Not happy with fortresses

[joncnunn]

The ideal location for a fortress is a single-tile mountain choke point. And for goodnesss sake, if you build fortresses, fortify adequate defense units so it can't be used against you.

And if your going to build the Maignot line, be sure to finish it so it can't be driven around.

[Ursa]

Re: Not happy with fortresses

Originally posted by randomhero
I spent a lot of time and resources securing my border with fortresses but when I was finally invaded the AI did the smart thing and simply sneaked by the fortresses and attacked my cities.

So I was just thinking that building a fortress only makes sense in special circumstances.

I'm with you, randomhero. Not only does the AI bypass fortresses, it usually turns out that *I* want to extend my border beyond the defensive line I so diligently created. And since the "free shot" bonus is such an infrequent occurrence, I say fortresses are rarely worth the cost.

Here's a recent thread on the same topic: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=73143

Firaxis: How about an increased-visual-range bonus for fortresses? It'll be like they have radio equipment, or soemthing. Anyway.

[Brizey]

I hadn't thought about radar. The combination of the two makes a sort of remote military installation. 75% defense bonus on the square, plus 25% attack around it.

Put one of these babies on a mountain with two MI and about five MA. With RR around it, it makes a damn tough thing to get by.

(A civ4 idea: enhanced remote bases. Radar+fortress = installation. The idea is that the whole would be greater than the sum of the parts. For example, an installation would have 100% defense bonus and two squares ZOC. Whaddaya think?)

[Ursa]

now you're talking.

[ruby_maser]

The grid is the real problem, to me. The orthogonal grid makes it to where Maginot lines of fortresses are easy in diagonal directions but not in vertical or horizontal directions... because you still have to double up on the diagonals to make them secure.

I think fortresses lined up side by side vertically or horizontally should be considered locked (ie: no units can squeeze between them because they are now one fortress complex. You then have to attack the defenders and breach the wall to get through.

They should even go so far as to make special graphics to distinguish this from a regular fortress.

[Brizey]

ruby:

A better answer is a hex grid. I have never figured out why the hex grid made such a poor transition from PAP wargames to computer games. The only game I can think of at the moment that uses a hex grid is HOMM. Maybe some of the RTS games do, too, but you can't tell.

A hex grid solves all sorts of "problems" with movement, city placement, distance calculations, etc. It would result in a more organic look and feel as well.

Anyway, this post belongs in the general board.

[Barfus]

i wish fortifications were either more powerful, or not the only thing you could do. i mean, i am a student of ancient history, and things like constantinople would be grea to recreate. that is, major fortification complexes...and in future ages, bunkers etc. another thing that would be useful is when a unit, say mobile/mech infantry, is fortified within a fort, they can do a "hit and run" in which they attack from the fort and immediately return to the fort, so as not to leave its security. maybe to compensate, they attack with 75% strength or so (say because they leave some ammo in the base to be more mobile), but still have good defensive ratings because they are attacking with such speed and good "cover" from the fort itself. i dont kknow. i just know that lately, the military aspects of the game havent been getting enough attention as trade, and city management and all. and i like those things, but we cant forget military

[MoonWolf]

Many nice thoughts here... I liked Coracle one's for a solution to live with for the present time. I haven't the game here, but maybe it's possible to increase the hitpoints lost caused by ZOC? ZOC is a kind of flanking the enemy; it's vulnerable when it's passing by giving you a chance to damage it "by surprise".

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by Theseus
Fortresses are saving my -ss in AU 203.

I'll later post an AAR and screenshots in the 203 spoiler thread, but suffice it to say that China has been attacking me with HORDES of modded (8a-10d) Infantry, and a strong Maginot Line has been my salvation. Forget ZOC, forget free shots, I'm just talking defense bonuses.

Fortresses... God bless them, every one.

I'd cut through your line with a massive stack of Arty, but I'm not the AI. Or I'd go around with a massive naval invasion, but again I'm not the AI

[mattcj]

I'll use them here and there if I feel the need to protect a valuable resource that is near enemy lines and which I cannot afford to lose.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky


I'd cut through your line with a massive stack of Arty, but I'm not the AI. Or I'd go around with a massive naval invasion, but again I'm not the AI

Fair enough, but in SP I love'em. Later in the same game, I've been holding off MAs with Infantry and Arty in forts.

[Hurricane]

My main gripe is that fortresses aren't destroyed when captured by the enemy. This means an unoccupied or weakly defended fortress probably is worse than no fortress at all! You are really in big trouble if the enemy gets control of that mountain fortress just beside your city.

[GeneralTacticus]

To be fair, a fortress that's only lightly defended should be very easy to capture - and in war, empty fortifications ARE worse than none at all, unless you can get there before the enemy does. The only fortresses that should be destroyed on capture are oens that are heavily garrisoned, as you would very likely have to destroy the fortress in the process of killing the troops. Perhaps a solution to this might be to give fortresses hit points, whic they would lose as the fortress was attacked, and particularly if it was attacked by artillery. This would mean that if you have a force that just sits in a fortress and does nothing, you're free to blow the fortress away at your leisure and then butcher the troops inside, which would be realistic.

[MoonWolf]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
To be fair, a fortress that's only lightly defended should be very easy to capture - and in war, empty fortifications ARE worse than none at all, unless you can get there before the enemy does. The only fortresses that should be destroyed on capture are oens that are heavily garrisoned, as you would very likely have to destroy the fortress in the process of killing the troops. Perhaps a solution to this might be to give fortresses hit points, whic they would lose as the fortress was attacked, and particularly if it was attacked by artillery. This would mean that if you have a force that just sits in a fortress and does nothing, you're free to blow the fortress away at your leisure and then butcher the troops inside, which would be realistic.

Agree. Too bad we can't mod it that way. Have to be in Civ4

[PrinceBimz]

I build fortresses in choke points or valued areas. Also I found them good to establish a beachhead. For example, if I am planning an invasion across the ocean I will scout to find mountain or hill areas near the coasts. These will be good to build a fortress on provided they are 1-2 tiles away from an enemy city and major improvements. Then when I find a good area I will bring about 6 workers and a military defensive garrison. Along with them I will also bring 4-6 cannons or artillery.

As soon as I land on the coasts I begin construction of the fortress and fortify all the garrisons. Then my cannons will just sit back and open fire on cities and improvements. All the while I am sending more and more troops in and landing them in the fortress. When the AI comes at it to attack, my cannon and defensive bonus can really beat them. Usually it will hold out until I get more and more troops in. Eventually I can advance inland and attempt to capture the city I have been bombarding. I can capture it with just troops most of the time because it is so beaten down.