idea: scrap the fortify mission

[Gothic_Empire]

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

What if non-mounted units always got the fortification bonus regardless of how many turns passed?

 

[ilteroi]

so, is there some sort of consensus?

maybe removing the fortify mission completely goes too far, i'm also fine with a "hold" mission for garrisons etc. but no bonuses from either hold or alert. use the terrain or a literal fort if you need it.

if this should tilt the field too far in favor of the AI, we can simply reduce some of it's bonuses. everybody wants that, right?

 

[bigcat88]

I vote for "which is best suited for AI suitable for all"

 

[tu_79]

Briefing.
1. AI doesn't know how to use 'Fortify' option.
2. Current mechanic is a bit obscure even for human players.
3. Most of us don't want to lose the fortify bonus. How it is achieved is less important.
4. Siege units with siege promotions do extra damage against fortified units.
5. Does AI at least know how to hold a position? If this is the case then, does AI know not to attack to avoid losing fortified status?

To please everyone.
1. Remove 'Fortify' option. Change 'sleep' name for 'Hold position'. It leaves, 'Do nothing', 'Alert' and 'Hold position'. The chosen option will not affect whether the unit gets a fortify bonus.
2. Let units that can fortify get the bonus when the unit has not moved in the last turn. In case AI does not know not to attack, this would apply for units that have not moved from their tiles, even if they attacked.
3. Forget about double defense in forts. Forts already give a terrain bonus, and more than one turn fortifying it's not a simple mechanic in my book.
4. Fortify bonus only applies at defense, so there should be a tooltip somewhere saying 'this unit will fortify for next turn since it has not moved', for units that can fortify.
EDIT
5. Units will lose fortified status only when they abandon the 'fortified' tile. Attacking will have no effect as long as the unit doesn't abandon the tile.

 

[ashendashin]

Fortifying in any sense is a fun and important part of gameplay. If we remove the "fortify" option, then I'd consider it extremely important to come up with alternatives. Building forts takes way too long, so shortening that is the first thing that comes to mind. Would probably be necessary to expand fort building in general, otherwise sieges would be hamfisted affairs where you either take down the city straight away or turn it into an insane mess of constantly switching units in enemy territory. It'd make standard melee units far less appealing(borderline worthless IMO), so some adjustments there would also be necessary.

Medic related work might be a good thing to consider.

 

[pineappledan]

This would require a complete overhaul of how melee and gun units work. Without their ability to "bite and hold", melee units will be completely outshined by mounted and ranged units.

My guess is that you would be looking at a complete reworking of how forts work. Forts can only be built in owned territory, and take far too long to create to be integrated into a system like this. Without a way of making melee units durable, yet flexible, they are going to get left behind no matter how many CP steroids you give them.

This change also heavilly favors turtling with civs that have static defenses. Without a way of holding ground with melee units, the only way to reliably hold a line is with pre-built defenses and ranged barrages

Specific promotions which rely on fortify for their effect would have to be reworked, or scrapped entirely. ie. pilum

I hate to be a negative nancy here, but I don't see a change like this being worth the effort needed to make it balanced and fun.

 

[Tantro]

Huh, always thought space bar or 'do nothing' would retain fortify bonus. TIL. Current system don't make much sense, if it possible (I know close to nothing about coding), slim unit options down to just Alert and Hold Position and make it so, if a unit doesn't move, it's considered 'fortified' and given defense bonus if applicable. I don't think forts need to be reworked. They already have a role and serves the AI now that they've learned how to connect them with roads.

 

[CppMaster]

I like the idea that units get fortification bonus if did nothing, regardless if it it was Do Nothing, Alert or Sleep action. AI would also always get that bonus when didn't move or attack instead if nothing.

 

[Paramecium]

How about adding a promotion for melee infantry, that gives defensive bonus when not moving? Could the AI handle it, that they wont move their melee infantry? So you could have the same result but maybe more AI friendly?

 

[CrazyG]

Its rather dumb that pressing space looses the fortificaiton bonus (but only sometimes). No matter how you choose to do nothing, you should get same result. If fortify stays, all actions that do nothing should increase defense if the unit didn't move. If it goes, please don't suggets building forts as an alternative unless this feature is overhauled. Its completely different.

 

[ryanmusante]

Huh, always thought space bar or 'do nothing' would retain fortify bonus. TIL. Current system don't make much sense, if it possible (I know close to nothing about coding), slim unit options down to just Alert and Hold Position and make it so, if a unit doesn't move, it's considered 'fortified' and given defense bonus if applicable. I don't think forts need to be reworked. They already have a role and serves the AI now that they've learned how to connect them with roads.

