1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Forts should give loyalty

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Craig_Sutter, Feb 26, 2018.

  1. Xmonger

    Xmonger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    Messages:
    45
    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.

    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.
     
  2. halfhalfharp

    halfhalfharp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    517
    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.
     
  3. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    862
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Uberfrog likes this.
  4. Karpius

    Karpius Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    596
    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.)
     
  5. Phrozen

    Phrozen Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    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.
     
  6. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,342
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    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."
     
  7. cinattra

    cinattra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    186
    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.
     
  8. Jarms48

    Jarms48 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2016
    Messages:
    288
    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 think it could work, having a fort in a cities range, and having it garrisoned could provide +1 loyalty through repression / security.
     

Share This Page