idea: scrap the fortify mission

[civplayer33]

I'm definitely in favor of either this not being touched (in the main VP distro, mod mods can probably do this easily) or changed in the manner tu_79 or vyyt proposed since I think that the defensive bonus mechanic is an important part of tactical management, makes a lot of sense in the context of a strategic game and also it actually is being used by the AI, just not that often.
While I appreciate the drive to change aspects of the game that will retain value to the player but allow the AI to perform better, I feel that this proposal seems more of a radical excision of a fun and important feature instead.

 

[ryanmusante]

Should this then present as a problem if there were to be changes ? I have these both set to 1 and have become accustomed to playing like that.

<CustomModOptions>
        <Update>
            <Where Name="BUGFIX_UNITS_AWAKE_IN_DANGER"/>
            <Set Value="1"/>
        </Update>
        <Update>
            <Where Name="BUGFIX_WORKERS_VISIBLE_DANGER"/>
            <Set Value="1"/>
        </Update>
    </CustomModOptions>

 

[CrazyG]

I kind of think a unit should fortify automatically if its eligible too and you press sleep or do nothing. Is there any reason not to fortify this way?

Also the tooltip should give more of an indication that fortifying for two turns gives a larger bonus.

 

[raphaell666]

Bingo. If the AI doesn't know how to use it, then when we should a) find if it is worthy making them use it or b) (which is what I'd like) scrap it.

I feel that scraping it without replacing it with anything else would be too much of a loss to gameplay. On the other hand, I am not sure replacing Fortify with another option would be worth the effort.

Is it feasible to change Forts to not overwrite any existing tile improvements? An idea could be giving all Land Melee Units the ability to build fortifications in a couple turns, which perhaps goes away after a few turns when no military units are on the tile? EDIT: Similar to what @Deadstarre already proposed.

I would still argue that we should leave it as it is and try to improve the AI usability of it (if possible, I have no idea).

 

[raphaell666]

Should this then present as a problem if there were to be changes ? I have these both set to 1 and have become accustomed to playing like that.

<CustomModOptions>
        <Update>
            <Where Name="BUGFIX_UNITS_AWAKE_IN_DANGER"/>
            <Set Value="1"/>
        </Update>
        <Update>
            <Where Name="BUGFIX_WORKERS_VISIBLE_DANGER"/>
            <Set Value="1"/>
        </Update>
    </CustomModOptions>

This is what I found in the mod files:

BUGFIX_UNITS_AWAKE_IN_DANGER: Healing units will awaken if they can see an enemy unit, without removing fortification bonuses.

BUGFIX_WORKERS_VISIBLE_DANGER: This one seems to awake workers only when the enemy military units are in the same domain as the worker, or if they are ranged.

Not sure why these are not active by default. I do not think these would be a problem.

 

[Gazebo]

I feel like fortification should be scrapped entirely myself. Let forts and citadels be your literal fortifications.

G

 

[ryanmusante]

In the meantime, if AI doesn't effectively use Fortify as does the human it's the same as an exploit.

 

[CrazyG]

I feel like fortification should be scrapped entirely myself. Let forts and citadels be your literal fortifications.

G

It would be a big buff to mounted units and march/ survivealism III. I like the fortification feature, its a good trade off between moving and gaining that defense. There is a lot more to defenses and fortifying that just those big forts (which don't get very much use in my experience). The issue is you need a worker to build them, and they take like 8 turns. So its only useful for a defensive line, most wars the units move too often for a static defense placement that takes 8 turns to build to be relevant.

 

[Deadstarre]

i am %100 for AI but even i have to agree with several others here that without a complete fort revamp scrapping fortify comes at too great a cost to fun and gameplay. something has to replace it out in the wild

 

[XplosiveLun]

I want some clarification on this: sometimes you really want a unit to remain "not moving" for a while. For instance, in the middle of a fight, a swordsman is here to defend instead of attacking. So the swordsman would just stand there... just soaking up damage. The archers from behind would then damaging the units at the front. The problem is, if you remove the fortifying mission, then the swordsman would wake up every turn using alert mission despite I just want them keep not moving. As a result, might be a little bit infuriating.

Maybe add a player-specific mission like "stand there until all nearby enemies are slain". It gives no defensive bonus and wakes up "sleeping" units when no enemies are nearby.

Also, is sleep mission still intact? It has nothing to do with it, right?

 

[ridjack]

Warfare and everything around it are probably the only place I feel qualified to weigh in with a serious opinion.

I'm quite surprised to see @ilteroi and @Gazebo seriously wanting to make a change like this; Fortifying is pretty fundamental. (I wasn't aware that the AI didn't really know how to use it, although it does explain some things.) There are... maybe three or four reasons I ever build (edit: melee) infantry?

1. They can Fortify.
2. Their city damage (and defense against the same; see 1) is much better.
3. My unique is infantry.
4. I don't have enough horses.

