Some thoughts on Fotresses and strategy

[kevincompton]

A previous post i mad questioned the usefullness of the fort in Civ3. I got manay good answers and developed some thoughts on my own while implimenting them in a game. I'm posting this here instead of the tips section because its not a tip, its a humble hypothesis that i would like criticism on.

Aside from everything already mentioned in the last post, heres some conclusions i made:

What is defending yourself in Civ3 entail? Certainly defending your cities is #1 but there is also another important matter, defending mobility. Not just from your roads being pillaged, but also when you run out of movement trying to attack an advancing force, and your outside a city, you will be attacked the next turn and likely lose. Consider this, you have fortresses spread about your nation (defended already, I'll get into this later), an army comes through your territory...you want to attack them first with the least bit of attrition possible. Move your units to the nearest fortress and attack stacks. this way your units aren't left to move out into the open where they are vulnerable. Of course cities serve this purpose also, but why not have extra locations to do this.

Also you will find that the AI will throw armies at the fortress because the AI did not read The Art of War.

Now for the next part. Defend these fortresses with defense units and bombard units. Now when the enemie is trapsing through your territory, bomb them along the way with catapult, cannon or whatever. Since they are in your territory they cannot heal and this may slow or even stoip their advance.

Finnaly the main point. Defended fortresses block their movement strategically when strategically used. Let me explain...A fort might not block the whole space, they can move around it, but if placed in the right location their movement around your fort could be detrimental while your troops advance...or better still they will attack your well defending fort wasting units on a battle with little to gain for them and little to lose for you.

Ok so thats what I came up with...now let me have it, what do you guys think?

 

[dmanakho]

I still think forts suck...
never built them, never will

 

[Tomoyo]

I have only built them when I have two cities sealing a chokepoint like cxxxc, in an AW, in which I needed to take control of a middle tile, because the I can't attack the AI while their troops were there. It gave me a cheese grater of a kill zone too, as catapults could move to another city/fortress and still fire on the same turn.

Edit: Like cxfxc.

 

[CaptainPete]

I build them all the way along my borders when my railroad network is complete and I have loads of workers who would otherwise be doing nothing. I think it looks cool to have your border just one line of infantry (or whatever) in forts - kinda like the Maginot Line.

I've never really used them strategically though. I might try it.

 

[Grogs]

I like to build fortified firing positions for my artillery stack. If I expect the artillery to remain in position for more than one turn, I'll include enough workers in the stack to build a fortress in one turn. If I expect the artillery to be in a constant fire-move-fire-move mode, I'll send the workers ahead with a few defenders and have the fortress built by the time the artillery arrives on the next turn. Coupled with several of my strongest defenders (and hopefully good terrain), the fortress makes nearly any counterattack against my artillery trains suicidal.

As for (national) defense, I rarely employ fortresses, except along very small borders. I prefer, whenever possible, to blunt the enemies attack with skirmishers (fast attack units) so that the city being attacked can hold out long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

 

[SJ Frank]

I agree with everything that has already been said. I think that fortresses are great in AW games, and that the Maginot Line is as impractical in Civ as it is in real life. There is just one other tip that I want to share:

Enemy fortresses are great fun to air drop into

 

[Tomoyo]

Occupied enemy fortresses are not fun to airdrop into.

 

[AbuHab]

I think it's an interesting idea, and I was actually about to try something very similar in my current game. I can't build a "Maginot Line" type of defense, because my border with the enemy is very jagged, and your suggestion was the solution I had decided to try.

My only concern is having to adequately man all of those fortresses.

If I adequately man every fortress, I will "waste" a lot of units that could be advancing into enemy territory.

However, if I don't adequately man every one, the AI will attack the weakest one, take it over, and then I'll be in the unfortunate position of having a heavily-armed enemy fort right next to my one of my cities.

What are your thoughts on that dilemma?

 

[SJ Frank]

Hence the bombers precede the troops

The AI is actually competent about build their fortresses on choke tiles, which makes it all the more satisfying.

 

[Paradigne]

In my recent game, I took an oil, and a coal near my french border, both of which were my only sources. Knowing that the french were furious with me and would soon go to war, I built fortresses on both resources and stocked them with defence. now I don't need to worry about losing those when war does break out...

 

[Tomoyo]

...unless you lose the cities claiming them...

 

[sabo]

I agree with everything that has already been said. I think that fortresses are great in AW games, and that the Maginot Line is as impractical in Civ as it is in real life.

I have found this NOT to be true, because if you have a maginot line with fortress's and barracades two deep, defended by Mech infantry and arty and Radar towers behind them the AI will attack the units on the fortress's even though they have breached your line!! I've seen them open a one hex entry point but does the AI exploit this and send their armor through?? NO they attack all the other units around that breach.. (stupid, stupid AI)

I have NEVER seen the AI breach a line like the one mentioned above, and Frank the Maginot line might have worked alot better had they built it all the way to the Holland coast, the Germans just went AROUND the maginot line

 

[kevincompton]

I like to build fortified firing positions for my artillery stack. If I expect the artillery to remain in position for more than one turn, I'll include enough workers in the stack to build a fortress in one turn. If I expect the artillery to be in a constant fire-move-fire-move mode, I'll send the workers ahead with a few defenders and have the fortress built by the time the artillery arrives on the next turn. Coupled with several of my strongest defenders (and hopefully good terrain), the fortress makes nearly any counterattack against my artillery trains suicidal.

