory adjacent to your land, grabbing the tile in the process. They were often used that way historically, but gameplay wise it might be tough to balance.

Less problematically, they could also provide tourism and culture after flight, if built no later than the Renaissance.

I'd like to see something added to them. For such an important historical structure, they're quite disappointing as currently implemented.

 

[Zenstrive]

Do people actually build them?

 

[Art Morte]

I don't think it'd make sense for forts to provide loyalty. No connection there.

But like I said in some other thread, I'd like forts to have walls, basically be like encampments, but without the ability to attack. Maybe not as strong walls as encampments, but walls anyway.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I think encampment will be a better option for loyalty boost, as historically saying, loyalty remains where military forces are located.

The idea of making them walls will be better.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

There's a number of ways Loyalty could be better integrated into overall game play. Linking it to an Encampment would make sense. I liked the fort idea simply because forts were useful historically and were built a lot, but there's little use to them in game now, so they need a boost.

And I disagree that there's no link there. Forts were a source of government control and provided protection to the general population in the form of reduced banditry and protection from raiders. Connecting that to a Loyalty boost doesn't seem too abstract to my mind.

 

[Xmonger]

That would be interesting, however consider that if they give loyalty then they also need to receive loyalty (because it's coming from citizens), and also that they need to have a population other than the garrisoned units (e.g. citizens again). The former would mean you'd Loyalty flip in a few turns because you're in enemy territory, and the second kills it anyhow because it's just a fort, not a city where people live. So yeah unfortunately doesn't work.

It would be interesting if a Great Person could be used for Loyalty bombs, like some Great Politician (though I guess the Great Politicians are the Civs themselves). You could bomb a free city, an opponent or one of your cities that is slipping away (last night I lost my first city to Loyalty, it was great!)

 

[halfhalfharp]

That would be interesting, however consider that if they give loyalty then they also need to receive loyalty (because it's coming from citizens), and also that they need to have a population other than the garrisoned units (e.g. citizens again). The former would mean you'd Loyalty flip in a few turns because you're in enemy territory, and the second kills it anyhow because it's just a fort, not a city where people live. So yeah unfortunately doesn't work.

It would be interesting if a Great Person could be used for Loyalty bombs, like some Great Politician (though I guess the Great Politicians are the Civs themselves). You could bomb a free city, an opponent or one of your cities that is slipping away (last night I lost my first city to Loyalty, it was great!)

I thought he tried to mean that encampments grant extra loyalty to cities that own it, rather than being a source and receiver of loyalty pressure on its own?

Like Amani giving extra loyalties to cities... I cant imagine that Amani can be flipped.

And great person giving loyalty bombs is a brilliant idea. Although it may be op, if you stock a few GP for that purpose... I think that there can be some extra ways to flip loyalties other than normal spy missions too.

 

[Duuk]

You know, since nobody builds forts now (being useless and all) having a fort with a garrison provide a +1 or +2 loyalty boost to the city would be a good way to lock down border cities, which, historically, would make sense for fort placement.

Edit: Requiring the fort to be garrisoned keeps it from being a passive buff, and allows enemy attackers to push the loyalty bonus away by killing the defending units.

 

[Xmonger]

I thought he tried to mean that encampments grant extra loyalty to cities that own it, rather than being a source and receiver of loyalty pressure on its own?

Oh OK. However the Loyalty system is AFAIK a sophisticated part of the new Happiness system. Happiness in Civ V is a mess, every game I would have to obsess about keeping the masses titillated. It's not a bad concept though, it was just badly done. In VI you see the changes, per city, and now Loyalty which is a measure of how great you are relative to your neighbors. At least that's how Ed Beach described it in one of the Dev Plays (the 'how great' idea). Encampments give lots of buffs - promotions, strategic resource loosening, I'm not sure adding a Loyalty buff works (in fact Citizens might not like having soldiers everywhere!)

Interestingly it was my Garrisoned city last night that flipped. They didn't have enough amenities and housing which was the main problem I couldn't address in time, which shows the Happiness aspect.

 

[halfhalfharp]

You know, since nobody builds forts now (being useless and all) having a fort with a garrison provide a +1 or +2 loyalty boost to the city would be a good way to lock down border cities, which, historically, would make sense for fort placement.

Edit: Requiring the fort to be garrisoned keeps it from being a passive buff, and allows enemy attackers to push the loyalty bonus away by killing the defending units.

Thats a decent way in boosting usage of fort.

But I still don't think that forts are historically solidifying border loyalties. They prevent enemies from outside, but not the unrest within the cities.

