Making Fortresses a viable strategy

[albefranks]

Fortress
Requires: Mathematics
Effects: +25% defense on tile it is built on

In all of mans history the taking of fortress have been a major strategic part of battles and wars.

I am a first time GOTM player and i am trying to create a mod. The mod I am designing is for Fortress it will feature the following

Fortress: +50% defense + 1 square cutural boundary

Upgrade: Requires Engineering and a Level 4 unit in the Fortress
Keep: +75% defense +10% to health recovery +1 square cultural boundary.

The culture boundary around the fort is always @ 100% and changes only when the occupant changes if there are no occupants fortress does not immet any cultural boundary. The fortresss will still be able to built in any current legal square. The boundary does not grow beyond the 1 square around the fortress

Fortress will not turn to culture influence

Fortress defense is reduced by siege weapons.
When a Fortress defense reaches zero it is destroyed.
Units in Fortress take +5% collateral damage if still within the fortress when this happens.

Let me know if this is sounds good and what should be tweaked. But I think this would make Fortress much more viable in game.

 

[Sisiutil]

The main problem with Fortresses in the game is that building one destroys the defensive bonus from forest and jungles, and also any tile improvements such as mines or pastures. Increasing the defensive ranking so it's equivalent to a forest, as you're proposing, is the first step towards making them useful.

I've seen other proposals to improving the nearly-useless fortresses, but this is the first I've seen that proposes cultural boundaries. Interesting, but given how soldiers inevitably fraternize with the locals, it makes sense.

I don't know if it makes more sense to preserve tile improvements or not. I could certainly see the usefulness of building a military encampment around a crucial resource such as a field of oil wells. In which case, it should also significantly decrease the chances of successful sabotage by a spy.

I also think that any melee or gunpowder unit should be able to build fortresses. The Roman Legions built their forts themselves, and so have most other infantry down through the ages.

 

[ownedbyakorat]

I think that is a great idea. I'd built a lot more fortresses than cities if the forts could have cultural borders.... erect them at the borders of your civ and keep the AI from colonizing. Of course any cultural pressure at all would flip control, right?

 

[albefranks]

Exactly Fortress have been always used for 2 major reasons
To protect a resource or for strategic defensive purposes.

With the cultural boundaries it makes it a viable strategy for blocking or gaining resources that are currently to far way to want to really build a city out by it.

From strategic stand points the cultural boundary would be a blessing and curse you would be able to epand your cultural bounaries further quicker with forts which is strategically a goodl thing, but it can go the other way around if it is captured that would definetely bring up the military tactics of the game up a notch or 2.

 

[albefranks]

A Fortress would not flip from cultural influence. Just like in real military tactics a Fortress switches cultural only depending on who is currently occupying it.

Yours Soldiers holding the fortress will not be swayed by cultural influence. In essense that is how it's suppose to work in war due to their rigid training they are trained not to side the enemy.

I hope that clarifies the point a little.

Yup, on that Idea Korat. You be able to expand your influence quicker this way. But the reward and the risk would be justified by the reason that it could flip right over if you defeated in defending the fortress.

 

[Nares]

I think that is a great idea. I'd built a lot more fortresses than cities if the forts could have cultural borders.... erect them at the borders of your civ and keep the AI from colonizing. Of course any cultural pressure at all would flip control, right?

Give it some sort of scalable generation, perhaps 1 per level of the highest level unit located in the Fortress. This would be easily overcome with some applied cultural pressure (the AI seems to prefer using a Great Artist for Culture bombs, which would almost assuredly cause the Fortress in question to flip). It would give the Fortress a early capability to expand its Cultural influence (by virtue of protecting the surrounding countryside), but with generation effectively capped at 5 (so few units get past this level), again, it could be easily countered.

With a lack of revolt in the Fortress, it would be a far quicker Cultural conversion versus the two revolts needed for a city to convert.

It would also give Culture a more interactive purpose. City maintenance and civic upkeep really hamper the current Culture implementation. This would provide more Culture, yet still prohibit the kind of expansion seen in CIII.

The problem with defeating the defenders as being the only means of halting the Fortress' Cultural borders is that, unless the option for complete destruction was checked prior to generating the map, you could just bypass the Fortress, capture/raze the player's cities, and eliminate the player controlling the Fortress, defeating its purpose in the first place.

 

[albefranks]

Give it some sort of scalable generation, perhaps 1 per level of the highest level unit located in the Fortress. This would be easily overcome with some applied cultural pressure (the AI seems to prefer using a Great Artist for Culture bombs, which would probably cause the tile in question to flip).

With a lack of revolt in the Fortress, it would be a far quicker Cultural conversion versus the two revolts needed for a city to convert.

