idea: scrap the fortify mission

[Stalker0]

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.

I feel in general we are fairly split on whether any change to fort should occur at all.

 

[Infixo]

Of course the AI uses it.

Oh, so AI uses it? My English must be really bad then...

the problem is, the AI doesn't really know how to use fortify

what the AI does currently with fortify (aka nothing)

the only time you see an AI making use of fortify is barbs in encampment

AI doesn't know how to use 'Fortify' option.

So it boils down to removing fortify because the AI can't use it?

 

[ashendashin]

Oh, so AI uses it? My English must be really bad then...

You're taking it a bit too literally. Deadstarre's not exactly known for light criticism...
We really do mean that the AI isn't being efficient with it. You should at least acknowledge that Ilteroi knows what the AI is capable of, so take his post as an example of how we mean that the AI doesn't use it properly. People don't always get the words right, so it's important to consider your company. No one here is blind.

 

[Gazebo]

I feel in general we are fairly split on whether any change to fort should occur at all.

I don't think forts/citadels should be touched (unless we reduce the build cost of forts slightly). I think this is purely about whether or not we should streamline fortification or not.

Oh, so AI uses it? My English must be really bad then...

Yeah, but who listens to that @ilteroi guy?

The AI uses it primarily to heal. That's...about it.

G

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think forts/citadels should be touched (unless we reduce the build cost of forts slightly). I think this is purely about whether or not we should streamline fortification or not.



Yeah, but who listens to that @ilteroi guy?

The AI uses it primarily to heal. That's...about it.

G

It was a bad time to shorten the word fortification to fort. You and I are in fact talking about the same thing

 

[ilteroi]

well, this certainly sparked some interesting discussion. people raised some good points in favor of keeping the fortification.

so right now i'm looking at granting an automatic (flat) fortification bonus if a unit hasn't spent any movement points in the previous turn.

can't please everyone but i hope that's acceptable to everyone.

 

[Tekamthi]

I agree that the thread lacks clarity on existing state, as is often the case in these discussions... whether people are exaggerating, and really mean something else re: effectiveness of use, is difficult to discern to the occasional reader. I'm not sure I agree that everyone is on the same page re: this intention.

In my experience, AI can use fortify, and seem to identify reasonable opportunities to do so, at least occasionally... problem definitely lies with its effectiveness in the broader AI war plan -- but this seems to be an issue with nearly any aspect of AI war abilities, if focused on at a granular level. I think the problem here is not so proximate to fortify mechanism itself, so much as their bias towards moving/attacking in many situations.

re: existing state, from the last few pages, I gather that fortify works as follows:

• does not activate on 'do nothing'
• does not activate on 'sleep'
• activates on 'alert' if/when turn ends w/ full moves
• activates on 'fortify' if/when turn ends w/ full moves
• once activated, provides x% def bonus immediately
• one turn after activated, provides total 2x% def bonus

 

[ElliotS]

On a related note, are people using forts often? It sounds like they don't. I find the long build time a barrier personally.

Using forts for combat? God no. The build-time is absurd. It's even funnier given that I bring workers with me to war often, but only end up building roads.

However the Imperialism policy actually makes them a great tile to work, so I build them starting right before unlocking the policy.

Build time should probably be reduced. Maybe a heavy reduction if a military unit is on the tile? I would also consider allowing them built outside of your territory.

 

[ashendashin]

well, this certainly sparked some interesting discussion. people raised some good points in favor of keeping the fortification.

so right now i'm looking at granting an automatic (flat) fortification bonus if a unit hasn't spent any movement points in the previous turn.

can't please everyone but i hope that's acceptable to everyone.

Is that gonna do much for the AI? Everyone agrees that the constant movement is an issue of its own, so I wasn't against full removal if it meant reworking forts(assuming we'd get anywhere with that).

 

[raphaell666]

Build time should probably be reduced. Maybe a heavy reduction if a military unit is on the tile?

I think this is a very interesting idea. Reducing the build time for the Fort if there is a Military unit in the same tile as the worker. As if the military unit is helping build the Fort (which makes sense to me).

 

[vyyt]

so right now i'm looking at granting an automatic (flat) fortification bonus if a unit hasn't spent any movement points in the previous turn.

I wonder how often and in which circumstances the AI keeps a unit on its tile without expending any movement (and does not move it back and forth to the same tile).

