1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[GS] Forts

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Deggial, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. Deggial

    Deggial Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    Germany
    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!
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  2. leandrombraz

    leandrombraz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    568
    I totally expect them to do some improvements on forts in GS, considering that they are adding engineering projects that are also built by military engineers.
     
  3. bite

    bite Unoffical Civilization Geographer Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,176
    I think I have only built them once or twice when there was a one tile entrance into my area, just to be safe, but it rarely feels worth it.
     
    Depravo, Aussie_Lurker and Deggial like this.
  4. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    12,231
    I do build them in rare circumstances. If there's a polar area with no redeeming resources to support a city of any size and it keeps spawning barbarians, then I will fill the area with forts because they provide sight outside your borders.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    Jkchart, Kjimmet, Ivan Hunger and 2 others like this.
  5. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,952
    I like your ideas, but they might even have more use just as they are if they were just cheaper to make. the Engineer is godawful expensive for what it is, and this fort costs half of one. I'm glad that it seems like the expansion is taking steps to making that guy better.
     
  6. Deggial

    Deggial Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    Germany
    Exactly.
    Mainly because they can be easily bypassed and need a stationed unit to have any (combat) value at all.

    With a ZoC (it even migth range 2 tiles, if I think about it) and a range attack ability, this might change.
    Forts are static. They NEED some range attack to have an impact!
    And they need to have a use without an additional unit placed inside them.

    Interestingly, I used the GP-General forts in Civ5 quite a bit - and not only for their cultur-bombing effect. They were really useful after a daring city-conquering, when hordes of enemy troupes tried to re-take the lost city.
    I want this usefullness back!

    That's interesting!
    I didn't know about this ability.
    Mainly, because I did built the forts in well covered space - in the rare occasions I actually built them at all.
    I still don't think, the vision range increase is worth the improvement.

    The trade-off is still enormous: A tile that houses a fort can not hold a farm or mine (or whatsoever).
    In Civ5, forts as described above were even worth to burn a Great Person, not just an easily replaceable engineer charge.
    That's something! ;)
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  7. crouchy

    crouchy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Do people build military engineers?
     
  8. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,952
    nope.
     
  9. Deggial

    Deggial Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    Germany
    Rarely.
    Actually ... not really.

    But this might change in GS due to railroads (if they are not simply upgraded roads, which we still don't know; we just know that egineers can build them ... but they also can builr roads), tunnels and their ability to speed-up dams and canal districts.

    Insofar my chosen [GS] prefix is indeed justified.
    Engineers might (and should!) be way more useful in Civ6.
     
  10. OmegaDestroyer

    OmegaDestroyer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    173
    Gender:
    Male
    I cannot remember the last time I built a fort. It's incredibly rare for me to need the defensive bonuses forts provide.

    As to military engineers in general, I only ever build them when I start making nuclear weapons and need silos.
     
  11. Deggial

    Deggial Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    Germany
    Would you guys say that, with the changes I proposed in the OP, you actually would consider building forts?
    Or would it need even further buffs to make them worthwhile for you?

    As I mentioned above, I did in fact use GG-forts in Civ5 with great effect.
     
  12. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,952
    I think they are in the game because of some of these features that are upcoming. But yeah, they are not good. Oh goody, I can make two road pieces . . .

    As far as your last reply to me, yeah I agree with what you're saying, but even in their current weak state they'd probably be worth making with a builder charge at the cost of a normal tile improvement now and then (even if you later remove it). I like them being more expensive and stronger like you're saying, but giving them the ability to shoot might make them too strong when combined with a city+encampment..
     
  13. kryat

    kryat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Gender:
    Male
    I have built forts in two occasions:

    1) When I shared a border with Alexander, I put a line of forts and pikes at my border with crossbows behind because I wasn’t that interested in his territory, but I enjoyed watching him helplessly crash his knights on my defensive line.

    2) They are very useful in the Poland scenario, where your goal is to survive against an endless wave of enemies, not so much to expand and progress.
     
  14. unpossible251

    unpossible251 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages:
    241
    Engineers... should be so useful. And yet theyre not.

