Forts useless without Zone-Of-Control? Yes.

[Ravenloff]

Why would you waste time building one unless one of two things are true:

1) An actual pass between two impassable objects that is only one square in size and doesn't allow diagonal travel around the fort. A plug in the dike, so to speak.

2) A resource such as iron or oil that is critical to your war machine and vulnerable to enemy pillage.

Other than that, without ZOC, forts are worthless. The enemy, even AI enemies, can figure out that you can easily bypass these things to attack what they're supposed to be protecting.

I understand that there are some AI issues with pathing and such when dealing with ZOC, but many times forts or castles were not population centers, but strategic safe havens and strongpoints that could NOT be ignored by invaders. CIV IV forts should reflect this.

At the VERY least, units that are in a fort but not fortified should get a free attack at a passing invader if there is no ZOC.

For those ubernoobs out there, ZOC was a concept in earlier Civ games, which basically set up an area around a military unit that would not allow foreign military units to go past them. You simply couldn't move past them as the "zone of control" (each square immediately surrounding a unit) would simply prevent it. You had to attack and kill that unit to get by. On narrow passes and isthmus, it was like a Horiatio At The Bridge, kind of thing.

[RobC]

Re: Forts useless without Zone-Of-Control? Yes.

Originally posted by Ravenloff
2) A resource such as iron or oil that is critical to your war machine and vulnerable to enemy pillage.

Actually, that's not true since building a fort will destroy other improvements (except roads) on that tile.

Forts actually give less defensive bonuses than forest/jungle too, so don't build them on forest/jungle plots.

Oh and the way to ensure your enemies can't ignore and bypass them is to station mounted and siege units there, not just defensive units. That way you can attack passing enemies.

[snuggs]

It would have been lovely if units got a ZoC at the maximum level of fortification. Or maybe if fortressed units could opp-fire at enemies moving nearby.

[Sava]

I agree 100%

forts are completely useless...

they don't have ZOC and you cannot build them on top of improvements...

the only possible use would be to protect a road linking cities (that is not otherwise accessable) or if tensions are high and your borders are right next to an AI city...

otherwise, forts are useless...

I think it would be a good idea to allow forts to be built on top of other improvements, and make it so that forts have a ZOC... also, the bombardment idea sounds nice...

give at least SOME incentive to build them... otherwise, why even have them in the game?

also, I think it might be cool if forts could be built to extend your borders... possibly... I'm not sure if this would make them too powerful or not... they would certainly not add culture or anything... and I'm not sure how they would be affected by cities that are close by... but maybe if you built them in areas with no cities, they could extend your borders... then if enemy culture extended the AI borders, the fort would be disbanded? I dunno, just a thought.

It seems to me that culture should not be the only way to extend your borders in the game. I would like to see the military playing a role in claiming territory (without actually having to go to war). This might be an easy way to do it.

Just a suggestion.

[Tieom]

Well, if your enemy bypasses your (garrisoned) forts, they suddenly have a force behind them, which can cut off retreat options. Or run up and hit them when they're not expecting it. Or cut off reinforcements.

[Aeson]

Forts are nice for attacking invading stacks before they can approach a city, and keeping invaders from moving onto better defensive terrain on their way to wherever they are headed. If you wait for the stack to get next to your city to counterattack, then you only get 1 turn before your city can itself be attacked, and likely lost some terrain improvements as the enemy advanced. If you counterattack away from a city without a Fort for protecting your units afterwards, you could very well take more losses than you need to.

The risk is, you could possibly get cut off from the city if flanked, and will probably have less defense than in the city itself. Also, the tile can't have an economic improvement. Fair trade I'd say.

[Sarxis]

Honestly, forts have been pretty consistently useless in all of the CIV games I've played - either don't give a good enough bonus, take too long to build, or both.

+25% defense? Whatever.

But do the archery units get their city defense bonus while inside?

[Senator]

As a fortress is not a city, i guess they don't receive their city defense bonus.

What bothers me most about fortresses is that they receive a pathetic 25% defense bonus.
There are so many things in civ4 that give a good bonus that 25% is hardly worth mentioning. Imo a thick wall, a high tower and a broad moat would give you a bigger advantage in combat than a slight difference in combat experience would.
I'm with you guys that forts are completely useless as they are now, i see 2 possible solutions:
1) let us build forts in addition to other improvements, not instead of improvements
or
2) seriously boost the defensive bonus a fort gives, i'm thinking about +100% or something, some cities have a bonus that high and imo large cities should be harder to defend than a fort, whose only purpose is defense.

[James009]

I agree that fortresses are completely useless but I don't agree that they should be able to be built on top of other improvements. I would like to see fortresses change in a number of ways:
1) Fortresses can be built in forests and jungles to give an added bonus (but smaller then normal)
2) Fortresses slowly grow from wooden (25% bonus) to stone (35% bonus) to concrete (50% bonus) thus making them more important and stronger
3) I like the idea that fortresses can grow your culture in areas that no one owns
4) Fortresses give a chance for ranged/gunpowder/seige units to bombard enemys who move near by
5) Zone of Control
6) Stone and Concrete would give small bonuses vs. modern units (gunpowder). Historically rifleman and musketmen and such did build and guard fortresses.
7) WHAT HAPPENED TO MY AIRBASES! (We need airbases to launch aircraft from)
8) Radar and scout towers (Gives LOS and defensive bonuses to units around them)

[spy14]

Originally posted by James009
7) WHAT HAPPENED TO MY AIRBASES!

Same as what happened to my cruise missiles! Expect to see them in the inevitable expansion pack.

I finally got the game to work with the Radeon and I have to say, so far, so good.

[dearmad]

I want my paratroopers back! waaaah!

[ElConejo]

Originally posted by dearmad
I want my paratroopers back! waaaah!

What? No Paratroopers or cruise missiles or airbases? No improved fortresses (which I didnt like in Civ3) Have we stepped backward or forward in the Civ series? I cant even play it and I am losing faith in it..

[Saurus]

It would certainly be intresting to hear the view of firaxians and/or the betatesters (to the extent they can discuss matters) as to how they use forts in their strategies.

So far I consider forts utterly useless whitout any clear function whatsoever and it would be intresting to hear how to really take advantage of them.


-S

[meel]

Yeah, fortresses are pretty much not worth building, ever. You are better off just putting your units in a jungle, since you'll get 50% defensive bonus instead of 25% from a fortress. And you won't have to spend time building it this way. Maybe it was a typo, and was supposed to be 125%? Even then, since there's no ZOC, it would just be ignored like now.

ZOC needs to be back in the game, imo. Right now, there's just so little combat strategy in the game, its turning into a Sim Country game.

[MattPilot]

I wonder if we all bug TRIP about it, he'll do us a favor and add ZOC to forts

He already posted in another thread that it was pretty easy to do