idea: scrap the fortify mission

[Deadstarre]

The AI is decent at finding a spot and ending a turn.

G

if im understanding right, what youre proposing is that things stay the same, except for a melee unit which makes only one move and then ends its turn without attacking (ending turn with 1 movement point left) now it would get a partial fortify bonus for that turn. If so, im thinking thats too niche to make any difference - moving once and then not attacking would normally be something you do for strict ZOC reasons, which falls into the category of things players do but AI not as much.


this is a real longshot but it just popped in my brain so ill spit it out - what if fortify bonus "charged up" and got carried around / used for every combat. like, warrior sits for 2 turns (2 charges) and so gains the %40 bonus, which he carries around until combat occurs at which point he loses a charge (1 combat down to %20, 2 combats down to zero). it would 1) make continuous fortifying much less powerful (hurt players far more) and 2) the AI would often be walking around with the bonus, any time they had to heal or for the beginning of basically every war.

 

[pineappledan]

this is a real longshot but it just popped in my brain so ill spit it out - what if fortify bonus "charged up" and got carried around / used for every combat. like, warrior sits for 2 turns (2 charges) and so gains the %40 bonus, which he carries around until combat occurs at which point he loses a charge (1 combat down to %20, 2 combats down to zero). it would 1) make continuous fortifying much less powerful (hurt players far more) and 2) the AI would often be walking around with the bonus, any time they had to heal or for the beginning of basically every war.

That... doesn't make any sense. When armies dig in to a place, set up stakes, become well-acquainted with the nearby terrain, rest, resupply, dig trenches, they don't retain those benefits when they get back on the move.

 

[Infixo]

Guys, „thank you” for all the personal comments you posted about me. Despite the fact that this is a Civilization forum, I am not sure that they were „civilized”.

 

[hr_oskar]

The most simple solution is to have the fortified bonus a single, flat value (+25% defense or whatever) and have it gained for one turn by not moving the unit - i.e. same as the requirements for getting a heal.

G's proposal for a graduated fortification bonus is interesting but I'm wondering if the added complexity (for players and the AI) is worthwhile. I suspect it could increase the advantage of skilled players vs the AI and also add a slightly annoying "how much F bonus does this unit have?". Why not have a graduated heal too then? With only one value the situation on the battlefield is clearer because I can tell from the unit icons which units are fortified and then know "okay that spearman has +25% defense" without having to read the small print.

 

[Deadstarre]

That... doesn't make any sense. When armies dig in to a place, set up stakes, become well-acquainted with the nearby terrain, rest, resupply, dig trenches, they don't retain those benefits when they get back on the move.

would have to change the name of the mechanic from "Fortify" to "Super Saiyan" i guess. anyway i never said it made any sense, just that it popped in my brain

 

[Moi Magnus]

Guys, „thank you” for all the personal comments you posted about me. Despite the fact that this is a Civilization forum, I am not sure that they were „civilized”.

Sorry, I did not intend to be rude , but I wrote my comment quite quickly and did not re-read it before posting

 

[Deadstarre]

@Infixo is the most diligent, humble and helpful gangsta on these streets. Dude puts his head down and digs in to the UI to make our lives %1 easier. all praise and thanks to him!

 

[CppMaster]

Sorry, I did not intend to be rude , but I wrote my comment quite quickly and did not re-read it before posting

Are to being sarcastic? Your post isn't even close to be rude

Guys, „thank you” for all the personal comments you posted about me. Despite the fact that this is a Civilization forum, I am not sure that they were „civilized”.

Which exactly posts do you find not civilized? Don't be so oversensitive.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Are to being sarcastic? Your post isn't even close to be rude .

That was not sarcastic. English is not my native language, and I'm never sure about how rude I sound when "strongly disagreeing".
(Also, I know that when reading a sequence of post that disagree with you without having the time to answer in between, each additional post feel more aggressive than the previous one)

 

[CppMaster]

That was not sarcastic. English is not my native language, and I'm never sure about how rude I sound when "strongly disagreeing".
(Also, I know that when reading a sequence of post that disagree with you without having the time to answer in between, each additional post feel more aggressive than the previous one)

Yeah, it may feel like that way, but it's just a feeling. Just disagreeing shouldn't be received as offensive in civilized discussion.

 

[saamohod]

@Infixo is the most diligent, humble and helpful gangsta on these streets. Dude puts his head down and digs in to the UI to make our lives %1 easier. all praise and thanks to him!

Not sure if he's the most diligent, but he sure does a great job!

 

[Stalker0]

The most simple solution is to have the fortified bonus a single, flat value (+25% defense or whatever) and have it gained for one turn by not moving the unit - i.e. same as the requirements for getting a heal.

G's proposal for a graduated fortification bonus is interesting but I'm wondering if the added complexity (for players and the AI) is worthwhile. I suspect it could increase the advantage of skilled players vs the AI and also add a slightly annoying "how much F bonus does this unit have?". Why not have a graduated heal too then? With only one value the situation on the battlefield is clearer because I can tell from the unit icons which units are fortified and then know "okay that spearman has +25% defense" without having to read the small print.

