The Point of forts?

[civfodder]

In Civ (the original): A unit couldnt pass-by another unit. So placing units in lines 3 tiles apart meant the enemy had to attack the line to get past (they couldnt slip in through the two empty tiles between the units). Forts added the ability to stack the units on the line (attacking and beating the top unit of a stack out of a fort would destroy the entire stack).

Civ3: I liked to use forts to control access through a chockpoint, and make the enemy attack via the sea where their numbers are smaller, and once I had subs...

Civ4: If you have open borders, foreign units can pass though a tile you have units stationed on to make a surprise attack. Havent tested but as they can pass through a City I would guess they can pass through a fort?. I generally don't have open borders to combat this. My civs are Xenophobic anyway. It would be nice to have forts that were more like Civ (original) and prevented units from passing either side of it, or at least like Civ3 where you can take a shot at the units if they pass. Forts could perhaps also be made to extend your border?? maybe change to a 'base' later in the game where you can station an airforce, or fleet?

Forts in Civ4? not 'yet'.

 

[WuphonsReach]

I would love the ability to upgrade forts to bases. I'm in the middle of a "modern" war and I'd love to have alternate staging locations for my fighters and bombers.

So we could have:

Fort = +25%
Fort 2 = +50% (and works against gunpowder units)
Base = +50% (and you can station air units)

 

[anton_z1]

If you play a terra map you usually have a city on the narrow strip between 2 american continents. This city (I name it PANAMA ) enables you move you ships from one ocean to the other. 2 Forts on both sides of the narrow strips makes sure that nobody takes this vital point.

 

[GreenMonkey]

My usual tactic was to hole up in my fort and evaluate my attack chances. Anytime I had a 2:1 advantage (such as 6.0 vs 3.0) I went ahead and attacked. The AI would try to bypass my forts, but ended up getting shredded as the units passed by. Pretty standard tactic for repulsing invasions. Dig in, but attack wherever you have the momentary advantage.

Absolutely. Put the fort in a place that slows down their route to your city. Station a couple of offensive units in it, a catapult and an archer or two. Tear up the enemy as he goes by..or force him to go way around you.

 

[Thelo]

There is a great deal of talk here about how we can use forts as a way to harass the enemy before he gets to your city.

But you don't need forts to do that. Simply put an adequate road network and you'll be able to harass any enemy invasion force that comes your way, from the safety of your cities.

And that way, you can have the full strength of your military directly protecting your cities, PLUS the possibility to harass incoming hostiles. Viewed that way, forts really don't add anything of value, except maybe on the odd chokepoint in the middle of an unroaded desert in your territory (but do you really want to leave an area of your territory unroaded?).

On another note, the so-called "hedgehog defense" doesn't really make much sense in Civ 4. Every unit in a fort is one less unit defending your cities. Sure, having a six-unit stack in a fort means you stand a better chance of reclaiming your lost city. But wouldn't it have been better to simply station this 6-stack into the city proper and prevent it from being lost in the first place? Remember that both the city and the fort are viable harassing bases...

 

[t3h_m013]

i did once make a massive "maginot line" in civ 3. it was a huge map and i wanted to keep workers safe while they cut down a large jungle. i made a line at the opposite end of the jungle and it worked well..

 

[T_Raccoon]

Everyone has to get it in there heads that forts are NOT meant for defense they are rather only a small part of it. Say that a million times. They're meant to give your units a save haven to retreat to after harrassing enemy forces coming into your territory.

Personally i use forts to funnel enemy troops towards flatlands and places that would put them at a disadvantage. I don't use forts to have the enemy blindly suicide themselves against them but to make conducting a war in my territory difficult for the enemy.

If you put several forts outside your city radius (usually my borders extend far out that i can do this) the enemy has to make a difficult decision either commit suicide on my forts or move his troops onto open flatlands where my fort garrisons can come out and attack and destroy them before they even go to far into my territory to do some pillaging or cause damage.

On another note, the so-called "hedgehog defense" doesn't really make much sense in Civ 4. Every unit in a fort is one less unit defending your cities. Sure, having a six-unit stack in a fort means you stand a better chance of reclaiming your lost city. But wouldn't it have been better to simply station this 6-stack into the city proper and prevent it from being lost in the first place? Remember that both the city and the fort are viable harassing bases...