Very well said! I'll try this strategy out in my attacks.

 

[kevincompton]

AbuHab said:

I think it's an interesting idea, and I was actually about to try something very similar in my current game. I can't build a "Maginot Line" type of defense, because my border with the enemy is very jagged, and your suggestion was the solution I had decided to try.My only concern is having to adequately man all of those fortresses.

If I adequately man every fortress, I will "waste" a lot of units that could be advancing into enemy territory.

However, if I don't adequately man every one, the AI will attack the weakest one, take it over, and then I'll be in the unfortunate position of having a heavily-armed enemy fort right next to my one of my cities.

What are your thoughts on that dilemma?

Good point. If you plan to advance into enemy territory you might not want to spare troops to guard all the fortresses. This is what I would suggest:

Guard your forts well if your on defense or are not at war. When you move into enemy territory, be sure to still leave at least 1 defender in each fortress. The idea when advancing is to put them on the defense. You shouldn't need a heavy defense in each fort if you are advancing with enough pressure. The AI in particular will throw what they have at your advancing force. But you want some defense so your territory acts as a good fallback position.

 

[Felton]

Sometimes I'll use fortresses if I'm playing a civ like the Byzantines and dont really want to take over the world, just keep a nice core (if you want to conquer, thats a lot of troops and worker turns sitting on a line you dont intend to stay there). I like to put forts on mountains and hills so the AI has to invade where its sitting exposed. Another use of fortresses, or at least a hard defense position, is on mountains next to my cities. The AI loves to sit on these and attack your city, making counterattacks rough. If you can afford the worker turns even to build a road on a mountain next to a city, you can shuffle units between the mountain and your city if attacked. Of course, a fort is even better. But its not a high priority.

 

[citizen001]

Forts are usually only good in custom scenarios where the situation requires the use of forts and barricades. otherwise i don't use them in normal games. they are good for defending choke points and strategic resources and what not but isn't it just better to plonk a city there where you eventually get the defensive bonus through population and can even produce units.

 

[kevincompton]

Forts are usually only good in custom scenarios where the situation requires the use of forts and barricades. otherwise i don't use them in normal games. they are good for defending choke points and strategic resources and what not but isn't it just better to plonk a city there where you eventually get the defensive bonus through population and can even produce units.

Cities can take away from the growth of other cities if placed to close. Forts, in my hypothesis, would be placed in the spaces between cities so you get additional protection of movement.

 

[SJ Frank]

I have found this NOT to be true, because if you have a maginot line with fortress's and barracades two deep, defended by Mech infantry and arty and Radar towers behind them the AI will attack the units on the fortress's even though they have breached your line!! I've seen them open a one hex entry point but does the AI exploit this and send their armor through?? NO they attack all the other units around that breach.. (stupid, stupid AI)

I have NEVER seen the AI breach a line like the one mentioned above, and Frank the Maginot line might have worked alot better had they built it all the way to the Holland coast, the Germans just went AROUND the maginot line

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad that some one made the Maginot Line work. I'll still contend though, that although the Maginot Line works, it is still grossly inefficient at what it does.

I will add that when I build forts, I mostly use them to create points where the AI does not attack.

To put it another way, I don't build forts because I think "the AI is going to attack this tile, so I'm building a fort to make it harder for them to attack". Instead, the logic is "I'm going to build a fort here, so that the AI units will have to go around it, ending up at some vulnerable spot, where I can pound on them".

This way, the AI's offensive units never get to use their "attack" stat. And because all of my units stays within these "never getting attacked" spots, my offensive units never get to use their "defense" stat either. With the help of artilleries, I can achieve nearly perfect kill ratios, which is necessary for building infrastructures in AW games.

Getting back to the Maginot Line, to use this strategy, there actually has to be a breach in the line. In fact, this style of defense isn't a line at all. It is a series of points. I'd identify the point where the AI is targeting, then I'd find strategic points along the way where I need to hold, and build forts, if necessary, at those points.

I think this strategy is a generalization of what Tomoyo advocates here and in his AW post in the Strategy Article forum. Except that Tomoyo plays AWD in Vanilla, where the AI gets to longbows so much more quickly (harder to get to the "no attack" point), and artilleries are so much weaker in the Middle Ages without the trebuchet unit, so this strategy becomes much less effective.

 

[AbuHab]

I think this strategy is a generalization of what Tomoyo advocates here and in his AW post in the Strategy Article forum. Except that Tomoyo plays AWD in Vanilla . . .

Sorry to be so dense, but what do "AW" and "AWD" stand for?

 

[subbss]

I never use forts because I don't attack anyone unless I am already prepared with lots of units and am twice as strong as they are. I don't haev to worry about defense bcasue the enemy usually only has about 5 turns after I have declared war before they are wiped out. Unlike most people here, I also defend every single one of my cities with at least 2 units of the best defender available at all times so if an enemy enteres my territory I always feel confident that any of my cities can withstand an attack without problem. I have only tried to build forts a few times and each time I did so I always ended up making the decision to use the units posted in it for attacking an enemy city nad the enemy ends up taking control of the empty fort which ends up taking the lives of many of my units to kill the fortified units off.