Strategic tile improvements?

[mattpilot]

Since the game is getting 'more tactical' (yay), are we going to see the return of the strategic improvements our workers can build? Like Airfield, harbors, radar stations, outposts, etc... (perhaps a 'channel' improvement that allows for ship movements 'on land' (making the tile otherwise useless -- or even nuclear silos to house our WMDs ).

I really hate the concept in Civ4 where the 'fort' is basically an all-in-one improvement. I'd like to see many different strategic tile improvements in Civ5 to give the player more things to think about and choices to make.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Yep, agree!

 

[Ahriman]

I'm personally not fond of having a whole bunch of improvements that have no tile yield, particularly in the modern era where cities are starting to get big, so the total number of tiles they can work starts to really bind.

I think the all-in-one fort improvement is a good compromise. Its just not worth sacrificing the arable land to get separate airfields, forts and radar stations.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

When it comes to economical improvements that increase the output of your civ I don't care, I just use the automate function for the workers, but I wouldn't mind seeing a few more strategic functions, such as the channel-, a few outpost-, castle- and fortress improvements, implemented. Where to build those and when to sacrifice output are good strategical choices.
Although I agree that the number of these strategic improvements should be kept down. Airfields, radar stations and some other functions could be a "military base" improvement.

 

[Sonereal]

I'm personally not fond of having a whole bunch of improvements that have no tile yield, particularly in the modern era where cities are starting to get big, so the total number of tiles they can work starts to really bind.

I think the all-in-one fort improvement is a good compromise. Its just not worth sacrificing the arable land to get separate airfields, forts and radar stations.

^^^^This.

I love forts and I often go crazy with them. For instance, I love building them on hills on the border of someone I don't trust so I have a Maignot Line-esque of fortifications that the opposing army would have to march through before at the interior. Whenever my borders change, I take down forts that could be do something else.

Honestly, I wish there was an option where the automated workers didn't take down improvements I built though. The only option is to disallow the AI from changing any improvement period, which I don't particularly like.

The problem with the OP suggestion is that CivV isn't purely a war game and there's a limited number of tiles.

What might be cool is if a fort functions sorta like a city. Forts could cost maintenance and give the player a zone of control. However, you can't build things like banks or markets so the player can't spam them. On the otherhand, you could build things like barracks/airfields/docks/castles/etc. A barracks would allow a unit on the fort to receive a defensive bonus and castles a larger defensive bonus. Those bonuses would use the production hammers of the closest city or simply cost money to build (and still take time to build).

Maybe even units could be trained at forts assuming the right buildings are there. Stables for cavs, barracks for foot-soldiers, airfield for helicopters and planes, and fuel depots for tanks and mechanized infantry.

 

[migkillertwo]

^^^^This.

I love forts and I often go crazy with them. For instance, I love building them on hills on the border of someone I don't trust so I have a Maignot Line-esque of fortifications that the opposing army would have to march through before at the interior. Whenever my borders change, I take down forts that could be do something else.

Honestly, I wish there was an option where the automated workers didn't take down improvements I built though. The only option is to disallow the AI from changing any improvement period, which I don't particularly like.

The problem with the OP suggestion is that CivV isn't purely a war game and there's a limited number of tiles.

What might be cool is if a fort functions sorta like a city. Forts could cost maintenance and give the player a zone of control. However, you can't build things like banks or markets so the player can't spam them. On the otherhand, you could build things like barracks/airfields/docks/castles/etc. A barracks would allow a unit on the fort to receive a defensive bonus and castles a larger defensive bonus. Those bonuses would use the production hammers of the closest city or simply cost money to build (and still take time to build).

Maybe even units could be trained at forts assuming the right buildings are there. Stables for cavs, barracks for foot-soldiers, airfield for helicopters and planes, and fuel depots for tanks and mechanized infantry.

train, like build or train as in station the units there and they steadily gain experience?

 

[mattpilot]

I'm personally not fond of having a whole bunch of improvements that have no tile yield, particularly in the modern era where cities are starting to get big, so the total number of tiles they can work starts to really bind.

I think the all-in-one fort improvement is a good compromise. Its just not worth sacrificing the arable land to get separate airfields, forts and radar stations.

But choices like that where you gotta weigh the benefits of either choice against each other is what playing Civ is all about (to me, at least). Do you want to build a radar station on that hill for +25% air defense bonus or rather build a mine to produce more in the city? Or how about an airfield on this grass tile ... station 4 more air units to defend the area or have a tile that yields more food for a more productive city?

Choices man.... can't have it all



As for the idea to make forts like 'mini-cities' you can manage - seems like to much micro-management, ergo work, to me. While the concept seems cool and i'd love such functionality, i'd probably start disliking it at the point where i start spamming them all over the place to build some kind of maginot line.

While you are right in saying Civ isn't a 'war game', 'war' has been around since civilization began (infact, is the root of it). Can't neglect that part of the game

 

[weekend_warrior]

I don't like having to micro-mange a bazillion workers so I wouldn't really like too many more tile improvements. Same things like forts canals make sense having a worker build, but others like airfields are better suited for a city screen build.

 

[Craxymaxy]

I kind of like the all purpose military improvement that the fort represents, why change it? it works perfectly well as it is

 

[StittsvilleJame]

I think Towns should be able to act as harbours, or airfields (lots of towns have regional airports or docks).

I don't want to see radar stations or watchtowers or anything. I think it just over complicates things.

I do like the idea of canals though, maybe only let them go 3 or 4 tiles, so you need to pick the shortest route between bodies of water, and don't end up with Transcontinental canals running 1000's of kilometres.

Maybe also have freeways auto-develop between cities in the modern age (if two cities have a road between them, make the shortest route between them a freeway automatically) and provide a further small reduction in movement cost.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

About the Transcontinental canals, ask the Russians & the Europeans--they have extensive canal networks with both military & commercial utility. Also, what about the Gran Canal of China?

