Wodan
Deity
I'll repeat my suggestion: simply allow forts to be built in neutral territory (like you can roads).
No change to AI programming will be necessary.
Wodan
No change to AI programming will be necessary.
Wodan
How to fix those useless forts?
- Thread starter Kamamura
- Start date
Wodan said:
No changes to the AI would be necessary for any of the suggested changes. However to get the AI to make use of the changes as you will as a player DOES take an AI change so if you don't tweak the AI then it is like giving the player an advantage.
Screw Flanders
Chieftain
Forts outside of borders would also be great for holding off barbarians--only time Ive ever found them useful was for this
Flak
vBülletin Förum
I've never built a fort in Civ IV yet, but if they fix it, I'll definitely invest the time and effort to get them into place. I'd hope the AI will atleast try to do the same. Boy that would make capturing enemy resources a very interesting challenge!
I would suggest:
1. Obviously have got to be able to build them over developed resources.
2. Zone of Control
3. Because of ZOC, cannot build forts on adjacent squares relative to each other. This would go a long ways to prevent the spamming of forts all over the place. Especially since some resources tend to be clumped together. You have to really think about where that fort is going to go.
4. RealFort mod - which is basically unit promotions specific to forts.
5. An extra possibility of stopping sabotage of the square on which they are directly located (NOT squares in ZOC, very important for game balance).
edit: Put some more thought into this....
6. They can only be built on a tile that has some kind of improvement already in place, even if it's just a road.
7. Some logical exclusions should stay in place, for example, you can't build a fort where a windmill is without destroying the windmill (or vice versa).
8. Can't ever build a fort outside of your cultural borders, so it's treated just like any other resource improvement in this case.
9. You can build a fort adjacent to an enemy fort as long as you are inside your cultural borders. If your culture overtakes an enemy fort, then this is the one exception to the adjacent rule *or* that fort is destroyed as well as having its units expelled. The latter doesn't seem realistic, but might be necessary for game balance.
10. Along the same lines as #9, if you militarily capture an enemy fort adjacent to your culturally bounded fort, you destroy that fort.
I would suggest:
1. Obviously have got to be able to build them over developed resources.
2. Zone of Control
3. Because of ZOC, cannot build forts on adjacent squares relative to each other. This would go a long ways to prevent the spamming of forts all over the place. Especially since some resources tend to be clumped together. You have to really think about where that fort is going to go.
4. RealFort mod - which is basically unit promotions specific to forts.
5. An extra possibility of stopping sabotage of the square on which they are directly located (NOT squares in ZOC, very important for game balance).
edit: Put some more thought into this....
6. They can only be built on a tile that has some kind of improvement already in place, even if it's just a road.
7. Some logical exclusions should stay in place, for example, you can't build a fort where a windmill is without destroying the windmill (or vice versa).
8. Can't ever build a fort outside of your cultural borders, so it's treated just like any other resource improvement in this case.
9. You can build a fort adjacent to an enemy fort as long as you are inside your cultural borders. If your culture overtakes an enemy fort, then this is the one exception to the adjacent rule *or* that fort is destroyed as well as having its units expelled. The latter doesn't seem realistic, but might be necessary for game balance.
10. Along the same lines as #9, if you militarily capture an enemy fort adjacent to your culturally bounded fort, you destroy that fort.
Bushface
Deity
Whilst I doubt that Forts in Civ4 will ever be improved from their present near-useless state, I'd like to put my ideas forward; some of them are similar to Flak's and others'
but I'll keep my list all together.
1). Build on your own OR neutral territory, but only on tiles with road or rail present.
1a). Improvements other than road/rail destroyed by Fort.
1b). Fort in neutral territory does not give you ownership of its tile; no border expansion.
2). Definitely not ZOC effect, so OK to build adjacent Forts, even into a "great wall" if you wish.
3). Units in forts heal faster (no special in-fort promotions, though, as I think there are already plenty available).
4). Forts destroyed by successful assault, but can change hands due to border changes. Any units inside would be pushed out in the absence of 'open borders'.
but I'll keep my list all together.
1). Build on your own OR neutral territory, but only on tiles with road or rail present.
