Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why forts rule!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why forts rule!

    So multiple threads folks had mentioned how they never use forts, and in the succesion game, even berated me for wasting worker turns building them.

    But in my own experience, forts are such a beutiful tool to use. The AI will almost always use numerical supperiority to attempt to overwhelm your forces. As well as chase your military down instead of taking a more dirrect approach towards a city. The AIs know they have numerical supperiority and if they can destroy your forces, you cannot stop them.

    So the object of course, is to inflict more damage to them they can inflict on you. In most games I play, that means using every advantage available, as even 10 to 1 losses in my favor could leave my military gravely depleted.

    So in my current game, Terra/techtonics map gave me a European start. I used my all powerful praetorians to expand east to the urals, at the expense of Zara's game score. This left me with a very defensible border every where except the northern "Novgorad" area, where I did not control the passes. Cyrus controled the northern most pass with a city of his own covering it. Wich gave him easy entry and required the bulk of my military to counter.

    So after numerouse scuffles where i was struggling to not loose land, I had finally gained what i hoped to be a military advantage that i could finally leverage into a reversal, and finaly close that path. I had infantry and Machine guns.

    And again war came, in the form of another 100 unit SoD, full of 50+ cavalry and various other units attacking in the north. I had 25 - 30 units max to counter it. And my "reserves" held the southern forts. So when a second force tried to push through the fort line, I was of course wary, as i was pushed to the limit in the north.



    The perfect fort, wooded hills, grant a 100% defense bonus on top of the unit promotions (woodsman and/or city defenders). The 4 defenders, 2 MGs and 2 Infantry, destroyed 22 enemy units in a single turn with zero losses. It was enough to make Cyrus ask for peace even before I had destroyed his northern force.

    There is of course no other way prior to Nukes, for so few units to destroy so many units in 1 single turn. So the point is of course, if you don't use forts now. Perhaps you should start. My pass forts had been attacked countless times in this game. Often they would push through, however now lacking the siege equipment they would have needed to pose an actual threat to a city.

    Even with less perfect fortable points, the AI will attack any units it comes into contact with. So simply posting forts on hills or behind rivers in likely invasion routes can make 3 or 4 cheap defensive units break up or even destroy possible real threats.
    Last edited by OzzyKP; November 8, 2009, 17:41.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?...So with that said: if you can not read my post because of spelling, then who is really the stupid one?...

  • #2
    Beautiful. Mountain passes make forts a winning strategy.
    John Brown did nothing wrong.

    Comment


    • #3
      Eh, in the game we played I looked at the land and figured if forts were going anywhere it would've been in the mountain passes on the borders with the Russians and the Germans. By the time you had dealt with both of them it seemed forts by the Carthaginians was unnecessary.
      I'm consitently stupid- Japher
      I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned

      Comment


      • #4
        Unless it's the only way to move, every time I build a fort then AI just goes around it.
        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


        • #5
          Don't you wish it was the good old days of Civ II, when the AI would look for your veteran mech infantry fortified on a mountain fortress, and then proceed to throw a couple units a turn against it? It was so easy to rack up insane kill:loss ratios back then. Nowadays it's almost like the AI wants to win.
          John Brown did nothing wrong.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Felch View Post
            Nowadays it's almost like the AI wants to win.
            quote of the day.

            Yeah, the first time I played IV I fortified a few machine guns on a good defensive spot and the enemy just ignored it and moved around it. I miss the old days of ZOC. But I do realize that the AI wasn't smart enough to deal with it.
            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


            • #7
              Even with less perfect fortable points, the AI will attack any units it comes into contact with. So simply posting forts on hills or behind rivers in likely invasion routes can make 3 or 4 cheap defensive units break up or even destroy possible real threats.
              This is simply not true. The AI will NOT automatically attack "any" unit it comes into contact with (like it used to do in Civ2... and yes, it was fun watching the AI send countless units to their death over centuries in Civ2) If the AI doesn't like the odds, it will not attack... and simply goes around the fort if it can. Sure, sometimes it will attack the fort, but I rarely see it if the odds are really against the AI, and there is a way around the fort.

              Yeah... in the game above, forts in the key passes are good, and critical to the defense... but unless you have a true choke point, they aren't as good as you make them out to be. I rarely build them and nothing you have indicated is likely to change my mind on their usefullness, or lack of
              Keep on Civin'
              RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

              Comment


              • #8
                And when I hit a SOD with enough cannons, then any offensive unit I have there is going to get a cheap win. And you hurt the stack so bad they'll usually just sit there to heal and take another beating the next turn. I've eliminated 100 unit SOD losing just a couple of cannons without a fort. I prefer to attack then defend. My rule of thumb is that whoever gets to use their siege engines win. And forts are considered cities in terms of city raider bonuses.
                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


                • #9
                  To be fair, I've had a similar experience playing with the tectonics. The gaps in the mountain ranges make fantastic fort locations (they're usually hills and often have tree cover), and it's a good feeling to have a genuinely fortified frontier. It lets you invest more in the development of your empire while maintaining in a decent navy, and then unleash a high-powered high-tech army later on in the game. There are other situations where it comes up, and I get a kick out of holding mountain passes against insane odds.

                  It's not a strategy to use every game, but I'm happy that it's an option. It's certainly not an MP strategy.
                  John Brown did nothing wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Don't get me wrong... I'm not arguing against forts at "real" choke points like passes... I've played some "highland" maps where forts were HUGE! But I am arguing against the concept of having a few forts in strong defensive terrain to be used to bait attacking units into destroying themselves. First, contrary to what he claimed, the AI does NOT automatically attack a unit just because it is next to it. Second, the AI will walk around or pass forts if there is a way around. It seems like a "wish" at best that the AI will weaken itself against such forts (sure, it can happen, but not the sure thing as presented) and is a waste of time, and units.
                    Keep on Civin'
                    RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Agreed with both.

                      But having said that, there are a few situations where I would build one, but it doesn't happen every game.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Have you ever tried using them on the "hub" shaped maps? On a narrow isthmus, a fort is incredibly useful. Especially if it does double duty as a canal.

                        You're right that the AI will avoid attacking them.
                        John Brown did nothing wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah i'll build one as a canal. But that's kind of rare also.
                          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


                          • #14
                            They are good if your culture extends into big desert or tundra areas with no water but some non-life-sustaining resources, like incense or silver. You can use forts to claim those resources. Like canals, they don't have to be manned. However with canals, manning them with obsolete junk units may prevent the destruction of your ships, who seem to find ways to stop in shore forts at the worst possible time.
                            No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
                            "I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My problem is that the fort takes longer to build than the action to claim the resource. So unless I'm planning on defending it, I'd just go ahead and mine that silver instead.

                              YES, for canals you should always man it.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X