Thelo brings up a good point if you use forts in this way. It's almost pointless to use forts as a hedgehog defense. Why not use those garrisons in that fort and put them in cities to prevent them from being taken in the first place.

Although what most people haven't realized is what a HUGE advantage it is to know that the AI will just bypass your forts. Like i said before put fort garrisons where you dont want the enemy to put his troops on like hills. Put a few catapults to kill stacks and use your biggest attack power troops to take the stack out. When there is just one last unit in the stack use a unit that has two movement points so that it can retreat back into the safety of the fort.

If you use forts this way you won't be saying "why do i have six troops in a fort when i can have them in a city" but rather be saying "why do i have six troops in a city when i can have them in my forts."

Basically, forts aren't meant for the AI to blindly attack. theyre meant to give your troops a little bit more in defensive bonus. Theyre only a PART of your defense forces not all of it. They are of course not necessary parts in your defense but it will certainly strengthen it. If you think about it, it is also an offensive tool because they provide a haven for your forces to come back after a counterattack when the enemy invades.

Hopefully this will change peoples view on forts.

(I just realized this thread is actually more about defensive strategies then just forts )

 

[RogueNine]

Some people here seem to think that having a unit attack an invading army from anywhere is the same as having them attack from a fort. Which is just wrong. Once that unit is done attacking, Without a fort it is sitting out there in the open, ready to be counter-attacked. You COULD move a defensive unit onto the square to try and save it, but this defensive unit wont have the +25% fort defense bonus, or the +25% from being fortified. Having a fort with a defensive unit in it, that your offensive unit can attack from, means your knight that has 2.2 health left after an attack can sit there and heal itself for as long as it wants, with no fear of being attacked. (Unless they attack the fort, which as stated is quite often suicide. Even if the defending unit and knight are killed this way, it likely took a toll on the enemy army that was well worth it.)

The HUGE benefit of this is that your attacking units upgrade constantly instead of dying afterwords, and if your judicious in making sure they get some decent odds you can have some seriously powerful upgraded units to attack with later. (Or continue defending with.) Also, you dont need to build as many units to replace what you aren't losing, right?

IF you can attack an enemy unit with a mobile unit (say a knight) and it can make it back to a city the same turn to save itself, then a fort obviously isn't needed. However, to me this enemy unit is already far more closer then he should be. This fort strategy means you can pound them on the edge of your territory, the second they step foot in your land, not once they've gotten close enough to your cities to be in 'range' for an attack/retreat. For me when an enemy gets that far its because he's a survivor from my first counter-attack, not one of the initial invaders.

A few fun things I do with forts:

- I usually station a medic unit in them, to heal my surviving attackers faster.
- I put catapults/artillery in them. Yes, I mostly sacrifice them, but its part of the process of building up my attackers' upgrades. Example:

I have 4 infantry in a fort, and the enemy steps in with a stack of 6 infantry, on its way to my capital. (Trying to go around the fort obviously.) Rather then have my infantry try to attack first, I throw a couple expendable artillery at them, THEN have my infantry take on the now reduced enemy units. My 3 attacking infantry will survive (a far greater amount of the time anyway) and upgrade, and be even better next time around. They should have taken 3 enemy infantry out, leaving just 3 to go through instead of 6. (And all I lost was 1 or 2 replaceable siege units.) The next 3 can die at my next fort.

I've found its usually useful to think of alternative means to use things, rather then assuming they're useless. While it is possible some things in civ are less useful, its pretty rare that it doesn't have *some* merit. In this case, forts are a big part of my defensive strategy.

 

[travathian]

Civ4: If you have open borders, foreign units can pass though a tile you have units stationed on to make a surprise attack. Havent tested but as they can pass through a City I would guess they can pass through a fort?. I generally don't have open borders to combat this. My civs are Xenophobic anyway. It would be nice to have forts that were more like Civ (original) and prevented units from passing either side of it, or at least like Civ3 where you can take a shot at the units if they pass. Forts could perhaps also be made to extend your border?? maybe change to a 'base' later in the game where you can station an airforce, or fleet?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Open Borders allow units from that Civ to enter your territory and vice versa. If at any time your Open Border agreement ends, all enemy units are ejected from your territory and placed in the nearest friendly square. IE no sneak attacks like in Civ3. Stop thinking Civ 1-3, a lot of things have changed, time to adapt.

