[GS] Forts

[row2infinity]

I build them if I get around to it to get the eureka, but a lot of the time I neglect building any encampments at all, so I can't build the necessary military engineers to build the forts. For combat I certainly never build them lol.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

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

This would be a good change. Encampments, forts, and alcazars should provide loyalty pressure to rival cities if built on the border of that city. This would not only make forts more useful, it would also incentivize players to build encampments on their borders like they're supposed to instead of just building them next to their other districts to get +½ yield out of them.

Monasteries should do the same thing, except instead of increasing loyalty pressure, they should increase religious pressure.

 

[Deggial]

I like the loyalty/religious pressure idea.

 

[Deggial]

II 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 am definitely not overly attached to the "prevent healing" suggestion.
I was basing this idea on "cut-off support lines due to area control and sally outs" - and to add a game mechanic that is different to the game-mechanical similarities to encampments and cities you rightfully mentioned.
Which on the other hand are an argument for me that forts could be implemented as suggested, by the way: ussage of existing code and overall integrity of game mechanics. This is also true for the wall part.

I strongly dissagree with your mandatory garrison unit suggestion, though.
One (amongst others, of course) ) reason for my suggestion is to be able to guard my back without the neccesety of holding back mobile unit that might be of better use somewhere else.
Forts as I imagine them should give huge benefits to garrisoned units, but work without thme as well.

 

[criZp]

I think the problem with forts is that they unlock too late, cost too much to build, and that they can't be built in woods or rainforest, for whatever reason. All easy to fix and makes the forts worthwhile. I don't think firaxis will give forts a health bar because that would put them on par with encampments, which cost much more to build.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Useless. The fact it can be used against you and wastes builder charges is a huge negative.

I have used it on legions but that's because they can do it to protect themselves.

 

[criZp]

because they can do it to protect themselves.

that's kinda the point of forts, yeah?

 

[Archon_Wing]

that's kinda the point of forts, yeah?

.... Without wasting a builder charge

 

[criZp]

Well obviously the fort isn't gonna build itself, as with everything else.

 

[Cuneiform]

I think ZOC and 2 Tile attack ranges are a bit overpowered for the purpose that Forts are supposed to serve in the game, those things belong to the Encampment District.

The real problem with Forts is that they're simply not available early enough to play an important role in the game, but would also benefit from a modest buff later in the game.

I've posted my solution before in another thread, but I still hold by it as a way to increase their usefulness without tipping the balance too far:

Military Engineer (Classical) - Unlocks at Engineering - Requires Barracks - Can only build Wooden Stockades (+3 Defence)
Military Engineer (Medieval) - Upgrade at Military Engineering - Requires Armory - Can build Wooden Stockades (+3 Defence) & Roads
Military Engineer (Renaissance) - Further upgrade at Siege Tactics - Requires Armory - Can build Stone Forts (+6 Defence) & Roads, plus existing Wooden Stockades & Roman Forts automatically upgrade.

I also think it's important that the Roman Fort (+4 Defence) is not de-valued and maintains a slight edge on the Wooden Stockade (+3 Defence). Both Stockades & Forts would still give 2 Turns of Fortification.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well obviously the fort isn't gonna build itself, as with everything else.

Well, it basically comes with the legion, so you want to use that charge anyways.

Probably better to just chop anyways.

 

[DanielINH]

I just build forts when I'm Poland, as they give cultural bomb

 

[ehecatzin]

I also think there should be diferent tiers of forts, from the basic one all the way up to castles. I find it odd to need the military engineer to build it, my suggestion would be to allow melee units a build charge every time they earn a promotion, you either use your charge and build a fort like a legion, or save them until you get enough promotions to be able to build a castle.

Heck you could even use the new naming tags and get actual castle names every time you build one.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Well obviously the fort isn't gonna build itself, as with everything else.

If Forts built themselves, I still wouldn't use them. Not under current rules.

 

[UWHabs]

If Forts built themselves, I still wouldn't use them. Not under current rules.

Yeah, to me, this whole notion of "a unit building a fort" is essentially the whole point of this little known function of the game called "fortifying a unit". So when I fortify a unit on a tile, that's the equivalent of building my little trench or fortification for the nearby area.

Now, I don't mind the above notion of building a physical stockade or stone fort, but would need the following:
1. Does not destroy jungle/forest - otherwise there's no real point to chopping and placing a fort if the defense from a fort isn't any better than the forest
2. exerts ZOC with any unit garrisoned - useless if other units can just walk around
3. Available earlier - especially with how I often run the tech tree, I've run into a case of building a military engineer to get the eureka for building forts only to discover that I haven't actually researched the tech that unlocks forts.
4. Able to be placed in neutral territory -I don't want to waste workable tiles on a fort, but would love to station troops and have a full "guard" in no-mans land between civs.

Give me all those and I'll think about using them sometimes.

 

[ezzlar]

Nah, fortresses aren't bad. But once you can get them, who needs a military defense boost against the AI?

 

[Cuneiform]

Nah, fortresses aren't bad. But once you can get them, who needs a military defense boost against the AI?

I agree, but all the more reason to improve their usefulness. Because if the AI are taught to use them, it will help them fend off the Human onslaught.

 

[AriochIV]

The only time I occasionally build forts is to get the eureka for Ballistics.

They take up valuable space, so they're worse than useless.

 

[Midgardsormr]

I might use them more often if I could build in neutral territory. There have been a few times when I wanted to hold a mountain pass but didn't want to devote a settler to bringing it within my borders. Every once in a while I'll put one down as an external bastion near a vulnerable city. But in most cases, the only time I drop a fort is to get the Eureka. And even that's rare—I usually only do it if I happen to have the cash on hand to buy both the Armory and the Engineer and I need some quick Era score.

The proposed improvements seem like overkill to me. Zone of Control is reasonable, and a health rating such that the unit inside can't be harmed until the walls are brought down is a maybe. How do you repair them, particularly if they're outside your borders? Free repairs from Engineers, maybe.

If the Engineer didn't use a charge to build a road, I would probably be more inclined to build them, and that would likely eventually result in more forts.

 

[ezzlar]

I agree, but all the more reason to improve their usefulness. Because if the AI are taught to use them, it will help them fend off the Human onslaught.

Sure, but making them even better at defense wont help since the military need is close to zero.