idea: scrap the fortify mission

[raphaell666]

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

Depends on which version they decide to go with in the end. I believe if it is @Gazebo's suggestion which requires unused movement points when ending the turn, when attacking the unit would not Fortify the same turn. I personally think that this would be the best and (probably) the least complex change/easiest to implement, and would be more of a QoL thing.

 

[ilteroi]

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).

re AI: i just deleted about 300 lines of code because everything is much simpler now: heal/fortify/sleep/skip are all the same to the AI. so that's good, less potential for mistakes.

i'll see if i can them no to dance around so much.

re forts: i didn't change anything here, but i fully agree that i never use them. so probably something should be done.

 

[CppMaster]

re AI: i just deleted about 300 lines of code because everything is much simpler now: heal/fortify/sleep/skip are all the same to the AI. so that's good, less potential for mistakes.

i'll see if i can them no to dance around so much.

Great! Thank you!

re forts: i didn't change anything here, but i fully agree that i never use them. so probably something should be done.

I'm also for build time reduction.

 

[Tantro]

Just going to join in on cutting fort build time. In addition, I'm wondering if enemy troops benefit from "captured" forts in your territory? I believe they can but I might be wrong. At any rate, if that's the case, forts pose a security risk.

 

[vyyt]

Just going to join in on cutting fort build time. In addition, I'm wondering if enemy troops benefit from "captured" forts in your territory? I believe they can but I might be wrong. At any rate, if that's the case, forts pose a security risk.

Currently not. The fort/citadel works only for the owner of the tile it is placed on.

 

[civplayer33]

Currently not. The fort/citadel works only for the owner of the tile it is placed on.

I suppose that makes sense considering one needs a supply line to maintain a fort (theoretically the enemy could do that but supply lines is the main strategic element that is pretty much left out in Civ5, though it is hinted at in VP with lower healing rates in enemy territory, among other things).

Personally I'd prefer forts being buffed instead of their build times reduced; if the Alert bonus stays (which most hope for, I think) then units will already have the ingame option equivalent of "digging in" i.e. trenches, barb wire etc. for a defensive bonus. Forts, on the other hand, should represent actual forts (i.e. structures like bunkers and localized military infrastructure like roads, generators, supply depots etc.) and therefore should take a while to build IMO. I actually use them sometimes, but admittedly not very often; possible buffs could be:

• boost their defensive bonus further
• is it possible to give ranged units a special bonus here, like double the defensive bonus? maybe with a temporary promotion the unit gains while inside the fort or something?
  
• give them the ability to heal units stationed inside (maybe even if the unit attacked that turn)
• could we give them the ability to shoot at enemies, like cities do?

Obviously citadels should probably be tweaked as well if any of this is implemented.
Since the AI is now able to use forts to some degree, this should not buff the player with respect to the AI too much, I'd guess.

 

[Tantro]

• boost their defensive bonus further
• is it possible to give ranged units a special bonus here, like double the defensive bonus? maybe with a temporary promotion the unit gains while inside the fort or something?
  
• give them the ability to heal units stationed inside (maybe even if the unit attacked that turn)
• could we give them the ability to shoot at enemies, like cities do?

Ok, I admit this is infinitely more interesting than the current use of forts.

As of now cutting build time would make forts slightly more appealing but I'm not 100% sure if just reducing build time is enough to see use, at least in my case. Perhaps giving forts some subtle flexibility is the way to go. Nothing crazy since the citadel is already super powerful. I wouldn't be against a 1 tile radius attack tied to CS of stationary unit around the fort or perhaps a flat combat bonus (sortie). Some of @civplayer33 proposed "upgrades" could be linked to tech as well, like the hospital tech/building healing units that have attacked inside cities. I'd love sacrificing workers to instantly build a fort (like fishing boats) but perhaps that is not AI friendly.

 

[tu_79]

I suggest you discuss about forts and citadels in another dedicated thread.

 

[civplayer33]

I suggest you discuss about forts and citadels in another dedicated thread.

Actually, until we have some real feedback from the modders as to what will be done with Alert/Fortify I feel this is part of the same discussion, since a change to forts is being discussed as a compensation for a change in Alert/Fortify/etc.

Another advantage of buffing forts: it will benefit the defender in a war, which would act against the already discussed problem with warmongers being too strong lately.

 

[raphaell666]

possible buffs could be:

• boost their defensive bonus further
• is it possible to give ranged units a special bonus here, like double the defensive bonus? maybe with a temporary promotion the unit gains while inside the fort or something?
  
• give them the ability to heal units stationed inside (maybe even if the unit attacked that turn)
• could we give them the ability to shoot at enemies, like cities do?

Another possibility would be giving ranged units stationed inside the bonus of being "uphill" and able to fire and see through hills/forests/etc (similar to indirect fire).

 

[ElliotS]

Another possibility would be giving ranged units stationed inside the bonus of being "uphill" and able to fire and see through hills/forests/etc (similar to indirect fire).

This is the only one I like, but I think just cutting build times in half is enough. Maybe cut them in half again if a military unit is on the tile?

 

[Stalker0]

There was a time in the mod when the fort was a weaker citadel and did 10 dmg to adjacent units. I don’t remember is that was consider too strong...I don’t remember why it was taken out

 

[Gazebo]

There was a time in the mod when the fort was a weaker citadel and did 10 dmg to adjacent units. I don’t remember is that was consider too strong...I don’t remember why it was taken out

I think you are misremembering. Anyways most of those fort suggestions are not super viable for the AI. I’ll look at it though.

 

[pineappledan]

Is forts being buildable adjacent to borders, like the Eki a possibility? That would help keep them outside workable range of cities where they aren’t needed

 

[ridjack]

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.

If you're interested in trying this out for yourself, there's a mod that does exactly this, and it worked just fine with VP last time I used it. I loved the mod and thought it balanced itself pretty well even when I used it with VP; I only took it out because the AI couldn't use it intentionally at all while I could absolutely blast with it.

(It's also very good for claiming resources in horsehockey areas without needing to build a city.)

Fortress Borders ( https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=178571997 ):

- Once built, a fort tile and all adjacent tiles will belong to the player who built it
- If a fort is unoccupied for 5 turns, the land will return to nature as long as it is not within 5 plots of a city.
- If a fort has been unoccupied and lost ownership, any player can occupy it by placing a unit inside.
- If a fort is ever occupied by an enemy unit, the enemy player will gain control of the fort and land around it.
- Forts now cost 1 gold per turn to maintain.

I personally think it has fantastic possibilities as a "vanilla VP" mechanic if the AI could be taught to use it, but I doubt they can and that would anyway be outside the scope of current changes. Hasn't been maintained since 2013, though, so if one of our intrepid crew wanted to take over with the same idea... (/very subtle hint)

 

[ElliotS]

I personally think it has fantastic possibilities as a "vanilla VP" mechanic if the AI could be taught to use it, but I doubt they can and that would anyway be outside the scope of current changes. Hasn't been maintained since 2013, though, so if one of our intrepid crew wanted to take over with the same idea... (/very subtle hint)

I think it could be a really cool modmod, but def not getting into main VP build. Feature complete and all that.