Fort! Heh! What is it good for? Absoultely nothing!

[Akaoz]

How much of a defensive bonus does a fort give again? As compared to a forest or hill...

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by xenophile58
Isn't the cultural bog an invader has to slog through much more powerful?

No.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by xenophile58
Forts shelter units that would be overwhelmed by an invading force. Forts allow them to survive and threaten pillagers, or the main invading force if it becomes weakened or divides. Forts block chokepoints. At least until the advent of long-range guns, those were their main defensive functions (they also helped hold down conquered or restive peasants of course). Why should they exert a ZOC? Isn't the cultural bog an invader has to slog through much more powerful?

Your own post answers your question nicely

Units in a fort can mangle pillagers and harrass large forces with near impunity. The ZoC represents this influence into adjacent tiles.

A ZoC can exist in neutral territory and even into hostile lands. Thus it works differently than cultural influences.

[jonta]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Dunno about you, but I can't think of any famous forts that protect lumber mills

No...but on the other hand. Think lots of forts was placed near important resources. and for sure
cow's in a farm ,did'nt make it impossible to build.

[eluciv]

I understand their use, even if not all that significant. But I find that most cities I have are working most of, if not all, the tiles inside the borders (save the fringe, and these tiles will eventually be improved as soon as neighbor is "removed" ). I would build them alot more if we were able to build on top of improvements. If I have that odd tile inside a ring of cities that isn't being worked, I'll almost always fort it. I used to think a ZOC was needed, but the cultural movement impediment is pretty significant by itself.

[Rook]

Originally posted by eluciv
I used to think a ZOC was needed, but the cultural movement impediment is pretty significant by itself.

But, invading armies ignore culture during war time.

Here's my point. The AI simply can not mount a suitable defense when you invade en masse and start pillaging. It's only a matter of time and your victory is almost always assured when the defender is starved of resources, food, money etc. Forts with a ZoC effect would give the attacker an added obsticle. He MUST take out the forts in order to pillage. Therefore he must fight the defenders units on the defender's terms.

This would be an easy concept to get the AI to learn.

[Alashar]

Forts should be useful up to the through the WWI era units. Or perhaps there should be two types IMHO... Forts and Fortresses.

Forts should be built to fight pre-gunpowder units as they were designed much like Castles. high walls, parapets, towers, and lots of defenses to withstand sieges.

Fortresses are a re-designed fort built to withstand the explosive power of cannon fire. Low thick walls, either star or polygonal shaped to disperse the cannon fire.

You could always argue for a third type as well. Because WWI and WWII employed the Steel and concrete fortifications such as the Atlantic Wall and the Maginot Line, both of which remain today. In fact, those fortifications were so heavily built that many could survive anything but direct hits by 2000-lb bombs and 16-inch shells.

I would say any fort or fortification should be obsolete once you get modern era units. Bunker-busters, laser-guided bombs, and high mobility pretty much make static fortifications pointless.

Anyway, forts and fortresses should indeed exert a Zone-of-Control. That was the sole reason why they were built. Exert control over a region of land or water or both. Hence, they were often built at the mouths of rivers, critical coast-lines, in-land routes through mountain passes, etc.

One good example is a Castle-Fort I visited in Heidelberg Germany. It sits up on the side of a large hill and overlooks the river below. With cannons, it could easily command several miles of the river in either direction. Anybody trying to sail the river would be exposed to continuous fire from cannons or even arrows/catapults for quite a long period of time. Really put it into perspective for me.

[xenophile58]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Your own post answers your question nicely

Units in a fort can mangle pillagers and harrass large forces with near impunity. The ZoC represents this influence into adjacent tiles.

A ZoC can exist in neutral territory and even into hostile lands. Thus it works differently than cultural influences.

I do think forts are undermodelled. Their defensive strength is too weak and they did have value in holding down hostile territory. Edward I's Welsh castles for instance. But a fort does nothing of itself - it's just a pile of rocks. The Crusader castles in Palestine for instance.

I don't think a fort should allow a weak force to harrass a large one that stays together. Put a force inside a fort and inside friendly cultural boundaries or in neutral territory , even a I MP unit can attack anything in an adjacent roaded tile and if it survives, retreat into the fort. Is that threat not more realistic than some abstract ZOC effect?

As for building a fort in enemy territory, you might make a case for a garrisoned fort neutralising the enemy's cultural effect in adjacent tiles but that would make forts very powerful. I'd prefer their defensive values to be raised and to give them a small cultural effect.

[Akaoz]

Just up the defensive bonus and allow them to be built on improved tiles and they would be fine IMHO.

[Rancidlunchmeat]

I don't know, I'm personally annoyed at the entire lack of ZoC in Civ IV.

It's really damn annoying watching some unit walk right up to the tile adjecent to my city and have them start pillaging my farms or cottages, right outside the city! The very next tile!

