idea: scrap the fortify mission

[ashendashin]

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

There goes one alternative. I guess your suggestion will at least give the AI some sort of defense more often.

 

[Tekamthi]

Seems fair. the 2x bonus after 1 turn was opaque, It sounds like most people had no clue it even existed before this discussion

isn't this feature mostly unchanged from vanilla? and an already simplified version of civ 4's fortify (was 5% per turn up to 25% iirc) I suspect most civ 5 players know this exists, just not exactly how it works...

thinking on the simplest possible change here, text updates to clarify what the missions do might go a long way if we're concerned with fortify's opaqueness. "fortify until healed", for example, should probably read "sleep until healed".

Changing "do nothing" and "sleep" to activate existing fortify automatically, if its available, is best, simple solution imo.

 

[pineappledan]

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.

Fair enough. If the issue is that AI looks primarily for tile ownership then there is one thing that might work though:

What if Forts could be built/repaired in neutral territory, but on completion they claimed territory they were built on? Like a 1 radius citadel
Increase fort construction to 10 turns
Forts are retained as land owned by the civ that last constructed/repaired the fort.
As a result, forts can extend the benefits of homeland bonuses (Increased healing rate, Himeji, Shoshone UA, etc.)
On pillage, forts revert to unclaimed territory.
Because the fort claims tiles, this increases diplomatic penalty if you build a fort near another civ

Would that fix the AI issue? And it would kinda make sense from a gameplay perspective. I mean, if you are building a military installation somewhere I would say you are effectively laying claim to that land.

 

[Deadstarre]

isn't this feature mostly unchanged from vanilla? and an already simplified version of civ 4's fortify (was 5% per turn up to 25% iirc) I suspect most civ 5 players know this exists, just not exactly how it works...

entirely unchanged from vanilla i do believe. i knew 2x turns in the same spot gave a bigger bonus, i thought most people using fortify knew as well. but i didn't interpret Ilterois statement to mean this would be going away, where did he say that? looked like thered be no change on that aspect

 

[tu_79]

Fair enough. If the issue is that AI looks primarily for tile ownership then there is one thing that might work though:

What if Forts could be built/repaired in neutral territory, but on completion they claimed territory they were built on?
Increase fort construction to 10 turns
Forts are retained as land owned by the civ that last constructed/repaired the fort.
As a result, forts can extend the benefits of homeland bonuses (Increased healing rate, Himeji, Shoshone UA, etc.)
On pillage, forts revert to unclaimed territory.
Because the fort claims tiles, this increases diplomatic penalty if you build a fort near another civ

Would that fix the AI issue? And it would kinda make sense from a gameplay perspective. I mean, if you are building a military installation somewhere I would say you are effectively laying claim to that land.

Washington would have a word with you!

 

[ashendashin]

Fair enough. If the issue is that AI looks primarily for tile ownership then there is one thing that might work though:

What if Forts could be built/repaired in neutral territory, but on completion they claimed territory they were built on?
Increase fort construction to 10 turns
Forts are retained as land owned by the civ that last constructed/repaired the fort.
As a result, forts can extend the benefits of homeland bonuses (Increased healing rate, Himeji, Shoshone UA, etc.)
On pillage, forts revert to unclaimed territory.

I was thinking about this, but didn't want to to go on about fort related things if no one was interested. Even went so far as to consider setting Citadels in enemy lands for a tile(I guess until pillaged works).
Also sounds like tons of AI work.

 

[civplayer33]

n 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

I kinda think this was just unclearly stated, but in case not: do nothing/alert/sleep/fortify would not do the same thing exactly; they would all allow the unit to fortify just like the 'Alert' option right now, but it gives the player the choice of how to manage the micromanagement i.e. whether the player should be consulted again about this unit next turn or when it sees an enemy or never, which is a good thing IMO since, for my part at least, I actually use these different options.

But yeah, I think there is considerable consensus regarding the overhaul of fortification to automatically give the 'Alert' bonus if the unit didn't move (QoL improvement and giving the player the option to micromanage units as desired without losing the nice bonus) and removing the fortification option's two-turn-bonus (which will indirectly buff the AI since it presumably didn't use that option so far).

Also: it's kinda awesome how passionately this issue is being discussed, I think; it shows that something truly comprehensive and thorough has been created

 

[ScooterDWiebels]

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).

To me it goes against real history. During the industrial era they developed artillery capable of reducing fortifications to rubble. This was evident in the first days of The Great War where the Germans brought in Big Bertha howitzers and literally in one day destroyed the fortifications of Liege, Fortifications at that time were expensive and took many resources to build, so I like the long build times it's an abstraction of what a major investment a fort is. I think it's value needs to drop to below zero by the time ballistics is discovered.

 

[Stalker0]

I think people are taking fort building to the extreme.