1a). Improvements other than road/rail destroyed by Fort.
1b). Fort in neutral territory does not give you ownership of its tile; no border expansion.
2). Definitely not ZOC effect, so OK to build adjacent Forts, even into a "great wall" if you wish.
3). Units in forts heal faster (no special in-fort promotions, though, as I think there are already plenty available).
4). Forts destroyed by successful assault, but can change hands due to border changes. Any units inside would be pushed out in the absence of 'open borders'.
I definitely think fort should be allowed to be built on other improvements, otherwise, we would assist to fort spamming!
Fort should be a choice between more defense or more productivity.
However, most of the time, this choice is plain easy as fort are so ridiculously underpowered. Zone of control, faster healing and better defense sound well to my ears.
Fort should be a choice between more defense or more productivity.
However, most of the time, this choice is plain easy as fort are so ridiculously underpowered. Zone of control, faster healing and better defense sound well to my ears.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Fisrt thing needed to be tweaked is to make forts have not worse defense then forests.
Calder
Warlord
1. Units inside a fort should heal faster
No. I like to stick with the medic promotion strategies for all healing on the battleground. Not realistic to heal quicker just because you're in a fort, as opposed to having a medic nearby.
2. The fort should have a zone of control over adjacent squares.
I'd like to see barracades back in the game with this ability.
3. Forts should provide greater defensive bonus
Definitely.
4. Forts should be allowed in conjuction with certain/all other improvements on the same tile
Definitely. Otherwise why would you possibly want to build them!
No. I like to stick with the medic promotion strategies for all healing on the battleground. Not realistic to heal quicker just because you're in a fort, as opposed to having a medic nearby.
2. The fort should have a zone of control over adjacent squares.
I'd like to see barracades back in the game with this ability.
3. Forts should provide greater defensive bonus
Definitely.
4. Forts should be allowed in conjuction with certain/all other improvements on the same tile
Definitely. Otherwise why would you possibly want to build them!
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
My opinion is that forts should not give benefits that cities don't do.
I'm for 75% defense bonus, so that units in forts are trully on the best defensive terrain (100% on hill), just to make some sense (better defense then hilled forests). [CAN BE MODDED)
Higher defensive bonus is not needed since that's already better then what cities can give (forts can't be bombarded, gupowder doesn't affect them as castles).
Exempt that it would be nice if they could be built on neutral terrain. [CAN'T BE MODDED]
I'm for 75% defense bonus, so that units in forts are trully on the best defensive terrain (100% on hill), just to make some sense (better defense then hilled forests). [CAN BE MODDED)
Higher defensive bonus is not needed since that's already better then what cities can give (forts can't be bombarded, gupowder doesn't affect them as castles).
Exempt that it would be nice if they could be built on neutral terrain. [CAN'T BE MODDED]
flytyer
Master Fisherman
Forts outside cultural boundaries and have a zone of control would both make the fort worth while to build.
if they are going to make it that forts can be build on a tile while keeping the improvement thats on it then i would also like the option spam fortresses for workers. Mostly at a certain times my workers are doing nothing, well with this they will buy fortresses everywhere so if an enemy comes to my city then it has to fight troughat least 2 fortresses possibly even more if fortresses have zoc.
In short i am against fortress + tile improvement.
what i would like for both fortresses and cities is that you can attack a unit without leaving the city if you win.
In short i am against fortress + tile improvement.
what i would like for both fortresses and cities is that you can attack a unit without leaving the city if you win.
Nooble said:
In Civ I & II a unit adjacent to an enemy unit could not move to a square adjacent to an enemy unit (same enemy unit or different) unless there was already a friendly unit in the destination square. This made it easier to defend borders - to push past a fortress, either units had to go around, or they had to take it, they couldn't just slide by.
In Civ III some units got a free attack on enemy units that moved from one adjacent square to another. In some situation this could be important, but generally I didn't find it to have a major effect.
Desert-Fox
King
Yup, I agree forts are useless... I do not remember I've build any fort in civ4.
