Forts

[frekk]

Forts have long been dissatisfactory in civ. Many attempts and different approaches have been made to get forts to resemble their uses in the real world, including things like civ2's method of having troops stationed inside forts in the city radius count for happiness purposes in the city, or civ4's multi-purpose forts which connect resources and act as canals and airbases.

What's been missing so far is a mechanic that mimics the central purpose of forts in history; not merely a defensive position to safely keep troops or to offer defensive advantanges on a particular location but to control an area - sometimes aggressively (for a good example, read up on Edward I's 'Ring of Iron').

My proposal to make forts more useful is quite simple: whoever is first to occupy, with military units, a tile with a fort (the person who built the fort, if military units of different nationalities are present on the same tile when it is constructed) claims that tile as their territory, just as if it were within their borders.

To keep control of the tile, at least 1 military unit must be present. If it is left empty, it is considered abandoned and the tile reverts to neutral territory. If the last unit is destroyed by enemy action, the enemy captures the fort and the tile with it.

Forts would cost a small amount of gold (perhaps just 1) each turn to maintain, so players would not spam forts all over neutral territory. Also, forts would offer signifigantly better defense - comparable to a well-fortified city with walls and castle. Siege engines could be used to reduce defenses; if the defense reaches zero, the fort is destroyed.

In this way, I expect that forts would be used in a variety of ways that more closely mimic their uses in the real world:

To block access: a fort in a pass or other bottleneck feature would limit access to those civs with right of passage. They would also serve in their usual role against enemies attempting to pass. Sometimes, players would build 2 or 3 forts in a line to block access.

To anchor borders: placing forts at your borders would prevent cultural expansion of a neighbour from seizing the tiles the forts are built on. Because of the maintenance cost, and the need to garrison the forts lest an enemy take them by simply wandering in, this would be used sparingly in key areas, mostly to retain control of a resource or strategic location threatened by cultural expansion. Very wealthy empires with large armies facing one another across a border would sometimes build many forts along the borderlands, but in most cases this would not be affordable or wise. Generally, the pattern would be a series of scattered forts in key locations along the borders.

To seize resources. A fort built in neutral territory would guarantee control of a particular resource, precluding the need to build cities in poor locations simply to seize a resource (like colonies in civ3, but unaffected by cultural expansion). Forts could also be built ahead of settlement of an area, guaranteeing control of resources and discouraging (but not necessarily preventing) foreign powers from settling there. If such a situation did come about, and forts became islands amidst foreign territory, strong diplomatic tension would ensue.

What do other people think about forts, and how should they work in civ5?

 

[Dragonxander PR]

I agree on how you would like forts to work on Civ V. Also, I would like airfields, radar towers & outposts back. The fort concept introduced in Civ IV as a multifuncional improvement that depends on the player's culture domains is kinda limited.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I'm pleased, but not satisfied with the improvements to forts in BTS. In warlords I had no use for them. In BTS, I use them as canals and to claim/protect my oil, since it becomes visible before it becomes drillable. While I'll use captured forts as airbases, I can't remember the last time I built one to defend a border.

I don't nescessarily like to see any improvement spamed. I figure Hadrian's Wall, The Maginot Line, The Iron curtain, etc. would best be simulated by a national wonder which was built in one city , to be connected to another. It could serve as a road between cities for the builder, require enemies to stop before crossing, and provide the same defensive bonus as a walled city. That way, an invading stack would have to pause before the wall ( pressuming there were defenders supported by seige and mounted units)and suffer counterattacks before it could even attempt to cross.
*******

As I see it, the fort would be a worker created tile improvement ( the way a cottage becomes a hamlet and a town )rather than a sort of gimped culture producing city -

One could not be built unless it had a 2 tile buffer between it and enemy cities and your own forts.

Wouldn't have a distance penalty, so you could build one on your frontier or chokepoint cheaper than a city. Would require you to sacrifce a worker, to symbolize one needed for the constant construction and maintenance. It would give you access to a tradeable resource, just as if you had built a city atop it. It would also remove the forest or jungle, just as if a cottage had been built. It would be a tile of your territory as long as it was garrisoned. Like Gibralter it could be surrounded without being flipped.

As long as it has at least one unit ending a turn in it, and it's not under attack, it counts towards the turns needed for the upgrade. Upgrade effects would be cumulative.

