Anybody using forts?

[Diadem]

Does City Garrison work for forts? If it doesn't, that should be changed.

And yes, you should be able to build them outside your cultural borders. In fact, imho, I think a tile where you buid a fort should *become* yours, as long as your occupy the fort.

Basicly it'll be a way to capture culture. Even enemy culture!

Because that's something that has always bothered me. If an enemy culture is pushing away mine, and I declare war on that enemy and invade his land, I still can't work it. My units are all over the place, but I can't work the land because it's not culturally mine.

Imho units should have an option to 'repress hostile culture'. They can't move or do anything else while doing this, but while they do this, the tile they occupy becomes culturally yours. Furthermore every turn they keep doing this the hostile culture is decreased a bit, so if you do this long enough the tile can really become yours. Otherwise, it'll flip back if your units leave or are destroyed.

But forts could have that function as well.

[alexman]

That's a nice idea, but having forts "capture culture" would in effect bring back the old Civ3 road/rail blitz problems, only this time it would be with forts instead of settlers.

[Quick]

Originally posted by Diadem
Does City Garrison work for forts? If it doesn't, that should be changed.

Yes. City Garrison does work on forts.

I use forts for two purposes.

1) Block a choke point. On the team play 4 Corners map it takes three forts to block your throat. A few units with City Garrison in each fort, backed up with units for attacking stacks, will hold out attackers while building up the nation.

2) Boarder control. Placed a few squares apart, they provide places to hold units for attacking attackers and then returning to for healing.

Both purposes are of special use only. Some games will have no place to use either of them.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by alexman
That's a nice idea, but having forts "capture culture" would in effect bring back the old Civ3 road/rail blitz problems, only this time it would be with forts instead of settlers.

Well I'm sure you can think of a good way to buff them. After all, no point having them if they never get built.

[Jaybe]

1. Forts have a 1-tile culture radius which does not expand. The culture it does have has the strength of a city with 20% (or 40%?) culture strength on tiles adjacent to the city (for purpose of cultural conflict).
2. Forts may not be built adjacent to an existing culture border of another civ.
3. Forts must be built at least 3 tiles from another civ's city (should be covered by #2, but just in case).
4. Forts have their own maintenance costs, similar to but separate from city maintenance.

EDIT: Doh! For those that didn't know, these were my proposal for what forts should have.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Jaybe
1. Forts have a 1-tile culture radius which does not expand. The culture it does have has the strength of a city with 20% (or 40%?) culture strength on tiles adjacent to the city (for purpose of cultural conflict).
2. Forts may not be built adjacent to an existing culture border of another civ.
3. Forts must be built at least 3 tiles from another civ's city (should be covered by #2, but just in case).
4. Forts have their own maintenance costs, similar to but separate from city maintenance.

wow 4 new reasons to recognize that forts really suck

[bjsiders]

Seems like forts could be very useful by simply enforcing ZOC rules for units garrisoned in forts. Enemy units would not be able to just walk past, they'd have to either destroy the fort with artillery weapons or eliminate its defenders. Alternatively, units in forts could get free attacks against passing units to weaken them. So you can march past but you're going to take 3 rounds of free hits to which you cannot respond. A well-defended fort could really mow down passing armies and force them to stop and clear out the fort.

Would be a nice way to bring ZOC back to Civ without having it be onerous and annoying. You pay the price in having terrain that can't be otherwise improved but you can control your borders from invasion pretty well. Would also be REALLY nice to deal with barbarians.

Forts have been critical tools of strategy and tactics for the entirety of human warfare, right up through WW1 and WW2. Liege, anybody? Hate to see them so ineffectual.

[Quick]

Bjsiders,

I don't see forts as ineffectual when used propperly.

It is true that they are not "always" usefull, but they are still usefull in a lot of situations.

[Chiss]

As mentioned before, I really think it should be something like what BJSiders said.

Quick, apart from being usefull on choke points (typical maps have very few), where do you use them?

Civ4 is so close to a realistic simulation of history, I'd love forts to be usefull. Looking back in time, forts weren't confined to "choke points", but typically at the edge of your borders, often near rivers as to control incoming traders or possibly military invasions using waterways... Oh well, its just a (otherwise superbly balanced) game after all!

Chiss!

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Quick
Bjsiders,

I don't see forts as ineffectual when used propperly.

It is true that they are not "always" usefull, but they are still usefull in a lot of situations.

Such as?

[Quick]

DrSpike,
See earlier post for uses (2 of them)

Chiss,
See earlier post (item #2)

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Quick


Yes. City Garrison does work on forts.

I use forts for two purposes.

1) Block a choke point. On the team play 4 Corners map it takes three forts to block your throat. A few units with City Garrison in each fort, backed up with units for attacking stacks, will hold out attackers while building up the nation.

2) Boarder control. Placed a few squares apart, they provide places to hold units for attacking attackers and then returning to for healing.

Both purposes are of special use only. Some games will have no place to use either of them.

This one? I pretty much agree with that, though you yourself say it's a special case.

[Chiss]

Guilty for not reading properly!

#1 is the obvious.. #2 is intriguing... It is true that it's annoying to have to go back to the nearest city for healing when your attacking a neighbor... Although I think I would only do it with a large border... Otherwise, I would just keep marching until I've conquered a city, in which case I'll heal in there. Medics aren't that bad, so with a big enough stack to defend the wounded, you should be ok... Anyway.

Chiss!

[Gibsie]

I actually had cause to use a fort a few days ago, a **** playing as Egypt warred on me from the start of the game, and with his War Chariots there was one square right outside my capital that I couldn't afford to let him take, so I planted a General City Defence 3 Protective Archer there, and stalled him. In the end, all the others players bottled it, as they usually do, leaving me and him in stalemate to claim a joint victory. Huzzah!

[Quick]

I just remembered another thing about forts that I just used.

Although forts consume forests, they leave jungles intact. I moved defensive units with Woodsman promotions into a jungle to hold it until the fort is built. Then I get both the jungle and fort bonuses as well as both the Woodsman and City Garrison promotions.