[GS] Forts

[acluewithout]

The biggest problem with forts is that the AI doesn’t challenge you enough to need them.

I’d give ranged units ZOC when they’re in a Fort. They’re basically the unit you want in a fort anyway, and the ZOC would make them more tactical. Maybe also give the fort 0.5 housing.

I like the idea of forts having their own promotion tree, although they’re not really set up for that being an Improvement not a Unit. Another way to approach it might be for some civics or policy cards to interact with them. Maybe one of the loyalty cards gives +1 loyalty if there’s a fort (I’d rather that than just a flat +1 loyalty). Maybe after you unlock some civics they give an additional +0.5 housing, or +1 production?

I also think Forts should obsolete at some point, and be replaced by Fortified Bunkers. To be clear, these would have exactly the same stats as a normal Fort. The difference would be that, after flight, your old timey forts would give +1 tourism. Because, hey, ancient forts are usually a tourist attraction!

 

[AriochIV]

I also think Forts should obsolete at some point, and be replaced by Fortified Bunkers. To be clear, these would have exactly the same stats as a normal Fort. The difference would be that, after flight, your old timey forts would give +1 tourism. Because, hey, ancient forts are usually a tourist attraction!

When something isn't valuable enough to build to begin with, I don't think adding obsolescence is a step in the right direction.

Adding ZOC, etc, are good ideas, but as you say, the problem is really that you don't need them. Making them better doesn't solve that problem.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

When something isn't valuable enough to build to begin with, I don't think adding obsolescence is a step in the right direction.

I've seen enough "available for a limited time only" offers to suggest many marketing departments believe otherwise.

 

[AriochIV]

I've seen enough "available for a limited time only" offers to suggest many marketing departments believe otherwise.

Don't get me started on the waste of protoplasm that is the marketing organism.

 

[grant2004]

I disagree strongly, we shouldn’t go down the road of making forts stronger.

The big reason that forts aren’t useful is that the AI isn’t a real military challenge. No mater how many bonuses you add to forts I’ll never build one because I don’t need more options for defending myself.

I think the lack of threat from the AI is a much bigger issue than forts not being useful. Designing good AI for this game is hard, but the game simply isn’t complete without a functional AI. Features that add strategic depth are meaningless if there isn’t a competent opponent to use them against. Therefore I think we need to be aware of how features impact the playability of the game from the AI’s perspective. If a feature makes the game more complicated for the AI it makes the game worse. The AI is already deeply challenged in taking cities. Features like you’ve proposed would only make that issue worse.

 

[Metecury]

Do people build military engineers?

I know the AI does not use airplanes but I do. Military engineers always accompany my army so I can move up my bombers and fighters along with the rest.

 

[Patine]

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!

Back in Civ2 (ages ago, seems, in the days of pyramids, mammoths, and virgins sacrificed to horned gods at bronze temples), forts had a useful two useful purposes that fell by the wayside:
1.) Stacked units were killed one at a time when defending from a fort, not all at once after one unit was defeated as a whole stack (the one-stack-kill was a notable issue in Civ2)
2.) In the Democracy form of government in Civ2, stationing units in a Fort within 3 spaces of friendly city did not count as those units being outside the city for the purposes of unhappiness under Democracy.

Without these two aspects from the original appearance of Forts in Civ2 being at all relevant, their purpose and usefulness has likely atrophied greatly in later iterations of Civ, I'd imagine.

 

[Deggial]

I disagree strongly, we shouldn’t go down the road of making forts stronger.

The big reason that forts aren’t useful is that the AI isn’t a real military challenge. No mater how many bonuses you add to forts I’ll never build one because I don’t need more options for defending myself.

I think the lack of threat from the AI is a much bigger issue than forts not being useful. Designing good AI for this game is hard, but the game simply isn’t complete without a functional AI. Features that add strategic depth are meaningless if there isn’t a competent opponent to use them against. Therefore I think we need to be aware of how features impact the playability of the game from the AI’s perspective. If a feature makes the game more complicated for the AI it makes the game worse. The AI is already deeply challenged in taking cities. Features like you’ve proposed would only make that issue worse.

