idea: scrap the fortify mission

[Infixo]

1. There are mixed opinions if AI can or cannot use fortify. Nobody presented any proof for each option, so still only opinions.
2. If AI has problems, then maybe our first idea should be „make AI a bit better” by teaching it, not removing game features. AI was tought many things so why suddenly we don’t want to do that anymore?
3. Making fortify in any way „automatic” is the worst solution, because it moves thinking from the player to the game, and puts AI in even worst position because human won’t make an error anymore. Yes, humans making errors from time to time is a counterbalance for AI not using features so effectively but never making errors nor forgeting anything.

 

[Bascule2000]

Making fortify in any way „automatic” is the worst solution, because it moves thinking from the player to the game, and puts AI in even worst position because human won’t make an error anymore.

I don't agree with this. It takes too much player time to avoid that error. I frequently do nothing instead of fortify so that the game will cycle to that unit next turn without me manually clicking on it. The player shouldn't be penalised because they don't want to micro each unit every turn.

 

[ashendashin]

1. There are mixed opinions if AI can or cannot use fortify. Nobody presented any proof for each option, so still only opinions.
2. If AI has problems, then maybe our first idea should be „make AI a bit better” by teaching it, not removing game features. AI was tought many things so why suddenly we don’t want to do that anymore?
3. Making fortify in any way „automatic” is the worst solution, because it moves thinking from the player to the game, and puts AI in even worst position because human won’t make an error anymore. Yes, humans making errors from time to time is a counterbalance for AI not using features so effectively but never making errors nor forgeting anything.

Thing is that defense has always been the tactical AIs low point. Ilteroi has made it clear that it's the hardest part to improve. It should be obvious to everyone that the AI moves its units too often and doesn't take advantage of terrain+fortifying as it should.
It's a means to an end, and I'm sure there are options besides fortify. If they're worth taking the time for at this stage, that is.

 

[Infixo]

The player shouldn't be penalised because they don't want to micro each unit every turn.

So, you have 3 options for „not-micromanaging” (fortify, alert, sleep) and 1 for „micromanaging” (do nothing). And you choose this 1 which inconvinient for you and you call it „player is penalized”...

 

[Bascule2000]

So, you have 3 options for „not-micromanaging” (fortify, alert, sleep) and 1 for „micromanaging” (do nothing). And you choose this 1 which inconvinient for you and you call it „player is penalized”...

You're penalised because do nothing gains no fortification bonus, whereas fortifying and selecting the unit next turn gets the bonus. Yet the only reason I'm doing nothing is to ensure I don't forget to consider what to do with the unit next turn. Alert carries the same risk if the enemy moves out of the unit's sight radius. In previous games I have forgotten about scouts in distant lands for entire eras because they're fortified or on alert.

 

[Infixo]

Thing is that defense has always been the tactical AIs low point. Ilteroi has made it clear that it's the hardest part to improve. It should be obvious to everyone that the AI moves its units too often and doesn't take advantage of terrain+fortifying as it should.
It's a means to an end, and I'm sure there are options besides fortify. If they're worth taking the time for at this stage, that is.

Yeah, we all know that AI is not perfect. It’ll never be. That is why it gets bonuses.
But the question should be: is the current state of land warfare balanced or not? Do we feel that AI still needs help? And then, is dismantling such core mechanics as fortify a right help to give?

 

[hr_oskar]

Infixo, a game could introduce a bunch of tiny little choices and, by your logic, present it as virtuous forms of strategic gameplay that an intelligent player should embrace. That doesn't necessarily equate to good game design. Good design maximizes both simplicity and depth. The current gameplay, where one convenient option (do nothing) is penalized with many players not even being aware of it, is mostly complexity with little added depth. I consider that bad design.

 

[Infixo]

@Bascule2000 I know how the game works. I simply never felt penalized by using or not using the game features and making my own choices or errors as a consequence. Oh well, that is where our opinions differ.

 

[CppMaster]

So, you have 3 options for „not-micromanaging” (fortify, alert, sleep) and 1 for „micromanaging” (do nothing). And you choose this 1 which inconvinient for you and you call it „player is penalized”...

A player shouldn't be penalized, because there is not option for get fortification bonus (which is gameplay) and cycling to this unit next turn (which is UI).

 

[ashendashin]

Yeah, we all know that AI is not perfect. It’ll never be. That is why it gets bonuses.
But the question should be: is the current state of land warfare balanced or not? Do we feel that AI still needs help? And then, is dismantling such core mechanics as fortify a right help to give?

That's kinda where we are. Fortifying is a core part of defense and the AI sucks at sticking to it. Removing Fortify will have ramifications towards standard unit balance, not just AI, so it's a question of whether or not G and co are willing to deal with it.
I'm willing to drop it in favor of the AI if the balance concerns are addressed.

 

[Infixo]

@hr_oskar Civ is all about making little choices that adds up to your grand plan. That is exactly how it is designed. And wherever you look, you usually have many more than 4 options to choose from. Well, except ideologies...

 

[CppMaster]

@hr_oskar Civ is all about making little choices that adds up to your grand plan. That is exactly how it is designed. And wherever you look, you usually have many more than 4 options to choose from. Well, except ideologies...

