The Point of forts?

[GenocideBringer]

Hey. I gots a question.

I know you can build forts for A 25% defensive bonus. I have one problem with this: they can go around. I have NEVER seen a choke point only one tile in length, which means the enemy can just go around your fort. What's the point?

 

[lordqarlyn]

A single fort may not have much value (though I do typically sprinkle them around inside my empire to station soldiers).

Where one fort cannot do the job, two or three together could. I have done this in previous Civ games, build enough forts, put infantry in them to create a choke point. It is a lot of effort, but if you got a good sized garrison blocking the mountain paths, enemy empires are going to go through hell trying to attack you. Meanwhile you can have offensive units in the fort counterattacking in return. In Civ 3, I kept out huge armies this way, and with the right mix of units, there's no reason this won't work in Civ 4 as well.

Don

 

[GenocideBringer]

...That makes no sense. If you put 3 forts together, you have two options

1) Divide your forces, making them easier to break

2) Let them get onto one of the fort squares, meaning if you wanted to attack them, you would have to beat THEIR defensive bonus

 

[Grotius]

Also, forts destroy improvements on that tile, no? And yet most of the tiles I want to defend with forts have improvements on them.

 

[sgrig]

Hey. I gots a question.

I know you can build forts for A 25% defensive bonus. I have one problem with this: they can go around. I have NEVER seen a choke point only one tile in length, which means the enemy can just go around your fort. What's the point?

In my first game I got a choke point 1 tile wide, but unfortunately that one tile was a mountain! lol

 

[lordqarlyn]

Or simply build more units, what a novel concept.

Or don't build forts, no one says you have to build them.

 

[OGGleep]

It makes a lot of sense. You don't want to have monster stacks in one fort. If the AI brings a few units of artillary, the whole stack is going to get hosed.

Maybe at the harder difficulty setting or in MP they would be more useful, but i had 0 use for them in my game. I would need to build 15 forts in a row to provide any kind of stopgap at the border.

 

[Phoenix]

I go through spells of having a strong military and weak military (theres always a chance over in the game - normaly when I get attacked). So when I'm still weak I build forts to act as a buffer against surprise attacks. Then when I'm stronger but concentrating only on one part of my empire (to attack someone else) I'll fortify the other half with a small number of units. On top of this I also have inner rings incase the first line fails so that my capital and financial centre don't get taken whilst I build a force to counter attack.

 

[GenocideBringer]

I go through spells of having a strong military and weak military (theres always a chance over in the game - normaly when I get attacked). So when I'm still weak I build forts to act as a buffer against surprise attacks. Then when I'm stronger but concentrating only on one part of my empire (to attack someone else) I'll fortify the other half with a small number of units. On top of this I also have inner rings incase the first line fails so that my capital and financial centre don't get taken whilst I build a force to counter attack.

Why build a fort? Once again, what is the benefit if they can just go around?

 

[stormuzo]

Hmm, I don't have the game yet, however maybe it would be possible to build a fort inside enemy terrain to burrying yourself effectively inside your enemies borders as an outpost/base from which to attack and rest up units in etc..

 

[Phoenix]

Why build a fort? Once again, what is the benefit if they can just go around?

Sorry I didn't make that clear - the lines of forts close off choke points so that the enemy can't just stroll across my empire (I did this to stop AI settlers in CivIII but it'll work to it CivIV to stop them from crossing even with open boarders). The choke point quite often had a city at the centre of it (which was heavily fortified itself and acted as the main defence point in the line) and also I liked including mountains in it (which are even better this time as you can't move into them).

Basicaly a single fort is quite often useless but a string of forts is worthwhile.

 

[fastspawn]

in the times i saw one tile length chokepoints, they were isthmus.

You don't build forts in isthmus. You build cities. They are the most important places to build cities in many cases. God knows how many turns you save exploring the seas.