Yes this would hold true if the Soldiers in Fortress could be influenced. Look at it this way. A barbarian city normally would flip to cultural pressure and if there are any units defending them they usually flip also. That makes sense because the citizens of the city control the soldiers in essence. But a Fort has not civilians so you Soldiers should not fall sway to the influence of culture. If the game was built as so then you would never be able to properly wage war because your units would constantly flip sides when in another cultural boundary for too long.

Also remember in war when you take control of any enemy fortress that fortress immediately falls to your "culture" and is held so till someone comes along and kills your defenders. That is the sort of idea am implying here. Fortress with Soldiers in it can only flip from being conquered. Fortress will only give the 1 sq cultural boundary only while occupied. No occupation no culture. Because remember there will come a time when the Fortress is not needed anymore for reason that you dont need to defend it any more because you have defeat the opponent it was meant to defend against or any other dozen reasons.

 

[Nares]

Yes this would hold true if the Soldiers in Fortress could be influenced. Look at it this way. A barbarian city normally would flip to cultural pressure and if there are any units defending them they usually flip also. That makes sense because the citizens of the city control the soldiers in essence. But a Fort has not civilians so you Soldiers should not fall sway to the influence of culture. If the game was built as so then you would never be able to properly wage war because your units would constantly flip sides when in another cultural boundary for too long.

Also remember in war when you take control of any enemy fortress that fortress immediately falls to your "culture" and is held so till someone comes along and kills your defenders. That is the sort of idea am implying here. Fortress with Soldiers in it can only flip from being conquered. Fortress will only give the 1 sq cultural boundary only while occupied. No occupation no culture. Because remember there will come a time when the Fortress is not needed anymore for reason that you dont need to defend it any more because you have defeat the opponent it was meant to defend against or any other dozen reasons.

You're thinking from the point of view of the Fortress builder. I can tell you now that they'd be ignored if they couldn't flip. Actually, they'll likely be ignored either way. They don't have any real function beyond Cultural generation. If they did, they'd be better than cities. Regardless, the Fortress building player will be removed just the same if all of his/her cities are taken, unless the option for total removal (or whatever its called) is checked when selecting the map settings.

Bypassing the Fortress would be more prudent than attacking it, because the units inside receive a defensive bonus, and the Fortress itself has no actual value.

That's not to say that it would have no Cultural influence if unoccupied (as you suggest). Just that it would have a minor Cultural output (and therefore weak Cultural expansion) based on the highest level unit stationed within. It's influence would be stronger in the early stages of the game (when low Cultural output is typical), and weak at later stages (when high Cultural output is possible inside cities, but the Fortress is still effectively capped at low Cultural output).

 

[sigmakan]

Heres an idea, make it so you can build fortresses anywhere, including enemy territory. Lets say you spot and iron source near Rome and you dont want him to get it, so you send a couple workers and some escorts to build a fortress on top of it. Now if Rome wants the iron they'll have to take the fortress down first.

Seems kinda overpowered, but I'm sure some restrictions could be applied.

 

[albefranks]

i hear what yours saying nares. But i think it would still be viable if that a city near the fortress produces more culture then the fortress that the fortress itself not flip but that it holds no culture sway over the tiles around it. I still feel fortress should not flip from culture but from being captured.

This would at least like you suggested give players early boost in terms of culture expansion but at the same could be come a problem later if not properly maintained with troops or decommisioned.

This type of fortification i think would definetely make attackers want to attack the fortress first and not cities. (for the mere fact that if you dont and you go straight for the city your just leave yourself a backdoor for your opponent to counterattack from. Also you have to remember that while your tearing down the city they do have men possible garrisoned at the fort which could just be held there till they feel you have depleted your men enough when attacking the city. There are numerous reason for attacking and not and we wont get into that persay right now. )

This would make more sense in terms that you can hold a fortress in enemy territory as a base if you capture it. It would allow you to have healing units stationed there faster and be a staging point from where you can launch waves of attacks. Just another tactic to use... But definetely fortress should be able to produce some form of limited culture to really give them the meat need to actually make them playable.

Either way I think we have a really good starting point of where we can get the building of a fortress to become a "usable" military tactic.

 

[The Tyrant]

Fortress defense is reduced by siege weapons.
When a Fortress defense reaches zero it is destroyed.
Units in Fortress take +5% collateral damage if still within the fortress when this happens.

If I understand this correctly, then the only way to capture a fort is to kill all the defenders (or enter an unoccupied fort) without completely reducing the defense rating. In other words, you would want to bombard most but not all of the defense away if you intended to capture the fort. Hmm... makes sense. If you destroy the fort, it is destroyed. If you want to capture it, don't destroy it.

 

[Luftwaffe88]

The main problem with Fortresses in the game is that building one destroys the defensive bonus from forest and jungles, and also any tile improvements such as mines or pastures. Increasing the defensive ranking so it's equivalent to a forest, as you're proposing, is the first step towards making them useful.

I think fortresses in 1.61 patch no longer replaces forests, i built several fortresses on forest tiles and it didnt replace it.

