This could be a [Vanilla] or [R&F] thread as well, as it is a longstanding issue in Civ6 for me. I did chose the upcoming expansion's prefix though, as this is the next (and last?) opportunity to fix the issue. Forts. Does anybody actually use them? I certainly don't. Because they are quite pointless, at the moment. Civ6 is a game with constantly changing borders and quite often wide ones as well. Forts are a static defence mechanism that even needs a unit to "work" at all ... and this "work" is only to buff a unit's defense value. This unit is better placed in the safety of city walls anyway, because there it can not be attacked at all. Due to their very nature, forts will obviously never be a mobile asset. But I like the concept itself quite a bit and I find it a shame that its potential is so wasted in Civ6 What could be done with them? Many of the proposed changes were already existent in Civ5's 'General' (as in: Great Person) fortifications and I really don't understand, why those were not transfered to Civ6 as standard 'Fort' mechanic. This is, what I would like to see in Civ6: A) The benefits 1) Forts should exert a zone of control even if not manned. (Edit: this ZoC could extend 2 tiles.) 2) Forts should have a range attack of two tiles, just like cities. Its strength should be era-dependent. This ability may or may not be available without a garrisoned unit. (The range could even be increased in modern times in order to counter long range artillery bombardment. This is not mandatory for my proposal, though. It's always possible to garrison a fort with an artillery unit.) 3) Forts could also damage all adjacent enemy units automatically just as they did in Civ5. This ability also could be only available with a garrisoned unit. If both 2) and 3) mechanics are implementet, one should work all the time, one only with a garrisoned unit. 4) Alternatively to 3), forts might not actually damage adjacent units (this might be seen as OP), but prevent them from healing instead (ALL healing: by skipping turns, by medics, but also due to promotions!) 5) Garrisoned units should heal as quick as units in cities. Edit due to some additional ideas in this thread: a) Forts should be buildable outside our territorial borders as well. b) Forts should have a vision radius of 3 tiles I know, these benefits are strong. But I think, they are neccesary to make forts actually useful, even when taking their static nature into account. B) The drawbacks Of course, we'll need some restrictions as well: 6) Forts would need a minimum distance between them. (2 tiles seem to be reasonable.) Edit due to some concerns in this thread: The distance restriction should also apply to city centers and encampments. 7) Forts would need a (reasonable and era-dependent ) "unit upkeep". 8) Possibly a fun mechanic: Forts could "flip sides" (the actual tile ownership changes!), if an enemy unit moves on its tile and occupies the fort. Forts could be a double-edged sword, if handled careless. C) Fort defences The question is: how should forts defend themselves (and their garrisoned units). 9) They could have a wall mechanic like cities. As long as the walls are intact, garrisoned units can not be attacked. Fort walls might be less durable than city walls, though, in order to make them a smaller obstacle during a conquest. Fort walls would repair automatically after some turns without being attacked. 10) If the walls are down, garrisoned units can be attacked directly (just like now). 11) If the garrisoned unit is killed (or not present in the first place), the enemy unit can move onto the fort and occupy it. -- Canals were a long lasting request from the fanbase - and finally, they will be implemented into the game in GS. This is great! Maybe it's time to start an equally large movement in order to make an already existing game feature actually useful, fun and worth to exist. Forward forts! You can't move, but don't let this hold you back!