Suggestion: Forts buildable everywhere

[Paramecium]

The title says it all, would it be to much code to make forts be buildable everywhere? What I mean is, that you cant build forts on ressources, which is taking away a big amount of strategic and tactial decisions. You already sacrifice something if you build a fort, because if you dont pick Imperialism, you get no yields from it. But if forts would at least connect the ressource or would be buildable on top of it, you are free again to make decisions.

The reason why I am posting this is following situation. I had a 2 tiles of land between oceans and thought of construction a very important canal. One tile was a luxury, so my citadel would go there. The other tile was empty. So I founded a city in the vicinty, but then I researched mining and voilà, I had stone right on the other tile, so I couldnt create that canal anymore.

That is just one situation. You can think about it. If you have very important strategic positions, which you want to hold nonetheless and have your units positioned there, why should be a difference there that there is stone or whatever beneath it and you only have a citadel as an option? And those you cant place everywhere...


If it would be too much code, consider it as not stated. If that threat is at the wrong place here, please move it. If none of that, what is your opinion about it?

 

[ryanmusante]

The title says it all, would it be to much code to make forts be buildable everywhere? What I mean is, that you cant build forts on ressources, it. If none of that, what is your opinion about it?

Wiki states forts can be built on Plains, Grassland, Hill, Desert, Tundra, Snow. Not next to an existing Fort. Where are forts not allowed currently? I haven't tested in a while.

 

[CppMaster]

Wiki states forts can be built on Plains, Grassland, Hill, Desert, Tundra, Snow. Not next to an existing Fort. Where are forts not allowed currently? I haven't tested in a while.

Like OP said, on resources. I support this idea.

 

[ryanmusante]

Like OP said, on resources. I support this idea.

Sure, what is the argument against it? Perhaps only if the AI doesn't make appropriate choices by building forts atop crucial resources.

 

[Paramecium]

The point is, that you can build citadels and kasbahs on anything and it will connect the ressources, but you cant build a fort on any ressource. And I think that it will lessen the role of the fort, it is primarily a defensive bonus for your units, secondary it can be part of an important canal. You already sacrifice yields if you build an fort (if you dont pick imperialism), but sometimes the position of an fort can be very important to you. Sure, you could build citadels, but those are limited and especially if you want to create a 2 tile canal without a city, you need a fort.

I think the code is already existing in some form, why should it not be usable? And in my opinion it wouldnt break the game because it just gives you more freedom to place your defensive bonus with sacrificing yields you would get from mines/farms/villages.

 

[Gazebo]

Not going to do this, no, as the AI has specific routines for fort placement that rely on it not being plantable on things like resources.

G

 

[pineappledan]

This looks like an ok place to ask this.

I am sitting on a custom civ, Canada, that I’m not sure how to implement.

I want to make it so one of canada’s Traits is that it can build forts in neutral territory, and the tile the Fort is built on is immediately claimed by Canada (a callback to the Hudson Bay Company and Northwest company’s factory system).

Doing this in lua requires iterating on every tile adjacent to a worker, checking for non-adjacency to a Fort whenever the worker moves. That’s pretty intense computation, so I was wondering if this would make for a good feature request into the DLL, if it’s impossible to make an exception for a specific civ, or if there is something I am missing an easier way to do this with lua?

 

[Gazebo]

This looks like an ok place to ask this.

I am sitting on a custom civ, Canada, that I’m not sure how to implement.

I want to make it so one of canada’s Traits is that it can build forts in neutral territory, and the tile the Fort is built on is immediately claimed by Canada (a callback to the Hudson Bay Company and Northwest company’s factory system).

Doing this in lua requires iterating on every tile adjacent to a worker, checking for non-adjacency to a Fort whenever the worker moves. That’s pretty intense computation, so I was wondering if this would make for a good feature request into the DLL, if it’s impossible to make an exception for a specific civ, or if there is something I am missing an easier way to do this with lua?

Just make a custom fort for Canada that only they can build and give them the adjacency rule.

 

[pineappledan]

Doesn’t that just cause more problems than it solves?

Wouldn’t I have to then disable regular forts?
The new fort would show up as a unique improvement in the civ select.

 

[Gazebo]

Doesn’t that just cause more problems than it solves?

Wouldn’t I have to then disable regular forts?
The new fort would show up as a unique improvement in the civ select.

Not if you give the improvement to civ via a Traits_BuildsUnitClasses

Spoiler :

 

[Paramecium]

Not going to do this, no, as the AI has specific routines for fort placement that rely on it not being plantable on things like resources.

G

Thats a pity.
If it screws up the AI routines, I agree it would cause more pain than helping or improving. So I just have to dream about it.

 

[JeffFahFah]

Not going to do this, no, as the AI has specific routines for fort placement that rely on it not being plantable on things like resources.

G

What about outside your borders so you can create a strategic choke point?

 

[ElliotS]

because if you dont pick Imperialism, you get no yields from it.

I thought they got half the citadel's increases from techs. Not a ton, but that's some yields.

 

[sSs1897]

Well, generally, why can't I build a farm if this tile has stone lol. Yes, you may argue that stones can prevent farming, but then why can I build a farm there before I discover stone?

Sometimes you may just want to ignore the resource and build something you like.

 

[Paramecium]

I thought they got half the citadel's increases from techs. Not a ton, but that's some yields.

Hm, not sure if I forgot that or if it was before the change. Seriously, in some situations I really dont care about the yields a fort can give. If it is a very important keypart of canal planing and blob, there is stone and you cant build a citadelt right directly next to anoter.

Well, generally, why can't I build a farm if this tile has stone lol. Yes, you may argue that stones can prevent farming, but then why can I build a farm there before I discover stone?

Sometimes you may just want to ignore the resource and build something you like.

And I have to agree, farm triangles got tougher after the hill change. The game makes it possible and you get even rewarded sometimes, an extra hammer for an important farm triangle place is nice to have. Especially if you can get the stoneworks (for having another sw ressource), the farm gets even more enhanced.

But @Gazebo said it would be too much new code, so you have to adjust that you really have to use a city with a citadel to get a garantued 2 tile canal.

 

[Drakul]

What about to make it so that an authority policy by industrial era gives the affect that forts build on strategic resources c get onnect ? Could this be a work around ?