The fact that you dont have open borders means you cant spread religion or earn as much from trade routes.

Everyone has to get it in there heads that forts are NOT meant for defense they are rather only a small part of it. Say that a million times. They're meant to give your units a save haven to retreat to after harrassing enemy forces coming into your territory.

No, Firaxis needs to fix them and make them useful. I'm sorry, but all of the points that you make are only useful because the AI is dumb. Any decent human player or an improved AI will simply go around forts. You're better off just parking units on a hill or in a forest rather than tying yourself to some tile improvement. And I have never, in close to 15 games so far, seen the AI build a fort. I'm also struggling to find a choke point where I would have built one. Why would I retreat back to a fort when I can just sit on any ol hill or forest and be better defended? Unless I have a large swath of land thats flat and un-forested, forts have no use.

I kind of like the mod listed below:

Fort Bonus I:
+10% healing rate --- Yah! a reason to camp in a fort.
+10% strength --- this is pointless, you already get the def bonus(same as a strength bonus remember), which I think should be 50%

Fort Bonus II (requires Optics):
immune to first strike --- seems a bit overpowered. I'd rather see some bonus for siege units instead.
+1 visibility range --- by this point in the game, not sure how useful this is since everyones borders will likely fill the map

Fort Bonus III (requires Steel):
+1 first strike chance --- ok, but only if unit already has 1st strike
10% withdrawal chance --- ok, but only if unit already has withdraw chance

I also think gunpowder and siege units should get a free pot shot at units passing by, ala Civ3.

 

[RogueNine]

A few more thoughts:

- A forested/jungle hill is obviously better then a fort. A forested/jungle hill is the best non-city defense tile in the game at +75%. A fortified defender on this tile gets +100%.

- Any forest/jungle square is better then a fort. However, rather then stationing my units in a forest square and ignoring the hill beside it, I prefer to put a fort on the hill and chop the forest. Both get the same 50% bonus... The reason? Units attacking out of the fort attack units on the grassland/plains at 0% defensive enemy bonus, rather then the 25% bonus of the hill.

- Forts are intentionally weak. They're situational at best. Why? Because it'd be very hard to program the AI to take advantage of them, and its more fun if combat isn't super easy. Having ZoC and +100% defense would make a Maginot Line very effective, which isn't too much fun. Being able to put it on any resource isn't too much fun either, although I'd be ok with it IF the AI put a fort/defender on its resources too. If they wouldn't, then no dice. We really don't need any help vs. the AI, do we? I suppose in multiplayer improved forts would be fun, though they would certainly make defending your nation alot easier then it already can be...

 

[travathian]

A few more thoughts:
Being able to put it on any resource isn't too much fun either, although I'd be ok with it IF the AI put a fort/defender on its resources too. If they wouldn't, then no dice. We really don't need any help vs. the AI, do we? I suppose in multiplayer improved forts would be fun, though they would certainly make defending your nation alot easier then it already can be...

The AI already places defenders on top of resources, during peace time even. That was definitely something that caught my attention. I dont imagine it'd be difficult to add to the worker automation program to build forts on resources, with it being a fairly low priority.

 

[Dairuka]

I've never built a fort; because I never waste units required to garrison a fort.

The only time I see a use for a fort is if you have a choke-point thats not in a city radius, which a land based army would have to go through.

Thats highly and painfully situational.

 

[Rickhan]

Forts can be used to protect your line of advance into enemy territory.
Adding workers to your advance and building forts as you assault forward can blunt attacks of your enemy and give added protection to your wounded troops.

No matter that they destroy improvements, your in enemy territory. Pillage first but not the road. Then build Fort. Leave a garrison and continue forward. Your reinforcements can follow your fort line to victory or fall back if confronted by superior forces.

Thats how i use forts.

 

[KAuss]

You can build forts in nme territory?

Still, no one attacks you in a fort, so why build it? Just stand on the ground you choose to build it...

