1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

PolyCast Episode 305: "Civ Fanatics Are People Too"

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by DanQ, Apr 15, 2018.

  1. DanQ

    DanQ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,562
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Don't you know it. The three hundred-and-fifth episode of PolyCast, "Civ Fanatics Are People Too", features regular co-hosts Stephanie "Makahlua", Philip "TheMeInTeam" Bellew and Jason "MegaBearsFan" Grade with returning guest Steve "WarningU2" Warner and first-time guest "Uberfrog". It carries a runtime of 59m59s.

    The summary of topics is as follows:

    - 03m52s | Forum Talk
    Would giving Civilization VI coast tiles an extra hammer of production be a sufficient improvement, should giving Fort improvements Loyalty pressure improve their standing in the game's Rise and Fall expansion, should railroads be included in this series' latest title (18m13s), could improving gameplay come about with a return of water transport units (25m03s) and the case for having barbarians act as people too (30m54s).
    - 38m23s | Miscellaneous
    What lessons business can learn from Civ, whether or not a pillaging action be required to clear air units from an Aerodrome district (43m48s; recorded for Episode 285) and yearning for the game's Build Queue feature to return (46m00s).
    - 49m06s | Theatre
    Perseverance through tundra and taking over the world from the Gaelic isle are tales followed by a Civilization IV: Colonization account of hidden nationalities (51m23s; recorded for Episode 295).

    - Intro/Outro | Assorted
    Learning experience, loyalty qualms, taking a liking to overflow and tongue twisted.

    PolyCast is a bi-weekly audio production recording live every other Saturday throughout the year, in an ongoing effort to give the Civilization community an interactive voice; sibling show ModCast focuses on Civ modding, TurnCast on Civ multiplay.
     
    bite, Uberfrog and LobstaBoy like this.
  2. drubell

    drubell Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    446
    Perhaps forts would be more reasonable to build if there was a policy card that offers new builders the ability to construct one free fort. Maybe the free fort would have a reduced effectiveness too (less than +4).
     
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    23,162
    Location:
    Orlando
    And they give ZoC but only when maintained amirite? Taking one might trap you, THAT would make the game better!

    ...
     
    drubell likes this.
  4. Weraptor

    Weraptor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    107
    Gender:
    Male
    Forts are all right, the problem is in military engineers
     
  5. drubell

    drubell Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    446
    "Cannot attack unit because you are blocked by H O S T I L E F O R T"
     
  6. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,622
    A unit in a fort is at +10 on defense not +4 on both. Your archer can shoot and stay fortified.... the clue is in the word fortified.
     
  7. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    23,162
    Location:
    Orlando
    Hmm, in that case a melee unit with battlecry/tortoise would be the best candidate for most fort locations IMO. Put that on defensive terrain and it's very impractical to attack it using contemporary units without much further investment, but ignoring it makes a bottleneck.

    The district combat promotion would make it even worse but it's hard to justify leaving well-promoted units behind on defense.
     
  8. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,732
    Location:
    Canada
    Forts are not useful in real life, nobody wins staying behind their lines. Unless you're trying to do offensive tourism and need Trade routes while deterring at the same time.
     
  9. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    23,162
    Location:
    Orlando
    Forts IRL carried some real use in that you'd stall for reinforcements...not bad especially in times before professional armies existed and people were relying on levies.

    Also before modern time coastal forts were nigh-unassailable by ships. This was particularly relevant to the Bosphorus strait because it's so narrow, but it was not trivial elsewhere either.

    Claiming they were "not useful" is definitely inaccurate. They won't win you offensive wars by themselves in either game or IRL, but they can be significant to the outcome.
     
  10. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,732
    Location:
    Canada
    Alright, then the Maginot Line specifically was not useful :)
     
  11. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    23,162
    Location:
    Orlando
    Relatively speaking, air power and modern doctrines are a tiny portion of historical warfare.

    Even then, Germany didn't exactly ignore the Maginot line, they had to route around. Fortunately for them and not so fortunately for much of the rest of the continent, they did so in a way a lethargic post WW1 France was not prepared to handle.
     
  12. Uberfrog

    Uberfrog Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,069
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    I had a good time recording this, thanks for having me on!

    I think it also depends on what you mean by a "fort". Those represented in Civ currently are purely military holdouts built on the frontiers. But forts have also been settlements in their own right, castles (which are just as much about intimidating your subjects and repelling peasant revolts), and refuges. Hence why there's scope for adding some yields (be it loyalty, culture, housing, gold) beyond defence.
     
    bite likes this.
  13. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,732
    Location:
    Canada
    Besides the Roman forts, the forts that appear in the game are probably the trace italienne according to when they appear in the technology tree. The improvement you're describing is the Alcazar from Granada. I think it is best as a city-state improvement because maintaining suzeraincy seems more "feudal".
     
  14. Uberfrog

    Uberfrog Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,069
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    Except star forts like that are nearly always built in cities, not on remote frontiers. In fact, more often than not, they are built around the city. I'd say something like that is better represented as Renaissance Walls than an otherwise useless tile improvement...
     
  15. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,732
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes I think you're right about star forts being just a city fortification. The only real use for forts as they are might be part of a gambit to stall an attacker who has momentum so you can boost Ballistics and go back on the offensive.
     
  16. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    23,162
    Location:
    Orlando
    If you stack enough defensive modifiers onto a unit in a fort they effectively become a deployable mountain.

    With the current state of the AI that's not commonly useful in the timeframe you can make them, but making a piece of rough terrain into something functionally unbreakable means lots of unit shredding no matter how numerous. Completely ruining a front with ~2 units and a fort is at least potentially useful in principle.
     
  17. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,732
    Location:
    Canada
    "Piece of rough terrain" I think is only hills because you have to remove all features to make room for the fort. They should be placed to minimise the number of ranged units that can fire on it (ie. they have to be adjacent to the fort to have sight) and other friendly units should be around it in diamond or triangle formations to give support bonuses.
     
  18. legalizefreedom

    legalizefreedom Inefficiency Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    443
    Location:
    Texas
    BS that a unit insta-kills aircraft like they were civilians.

    You were unequivocally correct, Dan. That other guy was doing it wrong.
     
  19. DanQ

    DanQ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,562
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Thank you for the support of my view. :) I get that the aircraft are vulnerable when on the ground, but not instantly so by a unit moving onto an Aerodrome's hex.
     
  20. legalizefreedom

    legalizefreedom Inefficiency Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    443
    Location:
    Texas
    They are still military units, so they should have a defense (however low) and need to be attacked at least. Air units are some of the most expensive; you can't just insta-kill a stack of them. Stacking here complicates things, but I would be willing to bet the devs haven't seriously considered this situation rather than saying it is as intended.
     

Share This Page