Fort Cities

[UnOrthOdOx]

That's what I get for reading the top post and hitting the reply button.

[binyo66]

What should we do with the "culture towns"? Disband them? Because they have enough culture (100 point) each already?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by binyo66
What should we do with the "culture towns"? Disband them? Because they have enough culture (100 point) each already?

After an opposing city is flipped you can usually disband the city you just got, or your own if the other one is better developed. Tight city spacing isn't all that bad, but when you're building cities so close with the express purpose of flipping another city, it's usually best if you disband one of them.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by eris
Similar to the original example of a fort city which was used for access is the "leap frog city". This comes up in the age of railroads. With fast attack units (cavalry and MA), taking a city surrounded by rairoads can open that fast attack to nearby cities. For instance, my Squad of Doom sits just on the border and can reach the nearest city in three moves of unaccelerated movement. Each member in the stack attacks the city one at a time. When that city falls, its new borders extend my borders. The rest of the stack (with no movement points expended) uses the rail system to move to the extended border at 0 movement cost. There are still no movement points expended. Then the stack is again within range to take a city. If I have planned this out, I can take three or four cities with a big, big stack and a little bit of luck. One of the advantages of this method is that it can be used to reduce the culture flip pressure on the newly captured cities by reducing the amount of overlap from the opponent's as-yet-uncaptured cities. Another advantage is my perception of the emotional shock value imposed on my opponent by losing so many cities at once. I know the AI doesn't react that way. But why let such knowledge get in the way of a good gloat?

Yes, it is a good tactic that can be very effective, especially with 3-move Cavalry and often against a human opponent. Humans will often leave their inner cities undefended, so if you can get by their initial defenses you basically have free reign to destroy everything behind the front line.

Another fort city category is the "irrigation pump". A city on a hill can get water from a wet region to a dry region. I don't expect that to be news to many of you, but I like adding to the list of "fort cities". I look forward to hearing other examples. This is interesting.

I wouldn't technically refer to this type of city as a "fort," though it does certainly have a specific purpose. The reason I wouldn't classify it as a fort is because its distinction is most often temporary, moreso than the other kinds of cities I've listed above. A Worker or Settler pump is almost always converted into a "regular" core city once enough Workers/Settlers have been produced, and its special distinction fades away. While you could argue the same for some culture or ZoC forts, they are built mostly without future consideration (whereas you wouldn't build a Worker or Settler pump without trying to fit it in with the rest of your cities in an organized fashion). But that's just my opinion.

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by Trip
I wouldn't technically refer to this type of city as a "fort," though it does certainly have a specific purpose.

I think you've misread the description. It's not a settler or worker pump, it's an irrigation pump. Say you've got a city on the plains with no source of water, and a river on the other side of the hills. You can't irrigate over hills to get the water there (you could in Civ1, of course...). So you build a city on the hill, which acts as an irrigation square and lets you get the irrigation to where it's needed, possibly disbanding the city once the water is over the hill.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Plotinus
I think you've misread the description. It's not a settler or worker pump, it's an irrigation pump. Say you've got a city on the plains with no source of water, and a river on the other side of the hills. You can't irrigate over hills to get the water there (you could in Civ1, of course...). So you build a city on the hill, which acts as an irrigation square and lets you get the irrigation to where it's needed, possibly disbanding the city once the water is over the hill.

Well, in Civ 3 irrigation doesn't transfer through a city on a hill the same as you can't get it over a hill in the first place...

[Arrian]

Trip, in Conquests, you CAN irrigate through a hill city. If you have a source of water - city on hill - plains, for instance, you can irrigate those plains.

It wasn't like that before Conquests, IIRC.

-Arrian

[UnOrthOdOx]

Doh!

That would have been usefull info in that NTTC game...

[Dominae]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
That would have been usefull info in that NTTC game...

Oh my, in that case you must be having a very interesting game...

[Arrian]

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Arrian
Trip, in Conquests, you CAN irrigate through a hill city. If you have a source of water - city on hill - plains, for instance, you can irrigate those plains.

It wasn't like that before Conquests, IIRC.

Well, that changes things.

Somebody forgot to send me the memo.

[Solomwi]

That explains the lack of cover sheets on all your TPS reports. I'll make sure you get another copy of that memo.

[Arrian]

And give me back my stapler. Excuse me! You have my stapler...

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Dominae




Oh my, in that case you must be having a very interesting game...

Let's just say that major war and irrigation chain cutting right through the damn swamp I came up with to bring water to the core now looks rather idiotic.

[vmxa1]

I think the irrigation via a city on a hill was beaten about in one of the AU threads awhile back.