Anybody using forts?

[Gibsie]

Actually they leave Forests intact, with the latest patch for Warlords (I was just playing and built one on a forest).

[Quick]

In that case I must need the patch because I have been seeing my forests get chopped in the process.

And I thought that I had gotten the latest patch within the last week. I guess it is time to check again.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by 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!

I don't think any of the incarnations of civ are at all close to a realistic simulation of history, but I'm glad that they aim for such realism wherever no sacrifice to gameplay is required to accomodate it.

[bjsiders]

I agree, but the gameplay element is lacking with forts, I would argue. I'm no expert, I'm barely even competent at Civ IV, but it seems to me that the value of both forts (and until recently castles) in gameplay terms is vastly out of whack with the historical significance. Other discoveries and strategies of human history are given due deference in gameplay elements - the discovery of liberalism, for example. Being the first to circumnavigate the world. The stone age, bronze age, the iron age, the discovery of steel. The League of Nations/UN, the alliance, these concepts are all represented and meant to have an impact on gameplay similar to their historical impact. But forts are, perhaps not useless, but oddly less useful in game mechanics than they were in history. The anomaly is interesting and merits exploration.

[Olavi]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun

But, like said, if only one could build them on other improvements...

I disagree on this. The great thing about Civ IV is that there are no obvious choices. All things should have their positives and negatives to consider.

If forts could be built upon other improvements, they would be a routine build in border areas. Now you must really consider whether the defence bonus is worth the lost food/commerce/production/resource.

But I do think forts should be pimped somehow to make them more useful. Zone of control would be nice, as well as faster healing for injured units in forts.

[zeace]

Maybe they should be allowed to share a square with another improvement, but they cause the square to produce one less of its best resource. So a fort in your pig farm would cost a food. That would still leave some tactical considerations, but would let you support weak spots in you defenses, the way forts were actually used.

[Harrier UK]

That is a good idea.

But, I think the main problem is - the AI does not know how to use forts.

So any improvements mentioned in all above posts, will only benefit the human player.

That is, until the use of forts by the AI is rewritten.

[Quick]

In regards to forts being realistic...

I don't remember any historical forts giving anything like a zone of conrtrol. They were spread out and provided support to a large area. They were a place for people to hold up during attack and a place to garison troups. They were basicaly a safe spot in a dangerous area.

Now I am only familiar with forts in American Indian teritories. Forts in other areas may have functioned differently.

[Quick]

Originally posted by Harrier UK
That is a good idea.

But, I think the main problem is - the AI does not know how to use forts.

So any improvements mentioned in all above posts, will only benefit the human player.

That is, until the use of forts by the AI is rewritten.

I agree. It is likely to be difficult to program the AI to use forts effectively. From what I remember, the AI didn't use ZOC either.

I play SP more than MP. And my MP is cooperative against computer players. So I don't want to give the human player to much advantage.

[bjsiders]

Originally posted by Quick
In regards to forts being realistic...

I don't remember any historical forts giving anything like a zone of conrtrol. They were spread out and provided support to a large area. They were a place for people to hold up during attack and a place to garison troups. They were basicaly a safe spot in a dangerous area.

Now I am only familiar with forts in American Indian teritories. Forts in other areas may have functioned differently.

See the seige of Leige in WW1. The Belgiuns created a ring of forts around a key city and the German army couldn't simply walk past it without subjecting their entire supply line to fire. They had to take them out, and they didn't get heavy artillery up in time and lost tens of thousands of troops assaulting the forts with infantry. finally they shelled them into oblivion and took Leige, after the Belgians had split.

Forts + ranged weapon = zone of control. I remember any historical scouts exploring the entirety of a continent by 800 AD, nor any fishing boats at sea for 5000 straight years charting the coastal waters, yet it happens in the game.

[klondike]

I've been playing civ since its first incarnation, and I must say that i've used forts extensively up until civ4. Oddly enough, last night saw me build my first for in civ4 and it proved to be quite effective. It was a one tile choke on a forested mountain. Overall they seem less prevalent than in previous versions of the game.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by klondike
I've been playing civ since its first incarnation, and I must say that i've used forts extensively up until civ4. Oddly enough, last night saw me build my first for in civ4 and it proved to be quite effective. It was a one tile choke on a forested mountain. Overall they seem less prevalent than in previous versions of the game.

forrested hill fort?

I was hoping we might eb able to use mountains but so far I haven't figured out how. Maybe it's a warlords thing?

[Addled Platypus]

maybe change it to pillbox ???

I would build a few

[Tattila the Hun]

I want minefields, dragonsteeth and barbed wire! Essentially, something that would slow down 2+ movement guys on my lands, so that they don't get the chance to pillage. Another thing, if I pound some unit to 0.1 of it's strength, he should not be able to pillage. It's one guy on a horseback! Whose whole regiment, all of his best buddies were just butchered. Those farmers, miners and townsfolk have pitchforks, and, if playing america, guns! They should be able to stop one guy from raping and pillaging their cows and daughters!

[InThane]

In an OCC, when I'm done improving my city, I will start building forts around the edges of my territory, combined with roads/railroads to get what army I have there in a hurry. Since I can't wage offensive war easily, being able to ring my city with defensive units is very useful.

Other than a chokepoint, that's pretty much the only use I've found for them.