Did I just get shot at?

[Ursa]

So, I was sending an infantry unit from one city to another via railroad. Usually, the unit just kind of "appears" in the destination square, since travel by RR costs no movement. But along the way, my unit was fired upon by a lone AI unit perched atop a hill along the route. Anybody know how he was able to do this? And how can I do it too?!

By the way, is this how forts are supposed to work? I've built a couple along a mountainous border between me (Romans) and the Zulus, and for all their passing by, I've not once been able to take my "free shot" at them. Do I have any control over this, or is it automatic? Should I assume that, unless told otherwise, my fort scored no successful shot at the Zulus?

In general, are forts a waste of time?

[Keeper of Hell]

Auto shots can be taken any time a unit travelling by railroad passes directly adjacent to an enemy unit, as far as I know. I'm not sure if all units can take shots, though I've definitely seen tanks, MAs, Marines, and MIs taking shots before. Forts provide a defense bonus (50%?) to any unit who is attacked while on them. I don't think it matters whether the fort is friendly or enemy, though it may. Forts don't increase or decrease your chances for taking a shot at an enemy. And yes, you should see it if your unit does get a shot at an enemy.
In my opinion, the most annoying aspect of the auto-shot is the stacked movement aspect. If you send a large stack of units to somewhere by rail and they pass within the range of some unit who can take an auto-shot, rather than changing course after the first shot or allowing the player to change where they're moving to, the entire stack will go the exact same route, often resulting in about half of them arriving at the battlefield already injured.

[Ursa]

You mean certain eligible units can take free shots, even without the benefit of being garrisoned in a fort? (But only when adjacent to RRs, not roads?) But isn't that supposed to be half the benefit (other than the defensive bonus) of forts and why anyone would bother building them? And why no mention of this in the Civilopedia/game manual?

One of the reasons why this bugs me so much is that it happens SO infrequently. It hardly seems to deserve to exist as a defensive feature. I've seen it happen only twice in my current game (I barely caught it the first time), and my civ has been at war all its history, just about.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Keeper of Hell
Forts don't increase or decrease your chances for taking a shot at an enemy. And yes, you should see it if your unit does get a shot at an enemy.

That's not true. Any unit that's inside a Fort will have the ability of getting a free shot, regardless of whether they have ZoC enabled. It just doesn't happen very often, which is probably why you don't think it does.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ursa
You mean certain eligible units can take free shots, even without the benefit of being garrisoned in a fort? (But only when adjacent to RRs, not roads?) But isn't that supposed to be half the benefit (other than the defensive bonus) of forts and why anyone would bother building them? And why no mention of this in the Civilopedia/game manual?

One of the reasons why this bugs me so much is that it happens SO infrequently. It hardly seems to deserve to exist as a defensive feature. I've seen it happen only twice in my current game (I barely caught it the first time), and my civ has been at war all its history, just about.

It's called Zone of Control, or ZoC, some units have it, some don't. Take a look in the editor in the Units area to find out which do. But any unit in a Fort has ZoC abilities.

I agree with you, it's not very well documented, and it doesn't work very good. In fact it's almost useless.

[Major Guz]

I do not consider fortresses useless:

They provide units very high bonuses on their defense (+50%),which are cumulative with terrain bunuses, such as mountains (+100%) and fortification bonuses.

So a fortress built on a mountain provides even a mere spearman (fortified of course) with a defensive value of 2*1.5 (Fort) = 3 and 3*2.0 (mountains) = 6 and 6*1.25 (fortified)= 7.5 + an added "extra" in the form of a ZoC (please correct me if I'm wrong) so even a spearman on a fortress in mountains is a foe to be reckoned with (especially in the early ages that is) and I would not even attack him with infantry for my chances would be slim (even on hills will still give a spearman 5.6 on defense).

My point here is that by fortifying units on mountain/hills in a fortress more or less dictates the enemy to take a different route. If it does not your units in the fortress wil likely take a shot at passing enemy units.

Stats for some defensive units fortified in fortresses on:

Unit mountains hills flatland
Spearman 7.5 5.625 3.75
Pikeman 11.25 8.44 5.625
Musketman 15 11.25 7.5
Rifleman 22.5 16.8 11.25
Infantry 37.5 28.125 18.75
Mech Inf 67.5 50.625 33.75

I did not calculate the fact if attacker is crossing a river during its attack.