I remember first playing and thinking how complicated the game was but now I realize that it is sometimes just a lot of redundant options that the original developers put in.

 

[Tantro]

I remember first playing and thinking how complicated the game was but now I realize that it is sometimes just a lot of redundant options that the original developers put in.

Yeah, I think 'streamlining' gets a bad rep in gaming communities. It's not always the case that it's used to dumb down game mechanics but to remove redundancy as you put it.

 

[saamohod]

I vote for "when a unit doesn't move it fortifies automatically". Choosing "Do Nothing" over "Fortify" makes no sense, since choosing no bonus over a bonus makes no sense.

 

[ashendashin]

That's not the topic at hand though. Either we lose fortification bonuses outside of forts/terrain entirely or we don't. QoL is a different topic, as the AI simply doesn't have much going on for defense outside of forts.

 

[Tantro]

That's not the topic at hand though. Either we lose fortification bonuses outside of forts/terrain entirely or we don't. QoL is a different topic, as the AI simply doesn't have much going on for defense outside of forts.

So it boils down to removing fortify because the AI can't use it? For the sake of combat balance it makes a lot of sense, but I'm not a fan of removing tactical game play mechanics. On the other hand it would probably make forts more important (I never build them). I'm for it. I think.

 

[ashendashin]

So it boils down to removing fortify because the AI can't use it? For the sake of combat balance it makes a lot of sense, but I'm not a fan of removing tactical game play mechanics. It would probably make forts more important (I never build them).

That's why people are throwing ideas to make viable alternatives. We all want the AI to play better, but the current balance does not support it.

 

[ridjack]

@ilteroi I simply don't think you can make any meaningful, useful change to such a core mechanic without needing to completely overhaul at least one aspect of war if not more. As someone else, I simply can't see it being worth the effort, especially at this stage of development.

 

[Siege Tower]

Is it really everyone's experience that the AI doesn't use Fortify? I just got done with a war where I was having to contend with fortified units, both inside Forts/Citadels and outside them, especially in adjacent tiles and along the line of battle. I do tend to to notice it more when they are in a defensive posture, but that makes sense to me and I don't see it hurting them too much on the offensive. Considering the power of offensive war in the hands of the AI in the last few patches, I feel if anything the existing defensive mechanics should be further reinforced rather than downplayed or removed entirely. I completely agree with that analysis of @ridjack and the conclusions he reached. Changes to the fortification mechanics like having military units build forts would be a fundamental change to warfare in this game and trying to balance it with high-mobility units and long-range combat would probably be a hassle not worth dealing with (and as far as using minimum city distance for forts as well... please, dear God, anything but that.) The one thing I do agree with is that "Do Nothing" should work as "Fortify for this turn then ask me again" if it is possible to re-code, and I guess making "Alert" capable of reaching the 40% bonus after two turns (though there seems to be some confusion about whether this is true or not? I never use Alert so I actually am unclear on this.) As far as the idea of removing the 40% bonus after two turns entirely, personally I like this feature a lot and don't find it to be overpowered at all since the choice between staying in place for at least two turns versus following the movement of the battle is often a reasonable tradeoff in terms of risk vs. reward. But, I suppose if the AI just can't cope with keeping a unit in one place for more than two turns, it could just be capped at 20% without affecting things too much, though it will make turtling a bit more taxing.

P.S. if it really is true that the AI isn't capable of fortifying, I must be losing it after struggling to break that AI defense earlier today!

P.P.S. If you don't love seeing friendly city-states build up forts at the borders of your enemies, then proceed to tear them down and replace them with farms and villages when you conquer the enemy city together, you must have a heart of stone.

 

[hr_oskar]

At the very least let any "stay put" action result in a fortification bonus - basically if the unit qualifies for healing it gets fortified (if the unit type allows). That would also make things easier for new players and casuals. A QoL improvement of a sort.

Regarding melee vs mounted balance, don't forget that mounted units get no terrain defense bonuses, which are separate from fortification.

 

[Tantro]

That's why people are throwing ideas to make viable alternatives. We all want the AI to play better, but the current balance does not support it.

If it is true that AI doesn't use fortification I'm in favour of removing fortify so that stationary forts becomes a viable alternative to the tiny fort that melee units carry in their pockets. Apparently I mostly play without fortify anyway. Tit for tat.