 

[Araqiel]

Exactly Fortress have been always used for 2 major reasons
To protect a resource or for strategic defensive purposes.

Actually thats decidely not the case. Castle building was actually a very offensive strategic move in many cases. Build Castles throughout hostile or contested area and move your loyal lords there. Slowly you shrink the area that your enemy has. (thats how the English worked methodically to control all of Britain)

Tactically they're defensive, strategically fortress building often was a very aggressive manuever.

I like your ideas, certainly wish there was a REASON to build them. My latest game I just had a situation where I had a one tile choke. But since it was a jungle hill I just roaded it and loaded my units in there. Poor bastards probably will lose millions to malaria before the game is done.

 

[Araqiel]

If I understand this correctly, then the only way to capture a fort is to kill all the defenders (or enter an unoccupied fort) without completely reducing the defense rating. In other words, you would want to bombard most but not all of the defense away if you intended to capture the fort. Hmm... makes sense. If you destroy the fort, it is destroyed. If you want to capture it, don't destroy it.

Maybe. Fortress aren't really that fragile though. Even if you breach their defenses more often than not the majority of the structure would be intact. Just one wall, tower, or gatehouse would be damaged. Game balance wise your idea works well enough.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I think fortresses in 1.61 patch no longer replaces forests, i built several fortresses on forest tiles and it didnt replace it.

This is correct: you can confirm it in CIV4BuildInfos.xml - improvements that remove features will have a FeatureStructs element describing each of the relevant features and the tech required to remove on them. Like Camps and Roads, Forts now have an empty FeatureStruct element, and consequently do not remove the feature when built.

 

[Araqiel]

This is correct: you can confirm it in CIV4BuildInfos.xml - improvements that remove features will have a FeatureStructs element describing each of the relevant features and the tech required to remove on them. Like Camps and Roads, Forts now have an empty FeatureStruct element, and consequently do not remove the feature when built.

Really? Well thats a bit of good news.

 

[Big J Money]

This type of fortification i think would definetely make attackers want to attack the fortress first and not cities. (for the mere fact that if you dont and you go straight for the city your just leave yourself a backdoor for your opponent to counterattack from. Also you have to remember that while your tearing down the city they do have men possible garrisoned at the fort which could just be held there till they feel you have depleted your men enough when attacking the city. There are numerous reason for attacking and not and we wont get into that persay right now. )

I think you guys are misunderstanging the purpose of forts and castles. We already have one aspect of their use in the game: the defense of cities. However, forts used outside of cities were mainly used offensively. In fact, I can't recall one occurence of a nation using forts to "protect resources". The Romans often used forts for their attacking armies. If their target city or town was defended, then they would engineer their own defensive fort outside the enemy town. This way they could build up seige equipment, etc. and prepare for the assault without fear of attack. I think they also built forts and watchtowers while they camped sometimes, to give them an edge.

So, it seems weird that you guys are bouncing around ideas for making forts "jucier targets" when the point of a fort is to protect the people inside, making them "unpalatable targets".

A better "fix" is to make forts buildable in enemy territory. Then, you can retreat your troops to a fort and allow them to heal. Maybe even pre-gunpowder siege weapons can be "recruited" from forts somehow. Military units stationed in a fort could produce the shields.

I do like the idea of having a little ring of culture around the fort, though. That allows military focused factions to aggresively claim territory. They'll spread their military force thin, but not necessarily their population.

=$= Big J Money =$=

 

[kjaye]

I think forts should be used a lot more in this game.

My own take on them is as follows,

You should be able to build them ANYWHERE even in ENEMY territory!

This might be controversial but it is what happend in real life, think Edward Longshanks and his fortresses throughout Wales, what the Welsh called 'Their mighty badges of our subjection' or something or other.

This would be mighty fun, and annoying if the enemy starting building forts inside your borders, and you knew you had to stop them else they could just choke you to death.

Secondly they should have an extra line of sight in all directions, so that they are worth building just outside your borders to view into enemy lands.

Thirdly the defensive bonus should be 50% cumulative with any natural tile defense.

These 3 steps would make forts really powerful and crucial to use effectively in war time.

 

[Araqiel]

Thirdly the defensive bonus should be 50% cumulative with any natural tile defense.

As long as you made them subject to bombardment from siege weapons. Giving them such a strong bonus would require that for balance probably.

I do think it'd be fun to build them enemy territory, but sadly unless you reprogrammed the AI that'd make the game incredibly easy. Pillaging is nasty now. Imagine if you could build a fort on a forested hill outside an AI capital and garrison it with longbows and a few mounted units. The AI would kill millions of soldiers trying to take you down.

 

[pigswill]

My thought on forts. Build anywhere outside enemy territory. +50% tile defence (can be reduced by seige). Other benefit is that fort counts as home territory when it comes to healing and unit maintenance thus making them a beachhead improvement.