 

[Albert Einstain]

Didn't get Civ4 yet. But I used the fortifications in my attack strategy in Civ3. Especially it was useful against enemy on another continent. I just took with me 4-6 workers I brought by sea together with 4-6 artillery and 3-4 defensive units. Optionally 1-3 offensive units. Small invasion force, yes? I unloaded all of them on some undefended hill or forest from the sea. Immediately started build a fort by my workers and removing sea units (avoid them to be sunk). Artillery bombing the roads to deffer the future enemy attack. Buying time, I finished my fort, then evacuate my workers by sea. At this point I have base to invade and take the enemy continent without taking single city. I prefer to select square for invasion in the 2 square range from the city to keep bombing the city by artillery. In civ3 such strategy kept the enemy busy with this fort preventing it from invade in my continent. From time to time I sent some reinforcements to the fort by sea to keep the enemy busy and suffering until I have enough force to bring and start to take his cities. Need to note that all this time enemy take the damage and losses from the fort and the units in it, while I have almost no loses. This give me time to build up military.
This strategy worked for Civ3 Emperor level. Do somebody know something that could prevent the use of such invasion strategy in the civ4?

 

[Thelo]

Some people here seem to think that having a unit attack an invading army from anywhere is the same as having them attack from a fort. Which is just wrong. Once that unit is done attacking, Without a fort it is sitting out there in the open, ready to be counter-attacked.
(snip)
Having a fort with a defensive unit in it, that your offensive unit can attack from, means your knight that has 2.2 health left after an attack can sit there and heal itself for as long as it wants, with no fear of being attacked.

That works only to the extent that the enemy is moving right next to your fort. If the enemy leaves even one buffer tile between their marching armies and your fort, then any 1-movement unit will still be left in the open and just as vulnerable to counterattack (2+ movement units could retreat back to the fort after a victory, but then again they could just as well retreat to the city instead). And even if they do walk right next to your fort, if they don't walk around in a huge stack but instead spread their units out, your infantry will win against the single unit and be forced to occupy the battle tile for one turn, vulnerable to counterattack from the nearby enemy units.

So even if this strategy could conceivably work as a pseudo-ZOC (threatening every tile adjacent to the fort), it's usually not very hard to simply go around that ZOC entirely, and placing forts & units to ZOC-cover every angle of attack is much more expensive (and riskier) than having your defensive units plainly in the more easily defendable city itself. And don't forget that once a single fort in all of your defense has been punched through (assuming that you could indeed cover every possible angle of attack with fort positions, which is not exactly a trivial assumption), the rest of them are basically wasted. Sure, forts are not entirely useless, but the benefits are starting to look pretty slim, don't you think?

Furthermore, if a particular choke-point geography indicates that your strategy of ZOC-covering the enemy advance with forward defensive positions would overall be effective, why not, as others have pointed out, use forests for that instead of forts? They have an extra 25% defensive bonus, they don't require any worker time, and they can still be worked productively if you need to. A forward-defensive post on a choke point on a far border forested hill could indeed be a thorn in the side of an enemy that has to pass by there, even though that doesn't happen often.

Just be careful that they don't simply decide to use their nearby transport boat to bypass your fearsome forest outpost and land right next to your now lightly-defended cities.

 

[Thelo]

Didn't get Civ4 yet. But I used the fortifications in my attack strategy in Civ3.
(snip)
Artillery bombing the roads to deffer the future enemy attack.
(snip)
Need to note that all this time enemy take the damage and losses from the fort and the units in it, while I have almost no loses. This give me time to build up military.
This strategy worked for Civ3 Emperor level. Do somebody know something that could prevent the use of such invasion strategy in the civ4?

The biggest difference in Civ4 is that artillery units can only bombard "city defenses", which means reducing their defensive bonus, but not attack units or tile improvement at a distance. And then again they can only do this when on a tile right next to the city. That means that a big part of your strategy isn't applicable to Civ4.

But even in Civ3, I somehow doubt the effectiveness of that strategy (invading with a force unable to attack by itself, instead just trying to occupy some enemy land while waiting for reinforcements). On one hand, Civ3 unit bombarding can never kill a unit, so you're not making any real progress just sitting there and lobbing catapult stones at the city, unless of course the enemy blindly tries to mass-suicide weak units on your fort once it's built and fortified. On the other hand, you can't easily heal in enemy territory, while the enemy has the home-turf advantage of fresh units, fast healing, and immediate reinforcements. I feel that if you're going to invade, do so decisively with a large force that has an actual chance of winning, instead of wasting time and resources on a expeditionary "dig-in brigade" that'll only result in the enemy getting slightly more annoyed at you for occupying one border tile of his empire.

