How to fix those useless forts?

[Hurin]

Regarding the need for new "combined artwork" for forts that would share tile with improvements: Really? I thought that the new 3D nature of the engine would facilitate easy "stacking" of art assets on top of each other. And, even if it didn't stack perfectly well (aesthetically), I think I'd still like the functionality improvement and be willing to sacrifice the visual impairment.

Really, to me, the only improvement that seems necessary to makes forts useful is the ability to share a tile with improvements. I don't think, at their current strength, people would be so inclined to spam them. And, even if they did, the spammed forts would have to be manned. . . and unmanned forts that are taken by an invading enemy would be a pain for the defender once he decides to counter-attack.

H

 

[_Os_]

I voted for higher defensive bonuses. Add the feature that building a fort in a forest doesn't cut down the forest, and I think they'd be about where they'd need to be to be useful.

The zone of control thing would make them way too powerful, and unbalancing.

I agree on the healing thing too.. they should heal units at the same speed that cities heal units.

If these changes were made, they'd be at a reasonable level, I think.

 

[Helmling]

I think ZOC needs to come back, it would balance out the changes to artillery.

 

[shackleton]

Apologies if this has been suggested already...

Forts should in essence be "cities" which generate 1 culture, cannot build stuff or work tiles, do not grow, do not cost maintenance, can be built slightly closer (2 tiles) than ordinary cities and have city walls by default.

The reason for this is that the AI will be drawn to attack these fake cities in a manner similar to proper cities. This should cause forts to have the correct effect on combat, rather than current forts (ignored) or ZoC forts (probably would cause AI problems).

The forts would be built by a special unit which is used up in the process, a la workboats.

Because they are "cities", forts would provide any special resource they are placed on.

But, yeah, the most important thing is that the AI would be drawn to attack these rather than skip past to the proper cities.

 

[King Flevance]

I voted Forts should:
A) Provide Defensive bonus (Thats what they do in real life)
B) Exert Zone of Control (Again thats what they do in real life) - However, here I do also love the fact that friendly units can occupy squares with your units. So Friendly's this wouldnt count, like right of passage breaks ZOC. (Reality Check again)

The whole improvements thing is iffy. Its gonna make people build walls of forts. Which is rediculous IMO.

I do like the idea shackleton suggested as well.

 

[boneys26]

I think you should be able to build a fort over some thing like a mine to help protect it it may be you only scource of aluminum. you wouldn't stand a army out on a field without some sort defence. would you?

 

[azzaman333]

Units in a fort should heal faster, and get a +50% defensive bonus.

 

[Tavenier]

A lot of good ideas. I hope the programmers will notice them. Forts played a crucial part is many era's of history. From Crusader forts/castles, to Roman forts along the Rhine, to American forts deep in the west, to Chinese forts in inner Mongolia.
To boost the defense value from 25% to 50 or 75% would be the least they can do. I think it would be a good idea not allowing them to be build inside a city radius and without loss of the improvements there. That would be too powerful. I think it would be good to allow them to be build on improvements outside your city radius, like on a mined resource.
Outside cultural borders is also a good idea. The American forts in the 'wild west' is a good example of that, I think.

 

[boneys26]

Forts played a crucial part is many era's of history. From Crusader forts/castles, to Roman forts along the Rhine.

I live in the midlands uk nowhere near the rhine and theres a roman fort just down the road. lol but yeah i agree they were used alot all over the world even the english used them while at war with scotland all them years ago. still use them now just the op way round now called prison's

 

[Tavenier]

I live in the midlands uk nowhere near the rhine and theres a roman fort just down the road. lol but yeah i agree they were used alot all over the world even the english used them while at war with scotland all them years ago. still use them now just the op way round now called prison's

Well, I didn't meant that was the only place the Romans build forts, but it is probably the place where they build the most of them to keep the Germanic tribes on the other side. That, plus as a Dutchman I know some major Dutch cities which were founded as Roman forts.
Maastricht, the city where EU-leaders signed the treaty to get the Euro, was founded as Majus Trajectum. Utrecht was Ultrajectum and Nijmegen was Nova Magium.

 

[Steve2000]

Apologies if this has been suggested already...

Forts should in essence be "cities" which generate 1 culture, cannot build stuff or work tiles, do not grow, do not cost maintenance, can be built slightly closer (2 tiles) than ordinary cities and have city walls by default.

The reason for this is that the AI will be drawn to attack these fake cities in a manner similar to proper cities. This should cause forts to have the correct effect on combat, rather than current forts (ignored) or ZoC forts (probably would cause AI problems).

The forts would be built by a special unit which is used up in the process, a la workboats.

Because they are "cities", forts would provide any special resource they are placed on.

But, yeah, the most important thing is that the AI would be drawn to attack these rather than skip past to the proper cities.

I like this idea generally. I was thinking something along the same lines. I do not think it should produce any culture - it would be fixed as basically a 1-tile city that can never expand. It would be similar to the concept of the colony from CivIII except with "walls." You build it in neutral territory, and if your cities expand culturally to envelop it, it bascially reverts to a regular fort. It is crucial though that it is automatically destroyed when captured.

I am concerned though that even this would be a challenge for the AI to know when to build. I think it would be better for the expansion pack where they can really tweek things.

 

[Xenocrates]

On a related subject, what about minefields? These aren't in the game I guess because they stifle attacks to much and would slow things down a lot.

It seems that powerful forts with ZOC could operate like this:

If you have a big culture, you could place two rows of forts between the enemy and yourself. if you have a weaker culture you can only place one - maybe even none without sacrificing prouctivity. This would advantage the cultural player quite a lot. Several forts would have to be overcome before your city gates are reached and the stack will be severely weakened or slowed down, in a similar way to minefields. If forts can stack with improvements this changes things a little, but who wouldn't build a load of them?
We'd probably have to go back to attack and defence numbers to re-balance.
If the buildmongers can slow down the warmongers they would have enough time to switch strategies and win almost every time.

I think Firaxis have got it right. But I'm always wrong so I expect to see forts upgraded a lot in the add-on-pack!

 

[Dark Helmet]

I would like to see a health bonus and an increased defensive bonus for units in the fortress. Being able to build them outside my borders would be nice also. I am not too certain on being able to build fortresses in conjunction with other improvements. A goldmine shouldn't also be your major frontier fort. I would also like to see forts create a little culture, but I think it should only take up the individual tile the fort resides on. No modifiers to increase culture. Upon being captured, the aggressor force should be able to decide to seize it or raze it - just like cities. Zone of Control would defenitely be nice.

 

[Older than Dirt]

If units not in forts do not have ZOCs then units in forts should not have ZOC, because if the force is hunkered down in a fort it is even less mobile than if in the field, especially if it is a foot unit. I miss ZOC. It is too easy now for units to bypass the enemy and strike deep (albeit slowly) into his heartland completely ignoring supply lines - which is incredibly unrealistic - more unrealistic than spearmen throwing spears into gunship roters and destroying them.

 

[mjs0]

If one looks at remote forts/castles historically, they had two purposes, defending the border/region and controlling the local population. Having a fort spread culture just doesn't seem to fit.

However I think it would make perfect sense for a fort to inhibit slightly the spread of foreign culture. This would represent well their roll in subduing the peasants and reminding the locals of the power of the current leader. This would add an interesting twist to gameplay and give a very solid reason to build forts along contested borders. The biggest problem would be getting the AI to use them effectively.

Along similar lines, it would be more sensible if the rate of spread of culture from neighbouring civilization was affected by whether you have open or closed borders.