Each level would cost 1 gold/turn. A level I would cost 1 gold/turn , a level V would cost 5 gold/turn. It should be financially tempting to put a settler in or beside the fort and start a city at somepoint, if you planted cottages in the surrounding territory. Maybe the fort converts into a free jail or castle when you settle on it, or produces commerce on the tile from tourism when it's within a fat cross, whether it's intact or in ruins.

To keep it simple the fort can be degraded one level in each turn that has a successful attack against it, no more. That way you could capture it without destroying it if you overwhelm it in one turn, or you could wear it down to nothing over time without nescessarily eliminating the garrison. It would rebuild as slowly, much the same as a town pillaged down to a hamlet. So even if Cathy backstabs me with a SoD with 150 seige, she can only reduce the defenses one level/turn. She's going to have to waste her time, or waste her units against it. I agree with Frekk, when the defensesare reduced to nothing, the fort is destroyed.

When you capture a fort you may destroy it by pillaging one level/turn only.
This gives the enemy a chance to retake it before it's gone.

You may also destroy a fort by having workers build something else there. Beware your automated workers !


The Fort I ( available ancient )starts as a stockade wall. Not unlike a Roman camp. It provides a defensive bonus (except against gunpowder units) the same as a city wall and a zone of control of some kind. Kirkkitone's approach of no movement cost for attacks from a fort ( sort of a blitz effect )works for me. So would a Civ III -style ZoC , or even a "free move" into a friendly fort that would allow your counter-attacker back inside the fort when his turn would have ended. Or the Dale's Combat Mod sort of opportunity fire.

Fort II (available classical )would be a wall with a tower. This would extend the line of sight .
A unit in the fort would also gain +1 exp for succesful combat. I like the extra experience point from combat rather than a free garrison promotion . I fear an automatic promotion would be exploited by making it a whistlestop on the way to the war.

Fort III (avaiable Medieval )would be a Castle like the ones in cities. Another Defensive bonus ( except against gunpowder units). Because of the castle's stores of supplies, probably a healing bonus similar to a city also.


Fort IV( Available Medieval ) would add a moat, which would be the water penalty for attackers, but wouldn't affect counter-attackers from the castle..


Fort V (Renaiisance )would add earthworks. This would provide a defensive bonus against gunpowder units and cannons. It would put the castle out of range for trebs and cats so they could no longer lay siege to the walls or attack the defenders. Probably a collateral damage against ships, or some other kind of anti-naval bonus.

Fort VI (industrial )would be re-inforced concrete and limit/prevent collateral damage from air and arty. attacks.

 

[huh?]

I like the upgraded/tiered fort option. So other options...

1. Each fort will create a cultural border around it just like a brand new city (ie the 9 tiles around the fort). The fort will accumulate culture at the rate of the closest city connected to the fort via the trade network. However, the border around a fort will never expand like a city. If another civ place a city near your fort, the culture that your fort has accumulated will resist the new city's cultural expansion, but at some point will lose if the city grows. A fort without garrison troops in it will not create the border around it. To maintain the border, you'd keep one troop garrisoned in the fort and additional troops to engage the barbs/AI. The tiles around the fort and in the fort's culture, can be improved like a city, similar to connecting the resources to your trade network.

2. Each fort outside your main cultural borders will have the same maintenance as a city, but without the building options of a city. Prevents spamming forts and represents the upkeep of the fort.

3. If your fort is in your cultural borders, it acts as a tourist attraction (like Alcatraz) and generates culture for the nearest city.

4. Due to #1 and open border agreements, you could form a wall or blockade. One fort would cover three tiles across, so fort, tile, tile, fort, tile, tile, fort, etc.

5. Any fort abandoned (without one unit in it) for X number of consecutive turns will become a city ruins. I would even have this apply to #3 as well.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I like the upgraded/tiered fort option. So other options...

1. Each fort will create a cultural border around it just like a brand new city (ie the 9 tiles around the fort). The fort will accumulate culture at the rate of the closest city connected to the fort via the trade network. However, the border around a fort will never expand like a city. If another civ place a city near your fort, the culture that your fort has accumulated will resist the new city's cultural expansion, but at some point will lose if the city grows. A fort without garrison troops in it will not create the border around it. To maintain the border, you'd keep one troop garrisoned in the fort and additional troops to engage the barbs/AI. The tiles around the fort and in the fort's culture, can be improved like a city, similar to connecting the resources to your trade network.

