How to fix those useless forts?

[Ipggi]

I am probably alone here but I actually like the system the way it is.

Firstly I think forts were just designed to cover a niche defense area rather then being a end all defensive solution that many people expect. Forts are not useless, they are just one of many options you can use for defending your territory, depending on the type of map you are playing and the terrain around you. Sure forts might be useless to you if you are playing a hilly, forested map. But if you are playing a dry, flat desert map they become a key element in the game.

Lets look at the forest bonus. Firstly by keeping it high at 50% it questions you to decide if you clear forests around your cities to remove a potential enemy defensive bonus near your cities. Or if you keep it because in the future you will gain health and happiness bonuses.

Secondly the forest bonus enables you to defend against early barbarian attacks by drawing them to your fortified units out on your borders. Just like in real life you want to make your cities your last line of defense, not your first. By drawing your enemies to attack you on terrain that gives you the best advantage.

In history military only fortification buildings (as oppose to cities/towns with fortifications) for the most part were designed for delay tactics rather then a complete defensive solution. They were only designed to hold up the enemy until reinforcements could arrive. And when they were designed to stop the enemy completely, they often failed. Look at Hitler's Atlantic Wall or the French Maginot Line from the same period for example.

In real life military forts could often be a negative, specially in the modern area as they made you an easy and obvious target for enemy attack. The French military forts in Vietnam during the 1950's is a prime example. They were bombed out of existance by Vietnamese artillery that were hidden in the jungled hills surrounding them.

So like I said before, they are fine the way they are. They have their place, but just like real life the game hasn't been setup so you should depend on them as your be all defensive solution.

 

[flytyer]

Ipggi - nice view from the "other" side of things. Maybe speaking from a strictly historical viewpoint you are correct to say leave it as is. But from a strategy game play...it needs some tweaking.

 

[lord_graywolfe]

it would be nice if a unit other than the workers could build them for you, like the crusader in C3C.

i dont think they need to be built ontop of other tile improvements, i mean you really shouldnt need forts inside your territory they should be on the borders or just outside your area.

when you take an enemy fort you should have the option to keep it or raze it. also i think the forts should stay if you build a cottage on it later.

extra healing, well id say that forts outside your territory should give you the same as ones inside it. but thats all

zone of control, yes with an addition. you could add to the fort in C3C so enemy forces couldnt just walk past, i think it should be the same. say be able to build a moat with the discovery of engineering

 

[Kamamura]

Any info if the dev team considers changing the way forts work in the game?

 

[me_Barb]

Forts will be important when Attrition is implemented and then they surve as a vital provision hubs. Just think about it. This is what they were for in history. Nobody in their right mind attacked a fort if they could go around it.

*Waiting for new serious attrition patch*

 

[PC-Pete]

I think the fort should be buildable one tile outside your SOC unless that SOC is hold by an AI Civ.

I haven't bothered with building forts so I don't know what benefits they do offer, or limitations they have on your plans to work that tile.

 

[Wodan]

I am probably alone here but I actually like the system the way it is.

Nobody that I'm aware of complained about the forest bonus.

By comparison: note that a forest provides a defensive bonus AND improves the terrain AND you can add a further improvement with a worker (sawmill).

A fort provides a defensive bonus but does NOT improve the terrain and you can NOT add further improvements.

(Ps one comparison you could have made but didn't... devil's advocate here... is that a forest makes you make a game choice: cut it down to get different improvements, better food or commerce, plus an immediate hammer benefit, or save it to get better defense, hammers, and health. The current fort, in a sense, is similar. Add a fort to get a defensive bonus, or leave it off to get terrain improvements via farm or whatever.)

In history military only fortification buildings (as oppose to cities/towns with fortifications) for the most part were designed for delay tactics rather then a complete defensive solution.

Whew, no way. History, especially European history, is replete with the local knight/lord having a fortified manor on a hill near town or near a crossroads. This kept the bandits from sacking the manor.

Totally true: they would not stop an invading army. Against an invading army, the knights would literally ABANDON the manor, send their family with relatives in a safe area (lots of extended families among the nobility), and go to wherever the government (king or whatever) said to rally. Once the country had their defending army together, only then would they go to meet the invading army. In the meantime, however, many of those knights would have had their empty manors burned to the ground, peasants killed, town sacked.

They were only designed to hold up the enemy until reinforcements could arrive.

Rather, I think they were designed to hold against common raiders. Against an army, most of them weren't designed to hold at all. (Some few were, true, but by and large no.)

In real life military forts could often be a negative, specially in the modern area as they made you an easy and obvious target for enemy attack.

I wouldn't have any problem with CIV forts being obsolete/useless against gunpowder & armor units (just like City Walls).

Wodan

 

[CVDon]

A fort should just be an addition to what ever else is in the tile. Mine+Fort, Farm+Fort, whatever. Fort adds to defense, and nothing else. If you want extra healing in the fort, build a unit with Medic promotions and assign that unit as the garrison. No ZOC either. One of these tiles is a big chunk of land. If you want the Maginot Line, build a string of forts.

 

[Frostyboy]

50% defence, usable with other improvements

 

[kernok]

agree : fort should be buffed!
_ +50% defense
_ healing units faster
_ buildable in enemy territory

 

[player1 fanatic]

Things that just can't be done with simple patching:
1) forts on same tile as other improvements
Reason: needs new combo graphics
2) forts acting as ZOC
Reason: needs reworking pathfinding algorithm and serious AI tweaking

Things that can be easily done:
1) Higher defensive bonus
2) Some extra benefit to units in it

So I expect if forts ever get twaeked that only things in group 2 count.

