No Zone Of Control for forts?

[Ravenloff]

I miss the days of old when you could put a single fort down and have it control the surrounding squares. This removed the necessity of running a string of forts down the map screen and made the whole thing a bit more fun.

Enemy units should have to take or destroy the garrison of a fort in order to go around it.

[MattPilot]

Forts are pretty useless with only 25% modifier. Plus, you can't build it on an improvement without destroying it.

I also wish it would have a ZOC ala Civ2. It would make it a lot more useful.

[dearmad]

AI can't handle them though...

[MattPilot]

uhm... Sure.

AI realizes they can't pass because of a ZOC thus a script tells them they must take this fort.

Have the AI assign an Importance value to it, like cities. The AI will prioritize it and start going after it.

Strategic Forts like this were important. Alamo anyone? It had no significant value, but it did control the area and the enemy had to take it to win the war.

[mgdpublic]

Yea forts are useless. It's ashame too because I love that kind of geostrategy.

[Grumbold]

With the geographical and timespan scales in Civ, any unit fortifying on any square is representative of a fort. You'd need a huge Civ map representing only the UK to get down to a scale where there wasn't a castle on each tile.

Losing ZOC's certainly changed the Civ experience, but probably for the better since its allowed the AI to compete with the human players that much better and led to a much more fluid game. You can't just turtle any more.

With closed borders and impeded movement rates in enemy territory, the presence of physical forts has really been extrapolated into the game design anyway.

[dearmad]

Originally posted by MattPilot
uhm... Sure.

AI realizes they can't pass because of a ZOC thus a script tells them they must take this fort.

Have the AI assign an Importance value to it, like cities. The AI will prioritize it and start going after it.

Strategic Forts like this were important. Alamo anyone? It had no significant value, but it did control the area and the enemy had to take it to win the war.

Think past your nose on this...

strategic flanking is a tough concept to teach. And game AI's are notirously bad at figuring out how to build walls, and deal with walls when they are encountered.

Don't think alamo, that's not the only example, think the line of forts that was supposed to hold off the german army circa... 1939 or so. Forts operate as double edged swords that take a lot of brain power to use right.

[DarthVeda]

AI: Uhh! Walll?! NOOOO!

Anyways, I wonder what happens if there is a nice mountain range running smack down the center line of you and an aggressive AI player...

[Fried-Psitalon]

Originally posted by mgdpublic
Yea forts are useless. It's ashame too because I love that kind of geostrategy.

Useless, huh? Don't engage in war around bottlenecks, I guess.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
AI: Uhh! Walll?! NOOOO!

Anyways, I wonder what happens if there is a nice mountain range running smack down the center line of you and an aggressive AI player...

I will be finding out with in the next couple of days.

I am in a valley, surrounded by mountains with about three passable routes out.
At first I was going to restart, then I kept on finding gold and silver mines to keep me in the game.

No civs close to me yet....

[chumly]

This topic actually crossed my mind yesterday. Do forts have any cost or upkeep beyond the time needed to construct them? If not, I forsee every un-improved tile in my borders being covered in forts once my city buildup is complete.

Do enemy units gain the benefit of forts inside your borders, or do they not work as roads/etc do not?

Either way, if you can build them without penalty, I forsee stupid looking map situations where your screen is half covered by forts...

[mgdpublic]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon


Useless, huh? Don't engage in war around bottlenecks, I guess.

I haven't had the pleasure of a good bottleneck yet. The smallest I've run into (in my limited experience with civ4) was 3 squares wide and there just seemed better alternatives than building three forts and 3 stacks for the measly 25% bonus. Forts should give at least a 50% bonus and require upkeep so they aren't spammed around the map.

[sophist]

I'd like to see forts give artillery the ability to bombard enemy troops without going into full attack like they do when you normally attack with artillery outside a city. I think that would add some value to forts without making them must-have items.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by MattPilot
uhm... Sure.

AI realizes they can't pass because of a ZOC thus a script tells them they must take this fort.

Have the AI assign an Importance value to it, like cities. The AI will prioritize it and start going after it.

Strategic Forts like this were important. Alamo anyone? It had no significant value, but it did control the area and the enemy had to take it to win the war.

So you build some useless forts in the way of the AI and it will bite its teeth out on it, while your city and its surrounding improvements are safe

[MattPilot]

No?

Forts only give 25% modifier.

Cities give way more defensive bonus than that. Cultural defense - Add walls & castles and the AI will have a much harder time. Plus you can have your city on a hill too. How's that for odds?