The encampment is surely a better representation of linkage between military and loyalty. It is the place where troops are trained from and settled. If anything about military loyalty is addressed, it should go to the encampment first.

Therefore, a walling effect will be better.

 

[Duuk]

Thats a decent way in boosting usage of fort.

But I still don't think that forts are historically solidifying border loyalties. They prevent enemies from outside, but not the unrest within the cities.

The encampment is surely a better representation of linkage between military and loyalty. It is the place where troops are trained from and settled. If anything about military loyalty is addressed, it should go to the encampment first.

Therefore, a walling effect will be better.

Castles. Feudalism. Scotland. England. France. Germany. Christianisation of Poland and Lithuania.

Forts (and Civ6's early forts are field castles, make no mistake) can be abstracted as local baronies fairly easily.

Forts were *always* used to lock down local loyalty.

Edit: I'm not saying the encampment isn't a BETTER choice. I'm saying this is a good GAME choice because it takes an improvement that currently has less than zero value and suddenly makes it VERY valuable.

Encampments are already extremely valuable with housing and production buffs, arguably one of the most valuable (if not THE most valuable, depending on who you're playing) districts in the game.

Forts are currently useless.

With this change, with a +2 loyalty bonus for garrisoned forts within city radius, you immediately go from "nobody ever builds forts" to "forts are limited to not more than 2 per city" capped because otherwise there would be an actual strategy of building a dozen military engineers and following your army and building a bajillion forts along the way.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Oh OK. However the Loyalty system is AFAIK a sophisticated part of the new Happiness system. Happiness in Civ V is a mess, every game I would have to obsess about keeping the masses titillated. It's not a bad concept though, it was just badly done. In VI you see the changes, per city, and now Loyalty which is a measure of how great you are relative to your neighbors. At least that's how Ed Beach described it in one of the Dev Plays (the 'how great' idea). Encampments give lots of buffs - promotions, strategic resource loosening, I'm not sure adding a Loyalty buff works (in fact Citizens might not like having soldiers everywhere!)

Interestingly it was my Garrisoned city last night that flipped. They didn't have enough amenities and housing which was the main problem I couldn't address in time, which shows the Happiness aspect.

I guess it is ok for a defensive loyalty bonus, and encampment is not a necessity that every city will build. Thus it won't be that op anyway. At least I will prefer campus/commercial hubs/theatre first.

And don't forget... soldiers are still citizens, just citizens with guns.

 

[Xmonger]

Forts were *always* used to lock down local loyalty.

But not happiness - recall that Loyalty is part of the Happiness system. Historically Forts, well they didn't give Loyalty, quite the opposite, they were a form of enforcement.

 

[Uberfrog]

Thats a decent way in boosting usage of fort.

But I still don't think that forts are historically solidifying border loyalties. They prevent enemies from outside, but not the unrest within the cities.

The encampment is surely a better representation of linkage between military and loyalty. It is the place where troops are trained from and settled. If anything about military loyalty is addressed, it should go to the encampment first.

Therefore, a walling effect will be better.

Forts are the closest thing we have in game to Castles, which have certainly been built not only with the intent of protecting the occupiers from external threats, but from more local threats too - whether in an uprising, a civil war, or a peasant revolt. To this day, Wales is filled with many imposing medieval castles built by Edward I of England as part of his suppression of resistance to English rule there.

I think a loyalty boost (increased with a garrison) is an excellent idea.

 

[Phoenix1595]

I have to disagree on adding loyalty points to forts. From a historic point of view, farflung border forts often struggled to maintain homeland loyalty, and were frequent sources of disloyalty anf mutiny. I think a better solution to increasing fort utility is to offer a tile grab or zone of control bomb upon fort construction, giving the builder civ a real incentive to build forts, all the while penalizing them with their loss if they cannot maintain loyalty from nearby cities.

 

[Uberfrog]

But not happiness - recall that Loyalty is part of the Happiness system. Historically Forts, well they didn't give Loyalty, quite the opposite, they were a form of enforcement.

The game is actually agnostic as to the source of "Loyalty". Sure, some of it comes from "happiness" in the sense of luxuries and amenities, but many things produce loyalty from some form of military occupation, like the Limitanei garrison policy or the Royal Navy Dockyard. Loyalty isn't just how satisfied your citizens are - it is also how afraid they might be to rebel.

Crucially, the word "happiness" never appears in game.

 

[Xmonger]

And don't forget... soldiers are still citizens, just citizens with guns.

Not in Civ, Settlers are the only unit Citizens. Everything else are 'units' - automatons that do your bidding. Citizens have their own mind.