 

[Nilrim]

Other solution, well I think forts could be used to extend your cultural borders, allowing you acces to resourses outside your normal city boundries without having to build a city. This would also give more military options other then city taking.

 

[al_thor]

@player1_fanatic:
Totally agree with your assesment. What concerns me is that they "tweak" forts (easy) but don't re-work the AI (difficult). So once again we would have something that the human player knew how to use effectively but the AI was clueless (like Armies in Conquests).

The AI was actually pretty good with Forts (Bunkers or whatever they were called in C3C) - they seemed to recognize a pinch point and fortify accordingly. I liked that. In C4, all I ever see the AI do is defend it's resources, and they don't do that very well. Many is the time I will have a stack on a square adjacent to an AI city, (this is during war of course), and the AI will have a decent unit (usually only one, but sometimes 2) defending a resource on another tile adjacent to the city. Now that resource could be Iron, Bronze or the like (oil), but it could also be just Cows. Either way, it's a complete waste of a unit - that unit (or units) would be better utilized garrisoned inside the city.
It's almost funny when I take the city and the resource defender stays put (the tile may go "neutral" for several turns and then revert to his culture). He's like the stupid corporal that won't abandon his post even while his city is being sacked.

 

[SlipperyJim]

All of the above. In-game forts are useless at best, and usually counter-productive right now. If Civ4 is supposed to be about "interesting choices", then they failed on this point. I just ignore that command when I'm ordering my workers....

 

[Wodan]

Things that just can't be done with simple patching:
1) forts on same tile as other improvements
Reason: needs new combo graphics
2) forts acting as ZOC
Reason: needs reworking pathfinding algorithm and serious AI tweaking

Things that can be easily done:
1) Higher defensive bonus
2) Some extra benefit to units in it

So I expect if forts ever get twaeked that only things in group 2 count.

Good points.

There are other things in group 2 that would make them much better:
-- adding a cultural bonus (+1 like Castle)
-- allowing you to build them outside your cultural borders, like you can roads (this would do a LOT to help their plight)

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Actually, now that I think about it, giving them culture but allowing them outside your borders is opening a can of worms.

Between the two, I'd much rather see them able to be built outside your borders.

Wodan

 

[al_thor]

The whole key to successfully changing Forts is that the AI is changed enough to take (sensible/tactical) advantage of said changes. Not too likely, as that's a pretty big task IMO.

 

[salty]

Forts / Colony

Forts occupying neutral or friendly territory give the following benefits
1) Occupying troops get defensive bonus equivalent to walls or if improved Castle
2) Forts with Castle generate 1 culture per turn, but only in the occupying square. Fort culture is not subject to double culture due to age.
A captured or abandoned fort loses all generated culture (no residual culture from fort, but culture generated by nearby cities remain)
3) A fort can also be upgraded to city (unless another city is within 2 squares) by sacrificing 2 workers or obviously 1 settler .
City square/fort location does not gain any new culture until surpassing the amount previously generated by castle (if any).
(Squares in the city radius of the new city generate culture normally.) New city gets free walls and/or castle.
4) (?) Zone of Control - Chance at free half strength first strike at passing enemy. (Should cities also have this bonus?)

Forts occupying neutral terrority have the following costs
1) maintainence/supply cost (greater for castle) based on empire size (maybe 1/2 cost of city in the same location)
2) diplomatic penalties based on number of rival controlled squares bordering fort
3) increased build time for being built in neutral territory

Forts totally surrounded by or built in enemy territory
1) have increased build time
2) pay double maintenance/supply cost
3) give half the defensive bonus
4) do not get zone of control bonus

Colonies
1) Colony is a fort or castle occupying netural terrority on a resource square
2) Can build a colony by building improvement in fort square
3) Operating cost in addition to maintainence cost
4) Colonies surrounded by rival culture or not otherwise connected to trade network can not supply or be
supplied without an open borders agreement and give zero resources but still have to pay reduced operating cost.
5) Increased diplomatic penalties based on number of rival controlled squares bordering colony
+ major penalty if fort is in rival Civ's city radius ("fat cross").

General
1) Colonies and forts can be culture flipped, traded or conquered, just like cities.
2) Fort/colony creation will be stopped if cultural control of square changes during creation, just like any other improvement.
3) Colonies and forts do not generate any food, hammers or income from occupying the tile square (unless worked
normally by friendly city).
4) Colony or fort built in rival territory is a declaration of war. Forts built in team or permanent alliance territory are
owned by player who controls the territory (if it matters).

 

[Nilrim]

The whole key to successfully changing Forts is that the AI is changed enough to take (sensible/tactical) advantage of said changes. Not too likely, as that's a pretty big task IMO.

Yep I agree and I think that is why we won't see any changes to forts, the AI would have to be tweaked to handle their use. I think that is why we won't see a lot of game improvements we have been asking for and frankly many of them would be easy to implement. However getting the AI to use game improvements correctly is a major task.

 

[mjs0]

One idea that occured to me for the cultural influence of forts was to have them suppress foreign culture rather than boost your own. Thus they could not expand your borders but they could hold off the encroachment of others.
After all, suppression of foreign culture is just as important historically as the generation of culture of your own.

Perhaps this would be a good way to simulate "the violence inherent in the system"
Peasant: Help I'm being repressed...
Arthur: Bloody peasant!
(Sorry, obligatory python reference)