(I had a game in civ IV where i had two isthmus cities)

 

[Pinstar]

If they had SMAC style zones of control, forts would be viable.

Now: If you had that when you built a fort, then built a city ON the fort, it would turn into free city walls...THEN I'd be all about the forts.

 

[Kolyana]

I actually think the game is WEAK in this area ... time and time again I have witnessed enemy units slide through between my units unobstructed. It seems like there is *NO* area of control, so unless you line up like a wall, the enemy will slip through.

Trying to do this effectively is troop intensive and unrealistic, imho ... try creating a wall of units that completely blocks every movement angle, including the diagonals.

Having units control the squares around them, or certain units with this ability, or an upgrade that allows this, or even inferring this ability to units inside a FORT would all be logical game additions.

In the meantime, good luck trying to stop the enemy sliding through your borders.

 

[Speciou5]

This is going into military strategy and theorycraft, so i'm not sure how effective Civ4 accomplishes this. But basically if I had to use forts, I would use them similar to the Hedgehog Defense against your blitzkrieg that simply goes past the fortified position. By stationing a few units in forts and having your forces go past, I will be able to continue fighting your flanks from the fort. If you stagment your forces, or lag a few behind, the units in the fort will be able to threaten them.

Ex. I have a fort deployed some tiles away from my city. Your forces simply bypass the fort - there aren't really a lot of units on the fort anyways - and move to attack the city. However, if your forces become stagmented (slower movements, wasted movement points, etc.), or reinforcements are arriving, the units in my fort will be able to threaten those units and cause more casualties. This becomes even more effective if you have large tracks of land to invade and I have multiple forts scattered across the invasion path.

However, this is far from the perfect strategy. You can simple trade time and a defense bonus to erradicate each fort enroute, but by accomplishing that your blitzkrieg is slowed down and I am given more time to reinforce. Also, you can simply handle your units so that they are not vulnerable to flanks, but then you risk the chance of collateral damage. And, in a 1:1 fight you would most likely win since I have given away units from my defense line to set up the forts.

Again, this is all theory and may not even work in Civ4. But if it does, it could provide some use of forts.

(First post!)

 

[Gato Loco]

In Civ3 you can put artillery in your forts and bombard enemies as they pass, or you can use them to claim hill/mountain tiles that you don't want enemies to end their turns in when invading. Of course, given the lack of tactical sophistication on the AI's part this isn't usually necessary. SInce Civ4 has artillery and a more sophisticated AI you may need this tactic.

I could see this being used to great effect on an narrow isthmus or mountain pass where your artillery can bombard any units that come through. If they come all at once the collateral damage gets to be intolerable but if they come a few at a time they can't overcome the fort's defenses.

The other thing that made forts useless in civ3 was the number of cities. Since more cities is usually better there was no reason to build a fort instead of a city at a defensive point. In civ4 it may be better to put forts along your plains/hills/desert borders instead of tiny cities that would waste maintenence. Also the elimination of separate attack/defense values means that any unit can both defend a fort and attack from it, effectively doubling the efficiency of your garrison units.

 

[Nyvin]

Can't you build a fort on top of a colony though?? That's one purpose I always saw for them...maybe you can't, dunno.

If you can't then you can still build it on top of a tile you don't want the AI to move onto, like a cow or something, keeping it from being pillaged.

 

[Kolyana]

In a curious little twist I witnessed today ... your automated workers will DISMANTLE forts you've painstakingly put into place.

Today I had cause to place forts along a border and then decided to place them in several chokepoints between mountains within my country. A few turns later they were GONE, with or without a garrison in place (the garrsion was left standing on empty ground).

I had to conclude that the automated workers removed the forts for some bizarre reason ... what else could it be?

 

[TreeFoot]

Idea to stop that: Go to the options, choose "Automated workers don't change existing improvments"

 

[Pinstar]

Forts would be useful to place on resources to keep them defended.......if they could co-exist with the improvment that allows you to tap the resource in the first place...