There is a solution, though--why not make them costlier to build the farther they are from the coast they serve? Say, a canal segment can require 20 worker-turns to build when adjacent to the coast & in non-delaying terrain. Make it increase by a 50% factor with each tile inland (if the tile has a non-coast tile separating it from the coast)--a total 30 worker-turns. With such a big cost, you would either have to build too many workers or to compromise too many of your workers for such an endeavour; making it a major decision & also highly impractical for a big canal or for a non-crucial navigation shortcut.

 

[Shurdus]

I'm personally not fond of having a whole bunch of improvements that have no tile yield, particularly in the modern era where cities are starting to get big, so the total number of tiles they can work starts to really bind.

I think the all-in-one fort improvement is a good compromise. Its just not worth sacrificing the arable land to get separate airfields, forts and radar stations.

But suppose that right now, they would change the improvements. We know the land has become more crucial in defending your territory. Now suppose there will be more improvements. You can not only build a fort, but also a bunker style improvement, or something similar to a watchtower and maybe even barbed wire. Now when you go to war, the land is crucial since defending cities is no longer traditional civ-style. Would you rather lose a city, or dig up the farms and mines in order to lay a line of bunkers and gun-turrets and forts and such in order to not lose the game?

Of course we all like working our tiles, and for the majority of the game you can. I am not opposed to having the option of getting some nice fortifications during war time. These do not have to be laid down permanently, just where and when you really need them. That way workers would even play a crucial role in warfare.

When the war is over, you can go back to changing the land back to support your economy rather than defending it. This would be completely in line with the panzer-general approach for more tactical options in combat, plus it could be very much interesting, even doubly so now we can no longer garrison our cities. Exchanging a farm or two for some fortifications seems like a small price to pay in order to hold the lines, and it reflects the effect warfare has on the civilian populations with the hunger that would follow the destruction of farms.

More improvements seems like an awesome thing to me. Count me in the crowd that fully supports more improvements.

Edit: how about these fortifications not being laid down by workers - that would be captured as soon as an opponent can catch them because they are civilian units - but instead by a unit of engineers? They could be able to defend themselves somewhat, although they would still need protection. In the modern era this would really make it so that the specialization that you see in the armed forces these days has a place, and it would go beyond just having a few different units to choose from in the industrial and modern era. I am unsure how they should be implemented really, but maybe the could lay down the war-improvements while workers could lay down peace-improvements or something... Just a thought I throw out there.

 

[Ahriman]

I think bunkers, trenches, barbed wire and the like are covered by the increasing defense bonus that units get when fortifying. I don't think those need separate in-game improvements to represent them.

I think forts for major fortifications are fine, and its fine that they block productive use of the tile. I just don't see a need for multiple options.

You have an improvement that allows you to substitute military value for productive value; forts.
That's good, that's an interesting strategic choice.

But why do you need several different flavors of defensive improvement, that all have basically the same impact, of improving defensive value? I don't see an interesting strategic value in choosing between barbed wire vs bunkers vs forts.

 

[Shurdus]

Maybe we then need a system where you could get bonusses besides just +defense. I can see where bonusses for fortifying can arguable account for trenches and the like, so maybe that suggestion from me was going a bit overboard.

At this moment I am unsure what the bonusses for different improvements should be, and I am worried a bit that it will shift the focus from units towards using improvements. An occasional fort should be fine, entire fields of land mines, stationary gun turrets and what have you may be a bit too much and shifting away from the great simplicity that is Civ.

 

[Craxymaxy]

exactly lol

 

[Stochastic]

The strange thing to me is how forts let you use resources under them.

In one of the recent interviews (unfortunately I can't remember which) the idea of "layers" was brought up where there is a civilian and military layer so that workers and transports can be protected by a military unit despite the one unit/tile rule.

Maybe this idea will be extended to tiles so that you can have both a fort and a mine/farm/etc on the same tile so then there will be less concern about loosing out on tile gains.

Personally I'm reluctant to add a plethora of new military tile improvements for mostly the same reasons Ahriman has eloquently posted.

That said: Since there are going to be less units, perhaps there will be a bit more time and incentive for working on the terrain for tactical development. Hard to say until it comes out of the box

 

[Crazy George]

I like the idea of improvements which improve over time. As farms get better the higher one's tech, so should forts, forests, and what not.

 

[Ahriman]

I like the idea of improvements which improve over time.

This is much better handled by tech bonuses (which we already have) than by improvements that actually change like cottages. The cottage mechanic is great for one improvement type, but if more improvement types require time to actually get good yields, then pillaging during war causes too much permanent damage.
Pillage is already going to be nasty now with 1upt; military invasions will be a carpet that will scorch and burn your lands.

 

[Olleus]

Only if you're prepared to move at half speed, which is generally not worth it. Also, I like capturing cities with towns and villages around them, means I can get more out of them. The only time pillaging is worth it is a) If you're launching a punitive attack to weaken/destroy a rival rather than expanding for the benefits it brings to you and b) an attrition war where you know that its going to take you 40+ turns to win.

 

[globalempire]

Tactical IMprovements List

Canals- why not, there real

Trenches- any one who says that trenches are covered by fortifiying yes that is tre, but warriors when they fortify dont buil;d a trench. so it should be built.
defense bonus to gunpowder infantry

Minefield-invisible to enemy units, can be built alongside another improvement damages troops that enter hex, friendly fire too

Fort-defense bonus to everything, bigger defense to siege

Missile SIlos, if they cant be in the city they got to go somewhere

Wall/Dragons Teeth- hampers movement speed, tanks cannot cross, can be pillaged by infantry. slows enemy causes damage