Even simplier. Give all melee units +25% defense (or something less now thst it’s all the time).

Remove fortification and take movement completely out of it. Defense just becomes easier, AI would then not have to worry about it at all.

 

[Deadstarre]

Even simplier. Give all melee units +25% defense (or something less now thst it’s all the time).

Remove fortification and take movement completely out of it. Defense just becomes easier, AI would then not have to worry about it at all.

yeah, but thats in the 'gutting gameplay and core mechanics' bucket. its really not worth the loss of dumbing down gameplay without adding some active and interesting measure in return. passive defense %100 of the time is not interesting

 

[Tekamthi]

adding another voice here to the pro-fortify options.. the fortify bonus is a civ staple for sure imo. I like it as it exists in VP to some degree, and it seems the AI does use it from what I've observed, just not as effectively as it could. In this regard it seems to be one of many imperfections remaining with VP AI, albeit minor; I wouldnt be unhappy if it remained unchanged.. or maybe w/ a small adjustment to make it a real choice.. ie better def bonus than alert but start turn while fortified w/ -1 movement point, etc. Wasn't there a discussion elsewhere recently about warmonger dominance? Maybe small buff to defenders possible here...

If changed, however, I have a slight pref to the option that builds this bonus up over 2 turns of not moving... similar to existing state but eliminating the fortify mission itself. I think many players are used to how this works, and going this way would be an intuitive adjustment. Sounds like AI might use this feature more often as well, though I imagine their issue is as much connected with their inability to sit still as it is to activate fortify.

Not so crazy about the newer, more different mechanisms floated, ie retaining bonus after moving etc. Just doesn't capture the reality of what this is supposed to represent imo, and would be more difficult to read the enemy's formations.

 

[ridjack]

This whole thread makes me wonder how many other 'opaque' mechanics there still are that we all think we understand but really don't.

 

[tu_79]

Even simplier. Give all melee units +25% defense (or something less now thst it’s all the time).

Remove fortification and take movement completely out of it. Defense just becomes easier, AI would then not have to worry about it at all.

I wouldn't like it this way. I prefer that units that have moved lose their extra defense, so the best moment for attacking them is when they are moving. Otherwise there is no tactics, melee and ranged are simply more resilient.
I agree with @hr_oskar, though. A proportional bonus based on the movement points the unit has spared is a bit long to explain. Keeping the bonus when the unit stays in the same tile is much easier to understand, at least for humans. Ideally, I would draw a trench in the place that would be removed when the unit abandons the tile, but without destroying current improvements.

I think G has his reasons to implement the fortify bonus in the way he offered. Obscure AI logic reasons.

 

[hr_oskar]

adding another voice here to the pro-fortify options.. the fortify bonus is a civ staple for sure imo. I like it as it exists in VP to some degree, and it seems the AI does use it from what I've observed, just not as effectively as it could. In this regard it seems to be one of many imperfections remaining with VP AI, albeit minor; I wouldnt be unhappy if it remained unchanged.. or maybe w/ a small adjustment to make it a real choice.. ie better def bonus than alert but start turn while fortified w/ -1 movement point, etc. Wasn't there a discussion elsewhere recently about warmonger dominance? Maybe small buff to defenders possible here...

If changed, however, I have a slight pref to the option that builds this bonus up over 2 turns of not moving... similar to existing state but eliminating the fortify mission itself. I think many players are used to how this works, and going this way would be an intuitive adjustment. Sounds like AI might use this feature more often as well, though I imagine their issue is as much connected with their inability to sit still as it is to activate fortify.

Not so crazy about the newer, more different mechanisms floated, ie retaining bonus after moving etc. Just doesn't capture the reality of what this is supposed to represent imo, and would be more difficult to read the enemy's formations.

Yes it's a staple, a legacy mechanic since Civ1. However it's worth noting that it was conceived in a much simpler system of combat and has never really been revised even with the huge change of going over to 1upt hexagonal warfare.

Anyway I think we more or less have a consensus that the mechanic should be kept but may be worth revising to make it easier to understand and use for both players and AI.

 

[Infixo]

Anybody still interested if AI uses Fortify?

Edit. They are NOT in Camps.

 

[Rekk]

I think the problem is that they don't fortify in the middle of a battle. If there are opponents in view, and especially if they are at full health, they will not fortify, and will instead move to attack, retreat or get into a better position.

 

[ashendashin]

Anybody still interested if AI uses Fortify?

View attachment 494125

Edit. They are NOT in Camps.

Of course the AI uses it. This ain't Civ6/any vanilla Civ. It's an issue of efficiency. The AI would perform better without it as that's one less major defense that requires sticking to a certain set of tiles among a constantly changing field.
We don't even need to discuss this part as it was Ilteroi, the guy who made the current tactical AI, that proposed this change.