Anyone use forts to slow down marauders?

[Derelict]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

I have to agree with Quillan here. Leaving an enemy fort in your rear is extremely risky business in real life. The problem with CIV is that lines of supply aren't modelled, so you can choose to bypass these forts.

The solution would be either to:
1) Have ZOCs for forts, or
2) Give attacking units out of supply (due to forts sitting on their supply lines) some hefty penalties.

What should be done is that manned forts exert an "area of effect" that increases supply costs (perhaps doubles) for any enemy units in the area, reflecting the difficulties encountered by opposing forces trying to operate and stay supplied.

With proper placement an opposing force would be quite costly to continue to operate in the area unless they dispatched the fort. I'd say something like a 3 or probably 4 square area (a "fat cross", just like the city) would be appropriate.

That is the problem with forts--they offer no proactive measure in reasoning for building them. Aside from the obvious defensive bonus, they don't hold much meaning in the scope of things since they are so easily bypassed, making them very situational. Historically, forts (and castles) were the primary means of establishing control over an area, and that holds largely true up until today (though technically we'd describe such thing as "bases" anymore, I suppose).

Since supply costs are already enabled in the game I can't imagine it would be that difficult of a measure to make forts exert an influence that doubles supply costs for enemy troops within range, although that might require access to the SDK, I expect...

[Addled Platypus]

go to creation files

there is a modified fort mod ...

[Jaybe]

Modified Fort mod isn't in the Poly Creation Files now (it may still be at CFC). I am hoping for an update for the 1.09 patch.

[[3nD]Fuad]

Originally posted by Quillan
In history, no army would EVER march past a fortification and just leave it there if the defenders failed to come out and attack. If they had, the garrison would either harrass them to death, take them in the rear at a critical moment, or utterly prevent their entire supply effort from reaching the army. The attackers would either have to take the fortification, or leave a sufficient force besieging it to keep the defenders bottled up in the fort continuously. That is what is simulated by a zone of control.

Well, look at what the Germans did in WW-II on the Western front: move through the Netherlands and Belgium and ignore the Maginot-Line, which in fact was one of the largest fortifications ever built, cut off their (the Line's) supply and the defenders surrendered.

[sovietwaffle]

Forts have some good offensive uses too. Going to attack a city near your border? (Possibly next to it if you have a culture heavy city), build a fort in case you get attacked while moving into their territory, or if you want to rest and defend for a bit on a retreat

[slebrun]

I understand that leaving an open fort in your rear is (actually, I'd say 'can be') stupid. However, Again, rather than throw in an artifical construct, let forts work the way they should; if the defenders want to sally out, I make them sally out and strike the rear of the attacking force.

Not that Civ4 models supply lines, formation, interia and all that other stuff.

[BigBadButch]

Originally posted by ghen
the fact remains that forts are extremely non-useful.

In my experience, they're extremely useful, but only in very specific situations.

[Cort Haus]

I think Redwuff did demonstrate that forts do have occasional uses, but this is marginal & situaltional rather than integral to defensive play. I used forts in Civ 3, but as soon as I saw in Civ 4 that it destroys the terrain improvement and has no ZoC, then .

Civ has never had supply lines and probably never will, which means the combat model can never be realistic.

[BlackSpy]

I normally find a use for forts in my games but would agree that they are rarely key to a strategy – they are just a bell or whistle to attach to another strategy.

In my current game I have a coastal strait between my land and the Aztecs. The strait reaches between his capital and a short peninsula on my island, a galley takes two turns to leave his capital and then unload on the end of my peninsula, so I’ve built a little fort with a couple of archers on that first landfall tile for him. It also acts as a look post for me for spotting his inevitable invasions. He can attack amphibiously if he wants, but he’ll lose easily or he can sail further round and risk losing his galley of soldiers to one of mine.

Either way though, it’s a square I need to have men on to maintain a view of his attack route so I should put a fort on it. It’s not a method of playing but it is the sort of occasion where a fort is very useful. I wonder if your complaint is really that you used to have a way of playing with forts that Civ 4 forts don’t support?

[khearn]

So basically, a fort is useful if you'd be posting troops somewhere anyway, and there isn't a handy forest to provide better protection for them. Assuming, that is, that the location doesn't have some improvement that you don't want to destroy to build the fort.

I guess they're not totally useless. To paraphrase the Hitchiker's Guide, "Almost, but not completely, useless."

[Lysander]

"...unlike what some other people have reported, I was seeing definite, coordinated troop movements from his backline cities into the cities under attack..."

In a war that I was waging, the enemy moved several units toward a city that I was about to attack, but 'seeing' that the city was inevitably going to fall, the enemy retreated their support units and strengthened other cities instead (particularly their capitol). Their retreat to bolster other cities more easily defended proved to be a viable strategy, as I have still not taken their final city, their capitol, and have been forced to hunker down until I can start building catapults.

[tai4ji2x]

Originally posted by [3nD]Fuad


Well, look at what the Germans did in WW-II on the Western front: move through the Netherlands and Belgium and ignore the Maginot-Line, which in fact was one of the largest fortifications ever built, cut off their (the Line's) supply and the defenders surrendered.

and if the french fortified the belgian border as well?

[Diadem]

For a start forts should have a much higher defence bonus. More than forests, at least.

But a second, unique, benefit is needed to make them really interesting. Two ideas cross my mind here. Either one would work, both is probably overpowered:
- Let them offer protection against collatoral damage. Not a complete protection, but a 50% or so reduction.
- Allow an attack of opportunity against units passing by a fortress. The highest strength unit has one free hit attempt (equal to a first strike) against any unit moving by the fortress. This means all units moving from a tile adjecent to the fortress to another tile also adjecent to it. An attack towards units moving towards or away from the fortress would probably be overpowered.

Or perhaps, that last bonus should only apply to artillery-type units. Picture a fortress with a cannon on top. An army ignoring the fortress, is gonna suffer some damage for sure.

[Volstag]

It may depend on the game, and the situation, but I've noticed that, sometimes, the precense of a fort will attract barbs and AI like moth to flame. This prevents them from pillaging and/or attacking your cities. Still though, the role of forts, IMO, needs to be expanded. As it is, I only consider them, much less build them, maybe once every five games. If you could build them outside of your cultural boundaries, I would probably build them more often.

[Volstag]

They can be passed by, which defeats their defensive bonuses, in almost all situations.

I've heard this a lot but I don't understand how. If you have high mobility units (chariots, horse archers, knights, etc), how can anyone "pass by"?