2. Each fort outside your main cultural borders will have the same maintenance as a city, but without the building options of a city. Prevents spamming forts and represents the upkeep of the fort.

3. If your fort is in your cultural borders, it acts as a tourist attraction (like Alcatraz) and generates culture for the nearest city.

4. Due to #1 and open border agreements, you could form a wall or blockade. One fort would cover three tiles across, so fort, tile, tile, fort, tile, tile, fort, etc.

5. Any fort abandoned (without one unit in it) for X number of consecutive turns will become a city ruins. I would even have this apply to #3 as well.

That's the "gimped city" approach. Advocates usually favor the abillity to build barracks, castle, and bunker. I thought forts were going to be something like that in BTS.

Of course, I'd like to see seige re-worked, and the abillity of cities to build earthworks, coastal and air defenses, too. Back to topic.

 

[frekk]

No, I think it's going a bit far to have barracks and 9 tiles and upgrades and production of culture and all that. It duplicates what a city does.

Just to control the 1 tile that the fort is on, is enough, with a 1 gold maintenance to prevent spamming. It's a simple change.

That's the basic problem with everything that's been tried, imho; forts don't secure control of territory, which is what they are built for in the real world. They won't resemble how real world forts are built and used until they do.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't nescessarily like to see any improvement spamed. I figure Hadrian's Wall, The Maginot Line, The Iron curtain, etc. would best be simulated by a national wonder which was built in one city , to be connected to another. It could serve as a road between cities for the builder, require enemies to stop before crossing, and provide the same defensive bonus as a walled city. That way, an invading stack would have to pause before the wall ( pressuming there were defenders supported by seige and mounted units)and suffer counterattacks before it could even attempt to cross.

Yeah, a national wonder would be a good way of doing that sort of thing, although I think that perhaps instead of a wall, or trench, or series of bunkers, or whatever, it should just be a road/railway with double movement, which also gives units on it a +50% bonus, or something.

As I see it, the fort would be a worker created tile improvement ( the way a cottage becomes a hamlet and a town )rather than a sort of gimped culture producing city -

One could not be built unless it had a 2 tile buffer between it and enemy cities and your own forts.

Wouldn't have a distance penalty, so you could build one on your frontier or chokepoint cheaper than a city. Would require you to sacrifce a worker, to symbolize one needed for the constant construction and maintenance. It would give you access to a tradeable resource, just as if you had built a city atop it. It would also remove the forest or jungle, just as if a cottage had been built. It would be a tile of your territory as long as it was garrisoned. Like Gibralter it could be surrounded without being flipped.

This is good, so long as you can't build them in the territory of other civilizations. Also, I think there should be a distance penalty if the fort is built in neutral territory (which should be allowed if not already- I can't remember).

As long as it has at least one unit ending a turn in it, and it's not under attack, it counts towards the turns needed for the upgrade. Upgrade effects would be cumulative.

Each level would cost 1 gold/turn. A level I would cost 1 gold/turn , a level V would cost 5 gold/turn. It should be financially tempting to put a settler in or beside the fort and start a city at somepoint, if you planted cottages in the surrounding territory. Maybe the fort converts into a free jail or castle when you settle on it, or produces commerce on the tile from tourism when it's within a fat cross, whether it's intact or in ruins.

Perhaps the financial incentive for building a city on a fort should be greater. Perhaps the city maintenance cost could be less, or something, which would be indicative of the already developed nature of the site.

To keep it simple the fort can be degraded one level in each turn that has a successful attack against it, no more. That way you could capture it without destroying it if you overwhelm it in one turn, or you could wear it down to nothing over time without nescessarily eliminating the garrison. It would rebuild as slowly, much the same as a town pillaged down to a hamlet. So even if Cathy backstabs me with a SoD with 150 seige, she can only reduce the defenses one level/turn. She's going to have to waste her time, or waste her units against it. I agree with Frekk, when the defensesare reduced to nothing, the fort is destroyed.

Yeah, this would work. It's probably the best way suggested of making forts more important and viable.

When you capture a fort you may destroy it by pillaging one level/turn only.
This gives the enemy a chance to retake it before it's gone.

You may also destroy a fort by having workers build something else there. Beware your automated workers !

This would also come with the option 'automate workers leave forts', of course. I like the idea of allowing the fort to be recaptured, although I don't think it's all that realistic. What justification is there behind not being able to completely destroy a fort in one turn, when you can destroy a city in one turn, by razing it?