They should have some Zone of Control. If not free attack then just allows only 1 movement per turn in all enemy units who steps around it... the effect will be gone when fort is destroyed. It would slow down these damn cossacks so you have time to rebuild your defences when new stack will invade you.
They should have some Zone of Control. If not free attack then just allows only 1 movement per turn in all enemy units who steps around it... the effect will be gone when fort is destroyed. It would slow down these damn cossacks so you have time to rebuild your defences when new stack will invade you.
bkwrm79 said:
I'd love nothing more than for this to be reinstated for all units with an attack factor. It added scads of tactical depth for next to no cost in complexity.
For forts, opp-fire at units moving adjacent would be cushty.
In other words, a combination of how it was in Civ2 and 3.
Dogzilla
Chieftain
Units inside a fort should heal faster: YES
The fort should have a zone of control over adjacent squares: YES
Forts should provide greater defensive bonus: as tile, +50% which can be reduced by bombardment
Forts should be allowed in conjuction with certain/all other improvements on the same tile: YES, but only 1 fort allowed per city in you civ--otherwise there will be too many built
The fort should have a zone of control over adjacent squares: YES
Forts should provide greater defensive bonus: as tile, +50% which can be reduced by bombardment
Forts should be allowed in conjuction with certain/all other improvements on the same tile: YES, but only 1 fort allowed per city in you civ--otherwise there will be too many built
Xenocrates
Deity
I presume that they experimented with better forts but found them too powerful.
If they healed faster, you'd just take workers with an attacking stack and build a fort after taking each city to keep the march going faster. Or you'd build them on enemy's resources and bugger them up for a millenium.
Maybe there is a ZOC exploit that I can't think of too. Maybe not everyone has the patience to pick a good path through a fort wall into the enemy's cities. Maybe late-game when you have loads of workers you could encircle enemy stacks with forts in a single turn and annoy them. Attacking would be a nightmare. Yes that's what it is.
I can't say that I have ever built a fort in 4 but I would if they were un-nerfed.
My solution (which is probably not good):
Make better forts but make them cost. Let them be used sparingly. Kill fort-spam by putting a gold price on them.
Or as I just saw above, 1 per city.
PS I don't agree with stacking the defensive bonus with forests. Forests would give a bonus to the attacker in RL.
If they healed faster, you'd just take workers with an attacking stack and build a fort after taking each city to keep the march going faster. Or you'd build them on enemy's resources and bugger them up for a millenium.
Maybe there is a ZOC exploit that I can't think of too. Maybe not everyone has the patience to pick a good path through a fort wall into the enemy's cities. Maybe late-game when you have loads of workers you could encircle enemy stacks with forts in a single turn and annoy them. Attacking would be a nightmare. Yes that's what it is.
I can't say that I have ever built a fort in 4 but I would if they were un-nerfed.
My solution (which is probably not good):
Make better forts but make them cost. Let them be used sparingly. Kill fort-spam by putting a gold price on them.
Or as I just saw above, 1 per city.
PS I don't agree with stacking the defensive bonus with forests. Forests would give a bonus to the attacker in RL.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Personally I'm against anything that makes fort in any way better then city tile (super healing, ZOC, extra first strikes and other mumbo jumbo...)
I am though for forts to be calculated as cities for defensive purposes of unit abilities. So archers could shine there. As well as units with city garrison trait.
Also it would be fine if they could be build on neutral terrotory.
Only time I really wanted fors was in late early game when there was unsettled barbarian territory which I needed defense for. And my defenders were always parked outside culture borders on some hill or forests.
I am though for forts to be calculated as cities for defensive purposes of unit abilities. So archers could shine there. As well as units with city garrison trait.
Also it would be fine if they could be build on neutral terrotory.
Only time I really wanted fors was in late early game when there was unsettled barbarian territory which I needed defense for. And my defenders were always parked outside culture borders on some hill or forests.
I'd be happy if they just made them freeze borders so you could build forts and not loose your land to some punk with a new theatre 
Of course that would break culture so I think I'll just live without forts, maybe replace them with airbases instead... yep, that would make me happier than a fort mod.
Of course that would break culture so I think I'll just live without forts, maybe replace them with airbases instead... yep, that would make me happier than a fort mod.