[bobbo008]

was it a zulu unit firing? (you must have been at peace with them)

[tinyp3nis]

So a fortress built on a mountain provides even a mere spearman (fortified of course) with a defensive value of 2*1.5 (Fort) = 3 and 3*2.0 (mountains) = 6 and 6*1.25 (fortified)= 7.5

I'm not sure about this, but isn't the defence calculated a bit differently? 50%+100%+25%=175% --> 2 x 2.75 = 5.5 So you add instead of multiplying. Anyone confirn this?

[bobbo008]

somebody just checked the math..ahhh...

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by bobbo008
somebody just checked the math..ahhh...

Come take another look, maybe now someone answered your question aHAHHAHA I feel silly today

[bobbo008]

..numbers...bobbo home sick... 11:25 central should be pre-calc time... math talk stops now...

[Ursa]

Originally posted by Major Guz

My point here is that by fortifying units on mountain/hills in a fortress more or less dictates the enemy to take a different route. If it does not your units in the fortress wil likely take a shot at passing enemy units.

Stats for some defensive units fortified in fortresses on:

Unit mountains hills flatland
Spearman 7.5 5.625 3.75
Pikeman 11.25 8.44 5.625
Musketman 15 11.25 7.5
Rifleman 22.5 16.8 11.25
Infantry 37.5 28.125 18.75
Mech Inf 67.5 50.625 33.75

I did not calculate the fact if attacker is crossing a river during its attack.

You make a convincing argument for the effectiveness of fortresses during a defensive encounter. But I wonder about the number of times in an average game you would actually benefit from those encounters. Unless you're playing a map with an unavoidable choke point (like an isthmus), AI units will simply go around your fortress. And how long will that choke point remain at a border, and worth defending? We all know how temporary national borders are in Civ3.

It seems to me that this fact--plus the cost (in worker labor) of building fortresses--makes fortresses a wasted investment. In my current game, they've clearly become the Roman version of the (French, WWII) Maginot Line.

[Shr3dZ]

Correct me if Im wrong, all units after/including the Infantry get ZoC, its a small percent chance to take a shot at a passing unit regardless of if theyre traveling on rail, road, or just terrian. The fortress gives all units ZoC, everything from militia to riflemen IFAIK.

I can think of numerous times where a few well placed fortresses realy wouldve saved my butt. Even if the AI wouldve avoided them completely, at least it wouldve made a smaller front-lines area.

1 last thing, Id like to challenge anyone with time to find where (which page) in the manual it states the defensive bonus for fortifying. I looked for about 2 second in the ptw manual before going to the Civ3 manual. I look under everything that made sense - fortify... garrison... unit orders... even in the fortify/garrison paragraph it didnt mention the percentage, just that fortifying your units will cause them to continually skip turns...

[Carver]

Originally posted by Ursa

It seems to me that this fact--plus the cost (in worker labor) of building fortresses--makes fortresses a wasted investment. In my current game, they've clearly become the Roman version of the (French, WWII) Maginot Line.

But the French Maginot Line worked, and its works in Civ3 too. The Germans went around the Maginot Line, not through it.

As Major Guz has stated, by building these defensive emplacements you dictate to your enemy that he must find another route. If the only other route is by sea, a few galleons/transports dropping off some units now and then is much easier to handle than a 100+ unit stack of death coming over land. Or you can direct the enemy to march between two large cities (with good def. bonuses) and take arty pot shots at them after which your attackers finish off the injured enemy units.

It all depends on the type of game you're playing. If your goal is to stampede across your whole continent by 1000AD, you probably don't need a Maginot Line. But if, like me, you don't want to eliminate everybody (going for space race) and enjoy having a land border, a Maginot Line can be a source of national pride.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ursa
Unless you're playing a map with an unavoidable choke point (like an isthmus), AI units will simply go around your fortress. And how long will that choke point remain at a border, and worth defending? We all know how temporary national borders are in Civ3.

If you have an Artillery piece in that Fort they're passing, you might get the option of hitting them 3-5 times through bombardment. And maybe ZoC damage as well. If you're lucky, they'll be so badly damaged they'll no longer pose a threat.