    Two ideas I've thought of:
    1) Trenches - basically a fort, but builds trenches in that, and every adjacent tile (total 7 tiles) that gives a defensive bonus for 10 turns. Basically, it makes a world war one trench warfare thing.
    2) pontoon bridges - similar deal, removes the movement penalty for crossing rivers or beaches for this, and any adjacent tile. Normandy landing, is the idea.

    As for forts, they could provide a loyalty bonus, like the dutch forts in modern indonesia.
     
  15. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,747
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    I only make them when using the roman legionaries, since they are quite useful with them. Even then, they should split forts in two:

    - The current one, exactly as it is, should be renamed, and changed so that all melee units can make one of them, like the legionaries do. Basically, you spend them on the front line when you want to entrench in a location for several turns.
    - A new one like the OP posted, which should almost be like mini-cities, but just focused on defense.
     
  16. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,870
    My xbow/field cannon can attack from a fort while being +10 on defence (+13 on a hill). more importantly, by the time I can build forts ,my ranged often have a ZOC.

    The game is mainly flexible in the early days, when you get forts you may have a use for them but normally you have stomped the AI so much they are not of much use beyond a eureka. Engineers for an airstrip eureka is very useful for science victories.

    With the new expansion I am sure engineers will change in 'value' but you must always keep in mind that if you are stomping everyone fast then you will never really have a use for them. They are defensive... now if you could build them next to an enemy city, that would be a different matter.... Alesia!
     
    Deggial and acluewithout like this.
  17. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    9,548
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Yes, mostly for the Eurekas. Though many games I never build a single encampment, so obviously I build none in those games. Maybe half my games I build an encampment.

    There are 2 useful Eurekas with military engineers. 2 forts and airstrip on a foreign continent.

    With gathering storm obviously I'm going to have to find room to build at least one encampment.
     
  18. Deggial

    Deggial Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    Germany
    It definitely would be useful if we would be able to build them outside of our own territory (but obviously not inside other player's cultural borders).

    I suggested this behaviour for hypothetical Great Admiral "sea forts" in Civ5 and still like the idea.

    Regarding the stomping forward:
    This is of course the main issue. However, I belive that there are sitiuations where you want to defend your empire's "backside" while stomping in the other direction.
     
  19. kryat

    kryat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    338
    Gender:
    Male
    I like some of them OP’s ideas, but I disagree with most of the proposed changes in their current form. While I don’t feel that the purposed changes are OP, some feel fairly anti-thematic: I can’t think of a good justification for why forts would prevent healing, especially from medics. Historically, forts were besieged and prevented from gaining supplies, not the other way around. Additionally, some of the attacking features you propose to exist in game, just from encampments.

    I think the utility of forts does need buffed, so here’s a few of my proposed changes:

    1) Engineers get four charges to begin with, and share movement with any linked unit.

    2) Forts provide ZoC automatically when manned.

    3) Forts heal 5 HP per turn passively to surrounding tiles, and 15 HP per turn when defending inside of the fort (replacing the normal healing). Essentially, they have a built-in medic.

    4) Forts may be upgraded, and have their own promotion line, adding walls, extra attacks, better healing, and even a slow XP trickle to stationed units. They gain upgrades through military engineers.

    5) Forts do not strictly require owned land, and exist apart from any city. They may be built in your own territory, or in the territory of allies (only military allies at tier 2+) but not in any foreign territory.

    6) In a slight alteration proposed by OP, and because forts are not part of owned territory, forts may be easily captured if left unoccupied. They require either a permanent garrison of a unit, or a permanent garrison may be purchased, that disappears upon capture. A unit and the permanent garrison may occupy the unit simultaneously, providing up to 2 attacks. The walls provide defense, but not attack, and do not prevent capture.
     
    Elhoim and Jkchart like this.
  20. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,952
    I'd build them now if: a) you could make outside your territory, and b)increased sight range of say 3. As Eagle said put them in those dumb tundra areas near you that keep making barbs.
     

Share This Page