Why not build forts?

[Aaron Burr]

In my opinion, pre-working a settler is a cheat because it exploits an unintended loophole. ( but mainly because I didn't think of it myself)
[This message has been edited by Aaron Burr (edited November 12, 1999).]

[Sergeant Sheets]

I never built a fortress in standard civ. In MP, one should use fortess for the following:

1. to close off a bottleneck.
2. Fill up the second square of an island with one of your cities on it.
3. To surround a completely land-locked city that just happens to have 5 of your wonders in it.

[Smash]

Pre worked settler cheat-I don't think it is.In a recent single player game I wanted to build a mine.However an ai caravan blocked my way.My settler could not move anywhere.So I started a mine knowing that I could stop and move him after the caravan was gone.It must have been intended like this.It does require effort to pre work and move a settler into position.2+ turns.War on 1x movement is very difficult without it.

[Aaron Burr]

Let me see if I understand -- your settler will excavate 9/10ths of a mine near(say) Rome (away from the nasty enemy units), then move to Athens for one turn and the mine will appear there instantly under the enemy's nose -- and this doesn't feel like a cheat? Same issue with forts (although the idea of a 'pre-fab' fort is somewhat more acceptible than a pre-fab mine).

Settlers/Engineers shouldn't be able to do the work in the rear and have the results appear instantly at the front. As I stated before, this feels more like a loophole than an intended feature.

[Carolus Rex]

You don't need to build a mine because the settler was mining. First mine (or whatever) at home, then build the instant fortress in enemy territory.

Carolus

[Carolus Rex]

I also think it's a loophole. OK to use it if all the other players agree on it IMHO.

Carolus

[Sieve Too]

Guys, it's a cheat. Use it in MP if others agree. In single player, nope. It passes all criteria I need to make it a cheat:

1) It's not in any documentation anywhere
2) AI never does it
3) It's counter-intuitive
4) The steps to do it require odd contortions that one wouldn't normall do.
5) Benefit too good for the cost.

[Smash]

ok.now my list of pre-long term game discussion has grown again

1.City bribes?yes/no
2.Unit trading for movement?yes/no
3.Caravan trading?yes/no
4.Sharing wonders?yes/no
5.City swaps?yes/no
6.City improvement sabotage?yes/no
7.Pre-working settlers for military purposes?yes/no

I'm sure there are others I have forgotten.


regarding #6-In a recent attempt at tearing down walls,I took out a library twice,temple twice,granary,aquaduct,barracks and finally walls went down.I felt kinda bad.It seemed terribly unfair.Against a strong Democracy too.What else could I do?His territory was running red with the blood of my futile attacks against his walled fortified vet defenders.I couldn't wait around for espionage.Not only have I more or less destroyed my opponents city,I have also ruined it for myself should I be fortunate enough to capture it.I wish diplomats had the option of "blowing up walls"

[klesh]

I rarely build forts.
However in one WWII scenario, a mountain fort along the Soviet railroad in between Moscow and the rest of USSR became the bloodiest square in the world. Every turn the Soviets spent literally 20 tanks trying to break through, but they never did.
I cannot express the value of this fort, but there are rarely the cases that mirror this.
They can be useful but not that much. And if they fall into the wrong hands.....look out.

[Aurelius]

Interesting, I haven't seen this thread before. But I use the mining trick all the time. Especially in OCC during the space race. Lately, I've stopped building solar plants and instead have 2 engineers building mines for a turn and then waiting to clean up pollution instantaneously. Has this mining trick been discussed in the OCC ethics?

Oh, I always build fortresses right next to the enemy city. Saves stacks and keeps the democracy happy....they can always be pillaged later.

Field Marshall, I would love to see twenty tanks in one turn bite the mountain's masonry.

Aurelius.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I think pre worked settlers are ok. Your not really getting anything for free. The work still has to be done. After the instand fort you still need to repeat the process to do it again. I look at it like being perpared for war. You HAVE to have this in MP. Forts anyway.

[klesh]

Aurelius,

2194 Days of War scenario.
Best WWII I've ever seen.
The fort is just east of the next city east of Moscow(the name escapes me now)
Take it and watch Mr. Stalin slaughter his armored divisions.....he he he

[jlmk]

Well, Iv'e never built forts.Or perhaps rarely build forts.However I must say I think it would be fine if my settlers ever had time to build forts.One question; can you use your opponents fort?

[Sieve Too]

Forts are a land improvement like irrigation and railroads. They can be used by anyone who is on that land square.

IMHO pre-working Settlers to build forts is still a cheat. Sure in MP anything goes, but against the AI? You are only giving yourself an unfair, undocumented advantage over the already hapless AI.
[This message has been edited by Sieve Too (edited January 05, 2000).]

[KenThur]

I agree, this "pre-working settlers" is an outright CHEAT!
It has NO basis in fact. What R U pre-building? Earthworks? Concrete bunkers? Trenches? Rolls of barbed wire?

Then somehow U magically pick all this stuff up & move it NEXT TO THE ENEMY!!?? I don't THINK so.

Bridges, ports, airports... ok, but FORTS!? MINES!? I don't THINK SO.

Better not pull this crap playing against me, that= a cheat = default loss by the doer.

This game is based on REAL possibilities, not fantasy & magic events!

Glad i read this so i'll know a cheat if he tries this on me.

Boo! Hiss-hiss!

------------------
"Hm-m-m, doubt me you will?"