I've built a fort once. I believe it was a desert coast tile next to a range of hills, and I already had troops placed on the hills. So sure enough, the AI would ignore the troops on the hills and go right through. I built a fort and placed an axeman in it, but by that time.. the city's cultural boundaries had expanded making that choke point worthless.

I definately think forts, at the very least (if not cities) should exert a ZoC like they did in CivIII and not allow units to pass within one tile of them.

It wasn't overpowered in CivIII, but they were occasionally helpful. Now, they're just a useless improvement. And that's a sign of bad game design, IMO. When you have a game option that is universally regarded as worthless or a waste of time, then that game option hasn't been properly implemented.

[Rook]

Originally posted by Rancidlunchmeat
Now, they're just a useless improvement. And that's a sign of bad game design, IMO. When you have a game option that is universally regarded as worthless or a waste of time, then that game option hasn't been properly implemented.

I think that just about sums it up.

[marvinkosh]

Forts on the border where you have your troops stationed against an incursion are veru useful, because although you don't get ZOC, hostile units will tend to get attracted to them. Even if not, you still have your units positioned to repel intruders before they start pillaging.

Sure, it's a pain to get the forts built, and in ancient times I tend to use hills and forests as defensive ground, but when my cities and borders expand to the point where there is no good defensive ground near the border, then forts are a way of organising the defence.

My suggestion would be to simply reduce the time they take to build. They already have an opportunity cost in terms of not being able to have another improvement on the tile.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by xenophile58
I don't think a fort should allow a weak force to harrass a large one that stays together. Put a force inside a fort and inside friendly cultural boundaries or in neutral territory , even a I MP unit can attack anything in an adjacent roaded tile and if it survives, retreat into the fort. Is that threat not more realistic than some abstract ZOC effect?

The combat model in Civ 4 (in fact, the whole series) is very bloody. IOW, it ends in the destruction of either the attacker or the defender. This is not how it works in the real world. A far less bloody combat model would allow your suggestion to work, but not the existing one.

Furthermore, all games are abstract to some degree. ZoC is very real, only the effects are abstracted. A military unit exerts influence into surrounding areas by its mere presence. This is what ZoC is - it represents this influence. Not having ZoC is less realistic.

Originally posted by xenophile58
As for building a fort in enemy territory, you might make a case for a garrisoned fort neutralising the enemy's cultural effect in adjacent tiles but that would make forts very powerful. I'd prefer their defensive values to be raised and to give them a small cultural effect.

I wasn't saying building a fort in enemy territory (even though this is possible in real life, e.g. Nazi Germany's Atlantic Wall is a series of forts in France and the Lowland Countries). I was saying that ZoC should extend across cultural borders.

[JohnUghrin]

Re: Fort! Heh! What is it good for? Absoultely nothing!

Originally posted by Rook
The only use I have for them so far is blocking up places like mountain passes or isthmuses (sp?)

I wouldn't say so. I had a recent game where there was a large desert on my SW border. The other side belonged to Lizzie. She picked a fight with me, and it was really annoying because her units would go 'wandering' in the desert and pop out all over the place in the middle of my empire.

I took eight workers or so under a stack of riflemen and had a desert fortress lickety-split. It allowed my faster units to pester her redcoats and whatnot before they got into areas I actually cared about. Often, it sent them home.

A few/10 turns of militaty buildup later, it became the "safe" launching point for my invasion of England. And it still played a vital role when she tried to do an end run around her nearest (former) burg and cut my road to slow my invasion.

I will say that they don't seem horribly useful that often, but I build more fortress than I do castles.

[Rook]

Re: Re: Fort! Heh! What is it good for? Absoultely nothing!

Originally posted by JohnUghrin


I wouldn't say so. I had a recent game where there was a large desert on my SW border. The other side belonged to Lizzie. She picked a fight with me, and it was really annoying because her units would go 'wandering' in the desert and pop out all over the place in the middle of my empire.

I took eight workers or so under a stack of riflemen and had a desert fortress lickety-split. It allowed my faster units to pester her redcoats and whatnot before they got into areas I actually cared about. Often, it sent them home.

A few/10 turns of militaty buildup later, it became the "safe" launching point for my invasion of England. And it still played a vital role when she tried to do an end run around her nearest (former) burg and cut my road to slow my invasion.

I will say that they don't seem horribly useful that often, but I build more fortress than I do castles.

Well, it seems you did find a use for it in that one paricular case, but over all, forts seem to be useless considering there effect is small and you can't build a more useful improvement under it.

What caught my attention in your post though is the last sentence. You are said you build forts more than castles. I don't understand why. In my games, usually I run out of things to build in my cities so inevitably all my cities will get a castle. They don't usually help much with defense, but castles give a +2 culture bonus, so why not build them? It's not like in older civ games where buildings cost $$$. In Civ 4 buildings are free so build build build.