In my opinion, you are right and wrong at the same time.

I agree with you (and others with the same stance) that forts are not really neccesary at the moment due to the AI's poor shape.
I also agree that adding new obstacles (of any kind) for the AI to handle won't make it easier for the AI. Like, at all.

On the other hand, I am not willing to accept this train of argumentation!
If "can the AI easily handle a game mechanic" would be the main concern, we would have to scrap many, many existing game mechanics. The AI has a hard time to cpature cities due to their walls? Ditch the walls. The AI can't use or protect against airplaines? Get rid of them! The AI doesn't understand diplomacy? Away with it!
If we would take away everything the AI can't handle, we would end with a game of checkers. (I am obviously exagerating, but I think you get my point. )
No, in my opinion, the AI should be programmed so that it can handle the existing game mechanics and not the other way around.
Obviously, completely new introductions that require equally new AI code to work would be problematic. The proposed fort mechanics, however, are not new. Cities with walls, ranged attacks and healing benefits do already exist. Encampments with distance rules do already exist. The current forts do have defence boni and healing boni already.
There is nothing in the proposal that would require fundamentally new tactics from the AI!

What it would require, though, is a functional AI that knows how to handle existing game mechanics - and this would benefit the game as a whole and not only make more fun and useful forts possible.
Likewise, the "They are unnecessary"-argument is flawed. The solution must not be to avoid improvements to forts due to their current tactical insignificance, but to improve the AI so forts have a meaning in the future.

Secondly (and I hesitate to bring this point up, because I am strictly a solo player), there is multiplayer, too.
Human players could take full advantage of worthwhile fortifications. I don't know whether ot not they would be a valid tactical option as I am not used to human strategies and potential mean backstabbing.
Others might be a better source of educated opinions here.

 

[acluewithout]

Sigh. I really want Forts to be good.

They’re not at the top of my list. England was at the top of my list, but that’s seems sorted. Now my list is Pikemen and other random things that bug me. Then Georgia.

And then Forts.

...but yeah. They’re on the list. I’m checking it twice.

Yes. The problem is the AI. If the AI was better, would Forts still need a buff? ... eh. I don’t know. Maybe.

I’d like them to give ZOC in some situations. I’d like them to give Tourism or maybe appeal at some point. But I don’t really care. I’d just like a reason to build them, and for them to do, er, fort-ty things. Whatever that is.

But yeah. Really. The AI is the problem.

I’m still willing to forgive the AI. But at some point, I admit the game won’t get better unless the AI also really gets better.

When something isn't valuable enough to build to begin with, I don't think adding obsolescence is a step in the right direction.

Adding ZOC, etc, are good ideas, but as you say, the problem is really that you don't need them. Making them better doesn't solve that problem.

I was only suggesting obsolescence so that Forts could gain Tourism the way Walls do. Just like walls, which obsolete at Steel, you’d need to ensure there was a limited time window of time for players to place old timey forts for tourism.

But, yeah. Nothing is going to make Forts worth building other than the AI being good enough Militarily to mean the player actually needs them for Defence.

 

[Myomoto]

What if forts actually claimed territory again? Would that be too strong? Say a fort grabs 3-5 tiles when built? It seems that many forts historically were built to secure borderlands, allowing for later expansion.

Edit: You could even give the fort hp like a city center, and allow enemies to capture it to claim the land - basically let the fort work similar to the Encampment, except it can be built far away.

 

[Deggial]

Too strong imo, if forts can be placed by potentially infinitely available units (engineers).

One tile (the tile the fort is placed on) might be okay, though.
The tile ownership would change with hostile fort occupation, but until then, an early built fort might deny access to some areas (and also deny "natural" cultural growth to this already occupied tile).
Prerequisit for this would be that forts can indeed be placed on neutral terrain outside our own cultural borders.