So do you think that choice between getting a bonus or not, just because of UI, is a good design?

 

[ashendashin]

So do you think that choice between getting a bonus or not, just because of UI, is a good design?

Well, it is an option. You don't have to view it as a penalty if you mercilessly stick those options into your brain. Vulnerable units can be used as bait, which can be seen as an exploit.

 

[Infixo]

So do you think that choice between getting a bonus or not, just because of UI, is a good design?

Kind of cannot answer that question because UI never made a choice for me in this regard.

 

[hr_oskar]

It's also worth noting that in terms of gameplay, the rules already favor the stationary defender, especially in home territory, because he gets healed every turn. I use this against the AI a lot, just staying put getting heals while the attackers get weakened for my eventual (deadly) counterattack. Fortify may still be worth keeping, but we have to understand the whole context here.

@hr_oskar Civ is all about making little choices that adds up to your grand plan. That is exactly how it is designed. And wherever you look, you usually have many more than 4 options to choose from. Well, except ideologies...

You're being too fixated on the virtue of choices, however trivial, to see that this is a UI problem more than a gameplay problem. The "skip turn and get no bonus because you're lazy/dumb" action should not exist. Instead we need a "fortify for one turn" action.

 

[CppMaster]

Well, it is an option. You don't have to view it as a penalty if you mercilessly stick those options into your brain. Vulnerable units can be used as bait, which can be seen as an exploit.

Good point. However, IMHO bait is rarely used.

You're being too fixated on the virtue of choices, however trivial, to see that this is a UI problem more than a gameplay problem. The "skip turn and get no bonus because you're lazy/dumb" action should not exist. Instead we need a "fortify for one turn" action.

I love this idea!

 

[CrazyG]

Kind of cannot answer that question because UI never made a choice for me in this regard.

Press space to do nothing, or F to fortify, then remember to unfortify the next turn. We do get this choice currently. Units that are eligible to fortify should automatically fortify when they sleep or do nothing, as their is no downside to fortifiying.

 

[tu_79]

In addition, I'd say that removing fortified status would bring many other problems, as there are a few promotions that deal with it and they ought to be changed in such case, balance between melee and mounted will be ruined, and unexpected problems we might find later.
So, for me, it's no no.

I'm offering a what seems a QoL for humans that might be useful for AI too, if the AI knows how to hold a position. If the rules I proposed were working, AI units would benefit from fortified status more often than not. So long as a unit is told to heal and is able to fortify, it would get the fortify bonus. Even if AI logic deems logical to attack and abandon defensive stance, as long as the unit does not abandon the tile, it would stay fortified. So, there would be very few things that AI can do to ruin its fortify bonuses. It's an improvement, I'd say.
Additionally, we'd get rid of the silly situation where we're not getting fortify bonus due to ignorance or oversighting.

 

[Moi Magnus]

3. Making fortify in any way „automatic” is the worst solution, because it moves thinking from the player to the game, and puts AI in even worst position because human won’t make an error anymore. Yes, humans making errors from time to time is a counterbalance for AI not using features so effectively but never making errors nor forgeting anything.

The only difference between "do nothing" and "fortify and wake up the unit the next turn" is:
1) "fortify and wake up the unit the next turn" is strictly better in term of mechanics
2) "fortify and wake up the unit the next turn" is strictly more annoying to do for the player
3) It is very beginner unfriendly since "do nothing" is easily accessible trough the UI.

Current situation is similar to a situation (fortunately not the case) where you would have 2 actions:
1) Disband a unit for and gain nothing. Accessible easily in 1 clic.
2) Disband a unit for some gold. Accessible through another menu for a total of 3 clics.
=> It would just be another way to punish beginners (and lazy players)

So no, I strongly disagree. The more "unintersting things" are automatized, the better it is. And the less "strictly worst choices" exists, the better it is.

So as other said, I'm in favor to (at least) replace "Do nothing" by "Fortify for 1 turn".

 

[ElliotS]

so, is there some sort of consensus?

Other than Infixo everyone seems to think that if we do keep the fortify mechanic, staying still should automatically fortify.

If changes to the mechanic are to be made, that's 100% modmod territory. I and many others are heavily against it, so rolling it into the base game seems like a bad idea. Stick to your own ideals of new features from this point being a modmod.

At least unless you can think of some alternative solution that people like better.

Personally I think making all forms of staying put grant the same fortification bonus is step one, and step 2 is improving AI's use of fortify. Some simple rules could be added, like: "If the melee unit is providing ZoC for ranged units and your side has more ranged units and cavalry than the other side, stay put."

Making fortify in any way „automatic” is the worst solution, because it moves thinking from the player to the game, and puts AI in even worst position because human won’t make an error anymore. Yes, humans making errors from time to time is a counterbalance for AI not using features so effectively but never making errors nor forgeting anything.

As stated by others, you seem wierdly fascinated with this crappy choice. If there was a pop-up every turn that said "Do you want to lose 500 gold? [Yes][No]" would you argue for it because "It's a choice!"

This 'choice' isn't meaningful in the slightest, and I really think you need to re-evaluate your reasoning for supporting it.