The Fort I ( available ancient )starts as a stockade wall. Not unlike a Roman camp. It provides a defensive bonus (except against gunpowder units) the same as a city wall and a zone of control of some kind. Kirkkitone's approach of no movement cost for attacks from a fort ( sort of a blitz effect )works for me. So would a Civ III -style ZoC , or even a "free move" into a friendly fort that would allow your counter-attacker back inside the fort when his turn would have ended. Or the Dale's Combat Mod sort of opportunity fire.

I'm not all that keen on the no movement penalty thing, unless it comes with the proviso that you can still only attack once per turn. Otherwise, you could conceivably have one really, really good unit destroying hundreds of other units in one turn.

Fort II (available classical )would be a wall with a tower. This would extend the line of sight .
A unit in the fort would also gain +1 exp for succesful combat. I like the extra experience point from combat rather than a free garrison promotion . I fear an automatic promotion would be exploited by making it a whistlestop on the way to the war.

Would the unit just gain the point for the sheer reason of passing through the tile that the fort is in? I would prefer that a fort garrison promotion is added to the game, to give units a large advantage when they are in forts, rather than have a random +1 exp.

Fort III (avaiable Medieval )would be a Castle like the ones in cities. Another Defensive bonus ( except against gunpowder units). Because of the castle's stores of supplies, probably a healing bonus similar to a city also.

I'm just throwing this out there, personally I don't particularly like the idea, but maybe these could be used as little cities, without populations, that could work all adjacent tiles, creating commerce, and sending surplus to nearby cities.

Fort IV( Available Medieval ) would add a moat, which would be the water penalty for attackers, but wouldn't affect counter-attackers from the castle..

Fort V (Renaiisance )would add earthworks. This would provide a defensive bonus against gunpowder units and cannons. It would put the castle out of range for trebs and cats so they could no longer lay siege to the walls or attack the defenders. Probably a collateral damage against ships, or some other kind of anti-naval bonus.

Fort VI (industrial )would be re-inforced concrete and limit/prevent collateral damage from air and arty. attacks.

Yeah, they would work, although I'm not quite as keen on the bits that eliminate bonuses for siege units, seeing as this type of thing should be one of their main two functions, along with cities.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my ideas. They are the product of other discussions at CFC.

Yeah, a national wonder would be a good way of doing that sort of thing, although I think that perhaps instead of a wall, or trench, or series of bunkers, or whatever, it should just be a road/railway with double movement, which also gives units on it a +50% bonus, or something. .

That would be an interesting addition to the game, too. I could be happy with either.

This is good, so long as you can't build them in the territory of other civilizations. Also, I think there should be a distance penalty if the fort is built in neutral territory (which should be allowed if not already- I can't remember). .

I quite agree that you shouldn't be able to build in foreign territory. A distance penalty for forts outside your borders may be a nescessary way to balance things.

Perhaps the financial incentive for building a city on a fort should be greater. Perhaps the city maintenance cost could be less, or something, which would be indicative of the already developed nature of the site..

I figure a free castle( I often build them just for the extra trade route ) or jail is a pretty good bonus, I'd be tempted to build for that . I'm not saying you don't have a point if there were no distance penaltyfor a castle, but one for a city. I guess that 's the standard "Er, it depends"

Yeah, this would work. It's probably the best way suggested of making forts more important and viable..

This would also come with the option 'automate workers leave forts', of course. I like the idea of allowing the fort to be recaptured, although I don't think it's all that realistic. What justification is there behind not being able to completely destroy a fort in one turn, when you can destroy a city in one turn, by razing it?.

I guess that idea comes from a gameplay standpoint, but chances are if the intent was to destroy the fort, they'd do that before attacking the garrison rather than after. Partly it's a matter of trying to make the fort work like a cottage/town rather than a city. The A.I. would probably deal with them better if they were similar to something already in the game, which is important from a gameplay standpoint. A city can burn, but a castle is built to hold together in the face of flame and determined assault. It takes a lot of labor to completel destroy one.

All of that being said as to way I proposed it that way, you're right. Historically speaking a castle/fortress should be destroyable in one turn after the discovery of gunpowder. I've been to one that was demolished with black powder. It should be that way in the game as well.

I'm not all that keen on the no movement penalty thing, unless it comes with the proviso that you can still only attack once per turn. Otherwise, you could conceivably have one really, really good unit destroying hundreds of other units in one turn..

