Why forts rule!

[rah]

If I have enough units, I use all my non-flankers first. But usually the SOD is larger than my attacking force so I end up using my flankers anyway.

[Hauptman]

You've been arguing that they ALWAYS attack a fort. One more time... THAT IS NOT TRUE!

NOW, at least you are backing down and saying that if you don't have many units in the fort, it will attack. I've never argued that point.

And I would still argue that it's a waste. Instead of building a bunch of forts and stocking them with units, those units could all be in a single location and you wouldn't be needing to weaken his stack with forts, you could just take him straight up. In my opinion, any time you let an enemy use his colateral damage units in your territory, it's not very smart.

Sure, forts are great for true choke points, getting oil quicker, canals... but to build a loose string of forts and then stocking them with units is a waste. Just ask how well it worked for the French in WWII

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.

From the very first post. Thought i was beeing clear. I was not trying to argue that the ai will attack your stack with it's stack. I was arguing that the ai will attack my bait forts, every single time.

I personally dont value the xp on fresh units. I have my upgraded ancient units that I horde xp on. That first axeman that survives the very first war, then the next, then the next... etc. Those end up with all the xp, even when they loose some to upgrading. The way i look at it, I AM going to loose units. So I look for a way to make those units do the most damage before they die. In the last Screenie 4 units killed 15+ enemies with there lives. In the first it was 22 and they all survived.

Now perhaps you can argue, that i had 12 units total sitting in those forts, so with a counter attack they could have done that damage. Yeh maybe, but not as longbows. I did vacate the other 2 forts and use the 4 non longows in the counter attack. and the 4 longbows sat idle in thier forts and the city waiting to garrison newly captured cities. Cash was not infinate so i couldnt upgrade every single unit to rifles. longbows are worthless on the attack, however with city defender 3 and drill 1, in a fort in a forest, behind a river it becomes a str 18 unit. Mighty impressive for a unit that cost half as much of an offensive unit. And they can only do that on the defense.

Id rather have lost those 4 defenders (for zero risk) than risk loosing more flankers on bad odds, or worse yet let his siege units attack my city. Personal choice I guess. But hell I have a hell of a lot of fun watching him waste so many units attacking my forts. Heck fun is why we play the game.

[Hauptman]

Oh yeh wanted to reitterate the fact that that last fort gave me 3 extra turns.

Not a big deal when I'm declaring war, but had he snuck attacked on me, 3 turns is a HUGE deal. My stack was sitting in the center, it would have needed 2 turns to get to that particular city. Had the fort not been there, and he attacked me via that route, I would have lost that city (as long as he didnt wait to bombard the walls, wich they tend to do... dumb AI).

[wodan11]

On Hauptman's side, one thing I *do* know is that the AI isn't smart enough to know about Drill. A couple of Drill IV longbows (etc.) can take out huge numbers.

[Ming]

From the very first post. Thought i was beeing clear. I was not trying to argue that the ai will attack your stack with it's stack. I was arguing that the ai will attack my bait forts, every single time.

From the first post...

Even with less perfect fortable points, the AI will attack ANY units it comes into contact with

And from a later post...

I have NEVER seen a sod bypass a fort. NEVER EVER. I mean I use forts almost* every game, and they are constantly attacked. Not just in a pass, but just outside my BFC if a sod happenes apon it, it always attacks. now 2 unit raiders yeh, they ignore em but not SoDs

And even later...

but their SoDs always attack any unit that end up next to it. Wether it be my cannon attack or a fort, that sod will hit it.

Yes... VERY CLEAR. But now, you are saying something totally different, which I can agree with.

Again... I'm not arguing that fort can sometimes be useful... But I was arguing your blantly wrong statements that SoD's ALWAYS attack when they are next to other units.

As you finally claim your preference is also a personal choice, which again, I have no problem with. I simply think there are better ways to defend that don't waste the time and efforts in building those forts.

[Felch]

Ming likes to defend his empire with walls of cold steel and hot lead.

[Ming]

Yep... because walls and castles of stone are a waste. I'm not a big fan of letting an enemy attack my cities. I'm much rather attack out... or destroy their army in the field. Again, in your own territory, you should never let the enemy have the opportunity to use their seige engines.

Now granted, EARLY in the game, before your enemy gets seige engines, it can be really funny to watch monty walk up to one of your cities and self destruct his stack while you lose maybe a single unit... but once seige engines come into play...

[wodan11]

Ming, come on. Walls and castles are a waste precisely because you never let the enemy come up to your cities. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

With a castle, you can let an AI beat its head on the castle walls with a handful of catapults or even trebs for quite a while to little effect. In fact, I've noticed that after 10 turns or so, after I've used my own siege on the SOD and also sallied forth and whittled it down some, the AI seems to get bored and suicides the entire SOD against the castle while it's still at > 50% bonus.

And with Drill IV units, walls/castle/fort or not, you can let the enemy use siege and just shrug.

After taking Hauptman to task for using "always" it's probably bad form to toss out a "never".

[Theben]

Walls allow some nice events and Castles +1 trade routes, so they're not a complete waste.

[rah]

the AI seems to get bored and suicides the entire SOD against the castle while it's still at > 50% bonus.

Unless their siege units are almost dead, this is very rare.

[Ming]

Ming, come on. Walls and castles are a waste precisely because you never let the enemy come up to your cities. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But that's the point... that's why I consider them a waste
However, Theben does make a valid point when it comes to the extra trade route for castles. But, there are usually other things I prefer to build that are usually more useful.

With a castle, you can let an AI beat its head on the castle walls with a handful of catapults or even trebs for quite a while to little effect. In fact, I've noticed that after 10 turns or so, after I've used my own siege on the SOD and also sallied forth and whittled it down some, the AI seems to get bored and suicides the entire SOD against the castle while it's still at > 50% bonus.

I'm not a big fan of leaving an SoD next to one of my cities for 10 or more turns. And from what I've seen, in most cases, as long as the AI has seige engins left in the stack, they will continue to take down city walls before actually attacking.

And with Drill IV units, walls/castle/fort or not, you can let the enemy use siege and just shrug.

As stated before, I'm not a big fan of letting the AI actually get up next to my cities. IMHO, it's better to take them in the fiield since you have movement advantage on them.

After taking Hauptman to task for using "always" it's probably bad form to toss out a "never".

A valid point... However, my "never" was in regards to an opinion on a player action, not a discussion on game mechanics. While one can argue my opinion, you can't argue the fact that his statements were wrong.

[rah]

When an SOD has 40+ trebs, you're going to lose units if you allow them to attack.

[Ming]

Yep... even if you have a big advantage in terms of weapon technology, a huge stack of collateral damage units can do enough damage that even inferior units can then finish off the better units.

As I've said... it all comes down to who gets to use their collateral damage units first... and in your own territory, where you have the movement advantage, you should avoid allowing the enemy to use theirs first.

[Thoth]

Walls are good pre-construction, but unless I'm playing a Protective leader or have access to stone they're a low priority. I'd rather have the equivalent hammers worth of military units if I have to build them at full price.

Castles I build for the economic boost from the trade route and espionage bonus. Under the right circumstances they can be very hammer effective. Some games they're great, other games I don't bother. If I'm making an early run at Economics they don't have time to pay for themselves.

[Ming]

I've built a few Castles for economic reasons, especially if it's my UB. But generally, like you suggest, I would rather have the extra military units instead... because again, the best defense is a great offense

As far as the espionage bonus, it really isn't a consideration. Heck, I'm usually too busy checking to make sure that my cities aren't assigning spy specialists vs something I really want.