Fortification and city damage are pretty much the defining differences between (particularly melee) cavalry and infantry, and the city damage is not nearly as useful if the slower infantry can't be up front and take the hits while your siege (or the melee themselves, in some cases) wail on the city. (Sidenote: Cataphracts lose a large part of their uniqueness.)

Speaking of which, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how you're supposed to protect those valuable siege and ranged units if your melee can no longer Fortify. Especially after the early game, you'll essentially have no choice but to kill literally the entire enemy army before your siege units can even start moving forward. I'll grant that this is usually the optimal strategy anyway, but the loss of Fortification would seem to make it pretty much mandatory.

Also seems like the players would lose a massive benefit to their defenses with this; Fortifying in your own borders, along with strategic use of terrain and the usual good tactics, is one of the primary defenses against the AI's higher unit count. I can easily see, at the least, losing a lot more units in defensive wars.

I'm sure all of this can be worked around with changes to tactics and etc, and I can even see how the benefits could eventually outweigh the costs - but the key word there is eventually. I feel relatively confident that a change like this would end up requiring a whole host of changes that I would think are outside the scope of what y'all are wanting to do at this stage of VP. I really don't think you can just slice out one of the core combat mechanics without some pretty heavy repercussions.

On top of all that, if the primary problem is that the AI doesn't know how to use it well, @Gazebo won't even be able to test it with his usual all-AI games. This would only add to the time it would end up taking to hammer out the effects of this change.

TL;DR I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[Stalker0]

So I thought we were feature complete? This is no small thing, its a major change to warfare.

For one, melee units are going to need some kind of defense buff. Fortification was a key area of their strength.

 

[Gazebo]

It would be a big buff to mounted units and march/ survivealism III. I like the fortification feature, its a good trade off between moving and gaining that defense. There is a lot more to defenses and fortifying that just those big forts (which don't get very much use in my experience). The issue is you need a worker to build them, and they take like 8 turns. So its only useful for a defensive line, most wars the units move too often for a static defense placement that takes 8 turns to build to be relevant.

I get that. And I seriously doubt we’ll change anything, but my personal feeling on it is that it is a relatively opaque mechanic that the AI has a hard time using. And you all know how I feel about that.

G

 

[CrazyG]

I get that. And I seriously doubt we’ll change anything, but my personal feeling on it is that it is a relatively opaque mechanic that the AI has a hard time using. And you all know how I feel about that.

G

The AI thing is a good argument, I'm up for exploring this.

 

[Deadstarre]

@Infixo I said something earlier that looks to be disrespectful to your position and I didnt quite mean for that to be the case (i am sorry if so) so i want to clarify a bit

I understand you like that there are different options currently for a unit. "Various options for various situations. I like it that way" and you don't want to see that go away. And i agree with you %100 that pertaining to unit cycling it is important we have various options (fortify prompts no action on following turn, alert prompts if enemy, do nothing prompts regardless).

the problem as i see it is when you link a meaningful game benefit to one of these decisions, then this choice becomes a pitfall for any player looking to make an optimal game play decision. and then once a player knows which is the optimal game play decision for a turn where you will not attack or move (clearly fortify/alert are better than 'do nothing' for gameplay) now any choice is gone; a player will be locked into picking his decision based on the in-game benefit, and is forced to accept the consequence that has for the unit cycling (something that should have been a personal decision). so now it becomes just an annoyance.

put another way maybe to help understand; it would be as if all settler cities started with 60 free production, but only if a player used the Micro-scale UI =) these are decisions which should be kept separate, and if 60 free production will be given it should be given to all players who use any UI - which is why i feel the "do nothing" button should also give the fortify defense bonus.

if none of that made any sense, just know that I love you =)

 

[chicorbeef]

If we were to remove fortification, wouldn't we then have to adjust the entire melee line of units?

 

[Infixo]

@Deadstarre I don’t feel offended in any way

 

[ScooterDWiebels]

I feel like fortification should be scrapped entirely myself. Let forts and citadels be your literal fortifications.

G

The development of modern artillery spelled the doom of static fortifications and latter modern aircraft put the final nails into that coffin.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Edit: Just brainstorming.

If the AI doesn't know how to use fortify properly and if it's too hard to teach it, then I'd be very much n favour of scrapping the fortify action. Or alternatively, significantly reduce the combat bonus of fortification.

In that case, I'd vote to use the Kasbah code for forts, i.e. they would connect any resources on tiles and would be able to be built in forested/jungled areas without chopping them down. That would make forts much more viable.

I'd also slightly decrease the bonus to forts from Imperialism and instead give a small bonus to forts&citadels to one of Authority's later policies (perhaps 1p/1f?).

I'd also either remove the "march" promotion from mounted units or increase the "vs. mounted" combat bonus of infantry units.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I feel like fortification should be scrapped entirely myself. Let forts and citadels be your literal fortifications.

G

I always assumed it represented "digging in" -- trenches and the like, which have no representation in the game, otherwise.