Note that patch 3.19 seems to fix this whole issue. (looking at the change list now....)
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Forts - What gives?
Collapse
X
-
A rare use case that might not be self-evident to everybody: if you have a long coastline obstructed by (floating) ice, you can make an arbitrarily long canal along it with forts. The ships only require water being next to the fort; not that it's in a liquid form and accessibleIt's a lowercase L, not an uppercase I.
Comment
-
Originally posted by slnz View PostA rare use case that might not be self-evident to everybody: if you have a long coastline obstructed by (floating) ice, you can make an arbitrarily long canal along it with forts. The ships only require water being next to the fort; not that it's in a liquid form and accessible
Comment
-
Originally posted by wodan11 View PostI think that was a bug they might have fixed in the patch. I remember seeing some discussion along those lines.It's a lowercase L, not an uppercase I.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wodan11 View PostRight. Both are probably bugs.
All the coastal forts have ports, because ships can enter them, and a fort covers the whole square, hence making it viable that 2 adjacent forts actually form one big fort with a common port area that a ship could travel along :P What makes it confusing is the game graphics which obviously look silly and don't convey any of thisIt's a lowercase L, not an uppercase I.
Comment
-
Originally posted by slnz View PostWell the semantics kind of make sense, if you think about it. If there would be 2 cities in adjancent squares (as in grown together), they would probably have interlocked port areas, hence making it possible to travel from one to another without going in the open waters.
If the improvement in question was "canal" then I would buy it. As a "fort" it's simply ridiculous.
Comment
-
Surely the fort/canal is a "feature"?
Actually, I've wanted a canal improvement for a long time , ever since you couldn't build cities next to each other (was that Civ II?).Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
Iain Banks missed deadline due to Civ | The eyes are the groin of the head. - Dwight Schrute.
One more turn .... One more turn .... | WWTSD
Comment
-
As I recall, it's intended that tiles of fort adjoining water to be accessible to water units, but not landlocked fort tiles.1st C3DG Term 7 Science Advisor 1st C3DG Term 8 Domestic Minister
Templar Science Minister
AI: I sure wish Jon would hurry up and complete his turn, he's been at it for over 1,200,000 milliseconds now.
Comment
-
Another thing that bugs me is that ship goto commands will route them through ports so it's possible for a ship to end it's turn in an undefended port and be vulnerable to land attacks.It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Comment
-
Originally posted by joncnunn View PostAs I recall, it's intended that tiles of fort adjoining water to be accessible to water units, but not landlocked fort tiles.
Comment
-
That is awesome, wodan!!Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms
Comment
-
I'd have let the ship escape.
Only because I remember the one time where it was similar but a city instead of a fort and when I took the city and kept it. Every stinking turn you'd get the "enemy spotted near" message. After quite a few turns I stopped paying attention to it and he snuck a stack in on me since I had stopping checking out the warnings for that city.It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Comment
Comment