 

[acluewithout]

Agree - claiming tiles would be too strong. It would also cut across existing mechanics for border expansion.

 

[Metecury]

Agree - claiming tiles would be too strong. It would also cut across existing mechanics for border expansion.

Not if forts had substantial upkeep and required you to have a unit garrisoned in order to exert ZOC and control over adjacent hexes.


On another note, it would be neat if they added a colonization mechanic making forts behave like Beyond earths settlements and grow eventually into a city while enabling you to work surrounding tiles.

 

[acluewithout]

I think a problem Forts have is that Encampments sort of do the same thing.

Encampments are in kind of an odd place. A random one for an early eureka and a GG is good. More than that really is a waste.

They provide better defence than a Fort. Although, like a Fort, it’s defensive abilities are not needed because the AI is cheese.

It’s unit bonuses are useless, because I just upgrade all my ancient era units.

It can be fun to build. Looks cool. But at core, it’s a better Fort in a game where Forts in general are useless.

I really don’t need Forts to be a big deal. I don’t want lots of mechanics. Not everything has to be some big deal. I’d just like a bit more reason to build Forts.

If they gave a bit of housing maybe, or something else very slight, and I needed them to defend the AI, that would do me.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Forts as a way to claim territory would work great in some future version of civ if the game ever moves away from the idea of most land being uninhabited and moves towards a concept of needing to absorb or push out the nomadic / semi-nomadic peoples using the area in order to establish your empire's control over that land. This would be a part of a bigger project of bringing barbarians and tribal villages into a more nuanced relationship as the "uncivilized" peoples lurking on the border of your empire.

In the meantime, an occupied Fort exerting a Zone of Control would help make the Fort the nexus of combat in the area, and could improve their situational usefulness.

They could also be provided with a small amount of Hit Points, with the amount of Hit Points increasing as you go through the tech tree. No ranged attack (save that for Encampments), but the Hit Points would give some additional defensive bonus. Once the HPs are gone, the Fort would cease to have benefit until repaired by a Military Engineer (any Military Engineer).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I suppose you could add some benefit with forts and trade routes that go through them. That's a big part of what they were there for, in my neck of the woods anyhow.

 

[acluewithout]

Forts as a way to claim territory would work great in some future version of civ if the game ever moves away from the idea of most land being uninhabited and moves towards a concept of needing to absorb or push out the nomadic / semi-nomadic peoples using the area in order to establish your empire's control over that land. This would be a part of a bigger project of bringing barbarians and tribal villages into a more nuanced relationship as the "uncivilized" peoples lurking on the border of your empire.

In the meantime, an occupied Fort exerting a Zone of Control would help make the Fort the nexus of combat in the area, and could improve their situational usefulness.

They could also be provided with a small amount of Hit Points, with the amount of Hit Points increasing as you go through the tech tree. No ranged attack (save that for Encampments), but the Hit Points would give some additional defensive bonus. Once the HPs are gone, the Fort would cease to have benefit until repaired by a Military Engineer (any Military Engineer).

First para is probably worth of its own thread.

There is something limited about Civs focus on settlers founding cities. Really, empires expanded by absorbing existing peoples. People migrated and then later became part of a wider empire. Civ does it the other way around - your empire makes people, they go start a new settlement, and the settlement is automatically part of your empire. Maybe that work by the age of colonization, but it doesn’t fit earlier eras.

 

[Myomoto]

I suppose you could add some benefit with forts and trade routes that go through them. That's a big part of what they were there for, in my neck of the woods anyhow.

That's a really excellent idea. Add a trading post to every fort, i.e. refresh range of trade routes passing through.

Edit: And let forts be built outside your territory.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That's a really excellent idea. Add a trading post to every fort, i.e. refresh range of trade routes passing through.

Edit: And let forts be built outside your territory.

Yeah, it'd work if you could put them in no-mans land and get a TP. You'd of course lose the fort if another civ settled the land (but keep the trading post if the other civ is friends with you).