How to fix those useless forts?
- Thread starter Kamamura
- Start date
Gargoyle
Warlord
Kamamura said:
99.99 % of the time forts are useless. But last night as the Persians I had a constant influx of Barbs coming through a one square (diangonal) space in a long mountain chain. I say GREAT, this will be the first time I build a fort!
Well, I move an Immortal to the space, dig in, and move a worker there next. Then I find out that I had not research the tech for Fort yet. By the time I do, I had already advanced through the gap myself with an army of Immortals and Longbowmen and took the Barb city that was producing all those incursions! Oh well....
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
It's ridiculus that unit gets better defense in forest then in fort.
And when you build fort in forest, it needs to be chopped down to get fort.
And when you build fort in forest, it needs to be chopped down to get fort.
Wodan
Deity
Kieran said:
That checkbox should be the default.
Wodan
Wodan
Deity
player1 fanatic said:
If it needs to be chopped down, then yes, the fort should give better or equal to defenses of a forest.
Better, IMO is to allow a fort to be cumulative with terrain bonuses, including forest, hill, etc.
Wodan
Wodan
Deity
I checked the "other option". Personally, I think a Fort should be like cities... you can bombard them to reduce their bonus.
I'm not sure a ZOC is a good idea (if we give that to a fort, then we should give it to cities too).
Allowing a fort on top of other tile improvements is essential, I think.
Finally, it would be nice to be able to build a fort outside cultural borders. However, if we can built one on top of other improvements, then this won't be so critical.
Wodan
I'm not sure a ZOC is a good idea (if we give that to a fort, then we should give it to cities too).
Allowing a fort on top of other tile improvements is essential, I think.
Finally, it would be nice to be able to build a fort outside cultural borders. However, if we can built one on top of other improvements, then this won't be so critical.
Wodan
NikNak
Warlord
My votes go to "heal faster" and "better defensive bonus". Really, they're useless now.
Nodge69
Chieftain
I like the zone of control idea. Didn't units have zone of control in civ2? I can't remember. And instead of healing faster, make medic units more effective. It's almost the same but still requires you to build medic units.
Psyringe
Scout
Personally I don't care how exactly forts are improved, as long as they become useful, and the AI understands to use them. If the AI cannot be made to understand them, I'd rather not have forts at all.
microbe
Cascaded Mansion
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,596
Units inside a fort should heal faster: makes sense
The fort should have a zone of control over adjacent squares: definitely
Forts should provide greater defensive bonus: maybe
Forts should be allowed in conjuction with certain/all other improvements on the same tile: big NO. Otherwise ppl will just build it everywhere. It should be built on occasion, not becoming a spreading pest.
The fort should have a zone of control over adjacent squares: definitely
Forts should provide greater defensive bonus: maybe
Forts should be allowed in conjuction with certain/all other improvements on the same tile: big NO. Otherwise ppl will just build it everywhere. It should be built on occasion, not becoming a spreading pest.
JadeDragon87
Chieftain
When enemy units are one square away of the forts, they should be able to pass it by attacking (retake the fort) or should pass two squares away of the forts. It would be like the zone of control.
Special units could be able to pass near forts without the detour or attacking it.
What do you think?
Special units could be able to pass near forts without the detour or attacking it.
What do you think?
BlackMage
Warlord
Zone of control. This will allow a defender to really dig in and make attacking harder.
ZippyRiver
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 454
ZOC: big yes. Cities should also have a zoc, it's stupid they don't (imo).
Better defence: yeah, however my big grip is not that forts have too little defence, but that forests/jungles have WAY too much.
faster healing: ehhh, not really necessary. You have to place them within your cultural boundaries anyway and the heal rate for open terrain within borders is not that bad.
Other improvements: Not placing a fort on a farm is fine. Losing natural terrain is not. A forested fort on hill would be great. Provided of course forests and jungles are tuned down a bit.
The big one...... Only YOU can get any benefit from forts YOU build. If an enemy takes that tile, the fort gets destroyed automaticly.
Better defence: yeah, however my big grip is not that forts have too little defence, but that forests/jungles have WAY too much.
faster healing: ehhh, not really necessary. You have to place them within your cultural boundaries anyway and the heal rate for open terrain within borders is not that bad.
Other improvements: Not placing a fort on a farm is fine. Losing natural terrain is not. A forested fort on hill would be great. Provided of course forests and jungles are tuned down a bit.
The big one...... Only YOU can get any benefit from forts YOU build. If an enemy takes that tile, the fort gets destroyed automaticly.
Not ZOC. It was taken out for a reason and would change the gameplay to much.
Idea:How about allowing military units to build Forts instead of just workers. Historically soldiers have always dug there own trenches etc. And after all, what do you think the "fortify" command is
Idea:How about allowing military units to build Forts instead of just workers. Historically soldiers have always dug there own trenches etc. And after all, what do you think the "fortify" command is
note:
if u build a fort on a forest without destroying the forest then the fort should loose its defensive bonus. So destroying forest sounds fine with me. I have builded forts 2 times.
One time to create a bufferzone right next to an aggreive AI. The AI could only attack me through water, the fort or through a 3rd party land.
The AI finally thought war was the best solution and
-so be it.
The enemy made a storm on my fort and it got it. But it took the worst punch out of him so the city was safe.
Still the AI had some units going through 3rd party territory and suddenly they showed up at my horses. They herrased it for a while and i had a hard time recounter him. But finally i could clean up the mess the AI made behind the fort.
Deep in my civ i had 4 galleys and an invading army. I suprised him by taking the waterroute and soon the AI was begging for piece after i had taken one of his cities.
The fort was still there...
if u build a fort on a forest without destroying the forest then the fort should loose its defensive bonus. So destroying forest sounds fine with me. I have builded forts 2 times.
One time to create a bufferzone right next to an aggreive AI. The AI could only attack me through water, the fort or through a 3rd party land.
The AI finally thought war was the best solution and
-so be it.
The enemy made a storm on my fort and it got it. But it took the worst punch out of him so the city was safe.
Still the AI had some units going through 3rd party territory and suddenly they showed up at my horses. They herrased it for a while and i had a hard time recounter him. But finally i could clean up the mess the AI made behind the fort.
Deep in my civ i had 4 galleys and an invading army. I suprised him by taking the waterroute and soon the AI was begging for piece after i had taken one of his cities.
The fort was still there...