 

[Gazebo]

well, this certainly sparked some interesting discussion. people raised some good points in favor of keeping the fortification.

so right now i'm looking at granting an automatic (flat) fortification bonus if a unit hasn't spent any movement points in the previous turn.

can't please everyone but i hope that's acceptable to everyone.

In lieu of the existing system? So alert/sleep/fortify would all do the same thing? The scaling per-turn fortification bonus is gone, replaced with a flat bonus?

G

 

[CppMaster]

In lieu of the existing system? So alert/sleep/fortify would all do the same thing? The scaling per-turn fortification bonus is gone, replaced with a flat bonus?

G

Also "Do not nothing" (Space Bar) when didn't move or attack

 

[pineappledan]

so right now i'm looking at granting an automatic (flat) fortification bonus if a unit hasn't spent any movement points in the previous turn.

Seems fair. the 2x bonus after 1 turn was opaque, It sounds like most people had no clue it even existed before this discussion
.
I support this change, but sleep should be removed from all units then. Alert, do nothing and fortify all do the same thing, but wake the unit on different intervals (enemy near, 1 turn and never, respectively). Sleep has no place, and if it can be removed entirely then I think it should be.

Using forts for combat? God no. The build-time is absurd. It's even funnier given that I bring workers with me to war often, but only end up building roads.

I want to second this. I almost never build forts. Canals are vanity projects and obvious choke points are few and far between. The opportunity cost of using worker actions to do something that only might be useful if the enemy army happens to pass by that place makes the improvement highly speculative and situational to the point of uselessness. It takes way too much planning and turns spent using a worker to build an improvement you only might use. That is time you could have spent building a workable improvement that a city will definitely use. If you are wasting turns building forts then you likely have too many workers and should just sell some.

The fact that they can't be built outside your own territory, so they can't be used for an aggressive posture as an outpost without first forward settling another civ means they have almost no value. the % CS boosts from various UAs, wonders, policies, and enhanced healing in your own territory is enough of a home field advantage for me. Forts are just a gimmick that goes unnoticed.

Build time should probably be reduced. Maybe a heavy reduction if a military unit is on the tile? I would also consider allowing them built outside of your territory.

It will only help so much, but it would help. maybe just knock off 2 turns.
It would be nice if they could be built adjacent to your territory like Eki. I know forts outside your own territory was scrapped for AI reasons.

 

[raphaell666]

Sleep has no place, and if it can be removed entirely then I think it should be.

Sleep would be for units that can not Fortify. IIRC the same button (F) that uses Fortify is the one that puts units that can't Fortify to Sleep.

 

[pineappledan]

Sleep would be for units that can not Fortify. IIRC the same button (F) that uses Fortify is the one that puts units that can't Fortify to Sleep.

The sleep button is redundant on melee units (who have both sleep and fortify). For the sake of accessibility, one of the two buttons should be scrapped and only 1 icon should be used. There should not be a visible difference between a warriors "take no action indefinitely" button and a worker's "take no action indefinitely" button. For my part, the shield icon from the fortify action is nicer looking than the Z's of the sleeping icon, so between the two I think all should be switched to that icon.

 

[ScooterDWiebels]

Yea this is what I was going towards. Units just dig in without being told to so.

On a related note, are people using forts often? It sounds like they don't. I find the long build time a barrier personally.

Gazebo's solution makes good sense from a historical standpoint, after all troops especially nowadays build temporary defenses. The heavy masonry fortification became obsolete with the modern era.

 

[CppMaster]

The fact that they can't be built outside your own territory, so they can't be used for an aggressive posture as an outpost without first forward settling another civ means they have almost no value.

What if they could be build on neural grounds? Any unit (yours or enemy's) could use it when it stays there and also any unit could pillage it.

 

[pineappledan]

What if they could be build on neural grounds? Any unit (yours or enemy's) could use it when it stays there and also any unit could pillage it.

Honestly I don't know. By the time I had found VP, forts in neutral was already disabled. G or Ilteroi or someone who has a longer history with the mod will know more. I'm sure there's a good reason for why this isn't allowed

 

[Gazebo]

What if they could be build on neural grounds? Any unit (yours or enemy's) could use it when it stays there and also any unit could pillage it.

Honestly I don't know. By the time I had found VP, forts in neutral was already disabled. G or Ilteroi or someone who has a longer history with the mod will know more. I'm sure there's a good reason for why this isn't allowed

I took it away early on because the AI couldn't do it. Even now it would swing towards humans, as homelandAI only looks at owned plots. So a no-go.


G