Forts should give loyalty

[Xmonger]

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 semblance of military occupation, like the 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.

Hmmm, fair point.

Royal Navy Dockyard

• +4 Loyalty when built on a foreign continent.

I guess that makes sense, people feel more secure with some protection when in foreign lands. But again that gets to the general concept of Happiness, which includes security.

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

Yeah, no doubt to distinguish from the V system. But the developers describe it as happiness verbally at least IIRC.

I think of it as Maslows Hierarchy - if your citizens don't have the basics (housing/food), they won't be loyal. Above that, if they don't have the extras (Amenities) that will affect it too. And they are influenced by 'me-to-ism' from nearby cities.

 

[halfhalfharp]

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.

Yep thats what I agree with too. Sometimes forts/stronghold is mixed with the idea of encampments, where soldiers are also trained. But I think the fort in the game is just an empty fort without any function of encampments. Just like the great wall, a large linear fort(s) needed troops from other places of the country to garrison, in order to function. They can't produce men on their own.

Thus I suppose an encampment where local citizens are trained into troops better represents the idea of local loyalty.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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.

You can add Japan, Korea, and India to your list, and I'm pretty sure (but would need to confirm) many African and native American civilizations, too, used forts for these reasons.

Even into the 1700s, the French and English built forts all over the world. Yes, part of that was for defence, but it was also to keep control over the local population.

There's not a complete break from Happiness: forts helped keep the peace, which would make most people happy as it reduces thievery, murder and general lawlessness. But Loyalty also isn't simply Happiness, it's about keeping the city as part of your empire, and local garrisons enforcing laws were used historically for that purpose, especially in newly acquired territory.

 

[Karpius]

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.

Which is why I thought "loyalty' was the wrong term for this mechanic. It conjures generally non-intuitive ideas among most players about what it "should" mean in their minds. When I first learned of this new mechanic I likened it to "influence" more than anything.

But concerning forts in general...I use fairly often as just a small, non-overpwered speed bump whenever I slow down expansion in favor of internal growth. (I go with the pyramid style of play as opposed to tall or wide). I don't think they were ever meant to stop an invasion, but they can sure buy an extra turn or two or even three. (Put a Modern AT Army in a fort between two mountains and its pretty darn tough to dislodge.)

 

[Phrozen]

Americans were building forts way into the 1800s as garrisons in the less settled parts of the country so much so that Army bases are usually named Fort x even if historically there wasn't a fort there. Some of these forts became political and economic centers of the areas they serviced and cities and towns were named after them.

Edit: Missions should also give a defensive bonus since they were usually fortified as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Bread and Circuses also come to mind:
"Woohoo we're going to the arena to watch some action!"
"Let's be good citizens so we aren't going in there next."

 

[cinattra]

I build forts when I'm next to an aggressive civ or I'm short on military units and need to slow down any potential enemy invasions giving me time to muster units to repel the invasion.

 

[Jarms48]

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.

I always thought that's what walls should provide, starting from Steel (which make them redundant), I'd make the yields something like:
- ancient era walls : 1 tourism + 1 culture
- medieval era walls : 2 tourism + 2 culture
- renaissance era walls : 3 tourism + 3 culture

The reason why they're in reverse is simply for the effort you need to put in to build them, and the other (more IRL) factor is the fact that later "era" walls would have more to actually see - being more preserved.

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

I think it could work, having a fort in a cities range, and having it garrisoned could provide +1 loyalty through repression / security.