The improvement has a use...as I said it has a lot of value in tradition play. Now if people want to tweak the build time, sounds good to me. But it doesn’t need any fundamental adjustments

 

[tu_79]

To me it goes against real history. During the industrial era they developed artillery capable of reducing fortifications to rubble. This was evident in the first days of The Great War where the Germans brought in Big Bertha howitzers and literally in one day destroyed the fortifications of Liege, Fortifications at that time were expensive and took many resources to build, so I like the long build times it's an abstraction of what a major investment a fort is. I think it's value needs to drop to below zero by the time ballistics is discovered.

No need to. Artillery is terrible with volley promotions.

 

[Tekamthi]

entirely unchanged from vanilla i do believe. i knew 2x turns in the same spot gave a bigger bonus, i thought most people using fortify knew as well. but i didn't interpret Ilterois statement to mean this would be going away, where did he say that? looked like thered be no change on that aspect

maybe not OP's idea, but others seem to be running with the 1-turn-only flat bonus. I suppose its rarer for AI to stay in place 2 turns than it is 1 turn, and in this sense the idea has merit. But its not unheard of that the AI might use this effectively. Others are saying its too opaque to human.. the source of the "problem" we're trying to fix seems highly speculative to me in this sense, and I'd hate to see another small complexity from vanilla removed from VP unless its truly broken.

When defending against hordes of deity spam, features that are AI-accessible, but that can be used more intelligently, are not necessarily a bad thing, gameplay-wise.

Auto-fortify when not moving does make sense, however, I think the discussion has it right there.

 

[Bascule2000]

To me it goes against real history. During the industrial era they developed artillery capable of reducing fortifications to rubble. This was evident in the first days of The Great War where the Germans brought in Big Bertha howitzers and literally in one day destroyed the fortifications of Liege, Fortifications at that time were expensive and took many resources to build, so I like the long build times it's an abstraction of what a major investment a fort is. I think it's value needs to drop to below zero by the time ballistics is discovered.

The defining aspect of the Great War was trench warfare. Pretend the forts are trenches!

 

[ScooterDWiebels]

No need to. Artillery is terrible with volley promotions.

I meant the fort tile improvement, not a fortified unit. The volley promotion is against units that are fortified. A good abstraction thinking about it (have no clue if this is even possible) is that the volley promotion could also pillage the fort tile, while at the same time deal damage to a defending unit inside.

 

[Deadstarre]

maybe not OP's idea, but others seem to be running with the 1-turn-only flat bonus. I suppose its rarer for AI to stay in place 2 turns than it is 1 turn, and in this sense the idea has merit. But its not unheard of that the AI might use this effectively. Others are saying its too opaque to human.. the source of the "problem" we're trying to fix seems highly speculative to me in this sense, and I'd hate to see another small complexity from vanilla removed from VP unless its truly broken.

Auto-fortify when not moving does make sense, however, I think the discussion has it right there.

i enjoy the multi-turn aspect of it, as apparently you do as well and im certain there are plenty more. i know majority consensus is that 'do nothing' button should give a bonus and i agree with that, but if the only way to implement it involves scrapping the multi-turn aspect then id say dont do it. i would triply say don't do it if the change winds up affecting CP (not VP) as well

 

[ScooterDWiebels]

The defining aspect of the Great War was trench warfare. Pretend the forts are trenches!

I can handle that abstraction especially if it allows forts to be build next to each other.

 

[ryanmusante]

for the handful of people in this thread who wanted to remove fortify altogether, here you go this is all you need

How is "Do Nothing" removed? Will it also remove the option for the AI?

 

[Deadstarre]

How is "Do Nothing" removed? Will it also remove the option for the AI?

it just makes the defense bonus granted zero, which means now the choice between do nothing or fortify etc is purely for unit cycling, there is no defense bonus involved in not moving. as others said, it will make melee worse but a few people were in favor of scrap the bonus entirely i think so i had just mentioned it =)

there is also the define 'MAX_FORTIFY_TURNS' , which as i mentioned earlier i set it to 3, and the per-turn bonus to 10 - so it takes longer to get a meaningful bonus, and the total bonus is %10 less. i saw that as weakening fortify, because i accept that the AI won't be using it properly

actually civ 4 mightve had it right, 5 turns at %5 to reach %25 would seriously hamper its usefulness. the AI has enuf bonuses tho... i wasnt ready for that yet lol

 

[ryanmusante]

. the AI has enuf bonuses tho... i wasnt ready for that yet lol

I meant, what is the setting to remove "do nothing" ? I want to add it to my mod startup.

 

[Deadstarre]

I meant, what is the setting to remove "do nothing" ? I want to add it to my mod startup.

no clue

 

[chicorbeef]

Would the proposed fortify work if a unit attacks from a tile without moving?