 

[RogueNine]

That works only to the extent that the enemy is moving right next to your fort. If the enemy leaves even one buffer tile between their marching armies and your fort, then any 1-movement unit will still be left in the open and just as vulnerable to counterattack (2+ movement units could retreat back to the fort after a victory, but then again they could just as well retreat to the city instead). And even if they do walk right next to your fort, if they don't walk around in a huge stack but instead spread their units out, your infantry will win against the single unit and be forced to occupy the battle tile for one turn, vulnerable to counterattack from the nearby enemy units.

So even if this strategy could conceivably work as a pseudo-ZOC (threatening every tile adjacent to the fort), it's usually not very hard to simply go around that ZOC entirely, and placing forts & units to ZOC-cover every angle of attack is much more expensive (and riskier) than having your defensive units plainly in the more easily defendable city itself. And don't forget that once a single fort in all of your defense has been punched through (assuming that you could indeed cover every possible angle of attack with fort positions, which is not exactly a trivial assumption), the rest of them are basically wasted. Sure, forts are not entirely useless, but the benefits are starting to look pretty slim, don't you think?

Furthermore, if a particular choke-point geography indicates that your strategy of ZOC-covering the enemy advance with forward defensive positions would overall be effective, why not, as others have pointed out, use forests for that instead of forts? They have an extra 25% defensive bonus, they don't require any worker time, and they can still be worked productively if you need to. A forward-defensive post on a choke point on a far border forested hill could indeed be a thorn in the side of an enemy that has to pass by there, even though that doesn't happen often.

Just be careful that they don't simply decide to use their nearby transport boat to bypass your fearsome forest outpost and land right next to your now lightly-defended cities.

I agree that the benefits of forts are slim. The reason is pretty simple, we don't need a boost vs. the AI at all since we're smarter. (Most of the time anyway. )

However, I stick by my statement that they're useful on the frontier. A fort on a hill is equal to a forest, and if you clear-cut the nearby forests you can attack enemy units on even ground, not with THEM getting the +50% defense bonus. Or, if you take the forest and clear-cut the rest and one of those is a hill, then he gets a +25% bonus. In the case where a frontier border has one hill and some jungle/forest around, fort the hill, clear cut the rest, and there you go. If there's a forested hill, then obviously this is all moot. Nothing beats a forested/jungled hill.


I guess people are expective forts to be super useful like they were in previous games, and I agree that they aren't. But they do have SOME use, in certain situations, so to say "Forts completely suck, they have no use!" Isn't accurate imho. (I realize others said this, not you Thelo.)


- What I usually do is have lots of fast-attack units in my border cities, with lots of frontier forts that have 2 to 4 defenders in them. When the enemy declares war, I move the majority of my fast attack units to the forts nearest their incursion and weaken them down before they get too far. I'll also use some upgraded melee units in the instances of them passing right beside my fort in stacks greater then 1.

 

[T_Raccoon]

What people have to understand is that if you know that the AI will not attack you in a fort that is a major advantage.

Build forts on hills (except forested hill) and when the enemy invades your territory they will be forced to 1. Suicide themselves on your forts or 2. end there turn on flatlands where your fort garrisons and catapults will have the advantage.

The point of a fort is for the enemy to bypass them to not attack them to make the flow of enemy troops go where you want them to go

Dont whine because the AI is not stupid enough to bleed there armies on the walls of your forts. We all know that the AI tends to bypass your forts most of the time so use this information to your advantage.

This strategy could work in MP because like i said before, forts are used to control the flow of troops invading your territory humans though will be smart enough to take out your forts though but then they'll waste precious time and units taking your forts. If they bypass your forts like the AI does they will end up on a flatland where your artillery units can do some collateral damage to the stack and pick them off using some fast units.

My earlier post explains this strategy more in detail. I think forts are useful as is, they work fine for me and are an important part of my borders defenses in all my games, actually its the only thing that keeps the AI from constantly pillaging my tiles.