Yeah, that would be an issue. Probably better to allow units to have blitz abillity while in the fort or something.

Would the unit just gain the point for the sheer reason of passing through the tile that the fort is in? I would prefer that a fort garrison promotion is added to the game, to give units a large advantage when they are in forts, rather than have a random +1 exp..

Some people advocate a promotion for fort duty, to represent training and drilling, I figured an extra experience point from actual fort combat was less abusable. But maybe a first strike or blitz abillity is a better way of handling things. That would represent a higher level of training and readiness than units sitting in cities or marching in the field.

I'm just throwing this out there, personally I don't particularly like the idea, but maybe these could be used as little cities, without populations, that could work all adjacent tiles, creating commerce, and sending surplus to nearby cities..

Yeah, they would work, although I'm not quite as keen on the bits that eliminate bonuses for siege units, seeing as this type of thing should be one of their main two functions, along with cities.

The idea is the historical arms race between seige and fortifications. Catapults weren't very effective against castles, so trebuchets were invented. Earthworks were developed to protect the walls from canons, deflecting the shots and absorbing their energy. Bunkers were developed to protect soldiers from shrapnel.

 

[Xellos-_^]

i like to make it so that enemy troops cannot ignore Forts. Right now unless the enemy forts is right next to your city, you can pretty much ignore. I would like to make it so that no enemy troops can pass within 2 tiles of a Fort that is occupied by troops. for industrial era forts i would add some Anti-air defenses with the 30% chance ability to shoot down any enemy aircraft.

 

[Camikaze]

i like to make it so that enemy troops cannot ignore Forts. Right now unless the enemy forts is right next to your city, you can pretty much ignore. I would like to make it so that no enemy troops can pass within 2 tiles of a Fort that is occupied by troops. for industrial era forts i would add some Anti-air defenses with the 30% chance ability to shoot down any enemy aircraft.

Anti-aircraft defences I agree with, but not a ban on movement. It doesn't seem to have any basis in reality, and would stop a civ moving units within its own borders, which is not right.

I figure a free castle( I often build them just for the extra trade route ) or jail is a pretty good bonus, I'd be tempted to build for that . I'm not saying you don't have a point if there were no distance penaltyfor a castle, but one for a city. I guess that 's the standard "Er, it depends"

I would think that a free barracks would be better. A castle makes sense, but then it would also need to come with its prerequisite, walls. Both of these in combination could be a bonus, I suppose, but having a castle as a bonus on its own is a bit iffy.

I guess that idea comes from a gameplay standpoint, but chances are if the intent was to destroy the fort, they'd do that before attacking the garrison rather than after. Partly it's a matter of trying to make the fort work like a cottage/town rather than a city. The A.I. would probably deal with them better if they were similar to something already in the game, which is important from a gameplay standpoint. A city can burn, but a castle is built to hold together in the face of flame and determined assault. It takes a lot of labor to completely destroy one.

All of that being said as to way I proposed it that way, you're right. Historically speaking a castle/fortress should be destroyable in one turn after the discovery of gunpowder. I've been to one that was demolished with black powder. It should be that way in the game as well.

Perhaps their should be some cost involved in a one-turn raze (perhaps 20 gold), and the option to slowly deconstruct a fort (or even a city) for no cost. This would probably allow for the predominant use of the latter deconstruction method, whilst still having a realistic basis.

Some people advocate a promotion for fort duty, to represent training and drilling, I figured an extra experience point from actual fort combat was less abusable. But maybe a first strike or blitz abillity is a better way of handling things. That would represent a higher level of training and readiness than units sitting in cities or marching in the field.

Yeah, I would definitely prefer an actual strength bonus, or something, rather than a +1 exp, that could be spent on promotions not applicable to forts.

The idea is the historical arms race between seige and fortifications. Catapults weren't very effective against castles, so trebuchets were invented. Earthworks were developed to protect the walls from canons, deflecting the shots and absorbing their energy. Bunkers were developed to protect soldiers from shrapnel.

Then perhaps they should just reduce the damage done by the respective siege units that they are designed to counter, rather than completely obsolete them. I mean, just because their is earthworks, doesn't mean that a cannon will do absolutely no damage, it just means that the damage done will be minimised.

 

[exhile]

As long as forts are in Civ5, I'm happy.