Not happy with fortresses

[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 wonder what you think about introducing ZOC (Zone Of Control) to fortresses to make it easier to force AI to attack them first.

Random Hero.

[ducki]

Well, if you don't have a good chokepoint, fortresses are going to be less useful.

Chokepoints, or enough units to force the AI to attack where you want him to.

[Jaybe]

Fortresses are appropriate as they are. They are only appropriate in particular instances and have to be properly supported, both within and outside.

History is ripe with fortifications being bypassed.

Units in a fortress DO exert a ZOC.
OTOH, I still agree that the affect of ZOC's are too weak. They should discourage passage through them but they do not seem to, either by player or AI. Perhaps it would be better if one or TWO hitpoints could be lost.

[randomhero]

I had 5 fortresses in a row with a single tile between them but that did nothing to stop the enemies. IMO it is unreasonable to expect more from this kind of defence.

So I learned my lesson and will build fortresses in chokepoints only. I dont see any reason to build one just outside of the city - it is a waste of resources and time.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by randomhero
... I dont see any reason to build one just outside of the city....

Oh, Quite Definitely (as in "Correct")!

To help protect a city or any valued area, build forts on hills/mountains that have clear terrain between them if such terrain exists. This forces them to go into a "killing ground," where you still need the artillery/units to destroy them.

If you have an expanse of open terrain, resources permitting you could build a solid line of forts, perhaps with a SECOND line to back it up. Understand however, that if a fort is taken it will benefit the enemy! A fort is the last thing that is destroyed by bombardment/pillaging (after roads/irrigation/mines).

[Jaybe]

Put it this way: If you ran into a lone fortress occupied by decent troops, YOU wouldn't attack it head on if you didn't have to, would you?

[randomhero]

I was just thinking that a fortress would possibly be useful in establishing a stronghold inside enemy territory (preferably on a mountain tile) provided I got at least six workers and lot of defensive units to protect them while they are fast-building the fortress.

[Jaybe]

... a stronghold inside enemy territory ...

That could work. While I have considered doing it myself, I have not. Use it to harbor your strike forces as you reinforce them. The problem lies that often, events outpace your methodical plans, and the front has moved (hopefully in your favor).

[Brizey]

Fortresses inside a city radius is a bad idea, unless only moutains or hills are between the fortress and the city. If gives an attacker a safe haven to sit a SOD and pound away at a city.

Fortesses are best used as they are in the real world. You need to station fast attackers protected by a decent defense unit or two. If an attacker does not try to hit the fortress, you can take the opportunity to hit the attacking army as it goes by. Don't forget to build roads!

One of the things missing in Civ3 is direction. In general armies are vectors, not points. In this example, there should be an attack bonus for attacking from a square that a unit just left. In other words, attacking from behind. This would make all sorts on new and interesting tactics. It would also emphasize the advantage of using the roads in one's own territory.

[Jaybe]

Brizey, now you want unit facing to allow for frontal or flank attacks! Very cool and right up my ally (being an old wargamer from the 70's). But not for Civ: the AI (and some players) would not be able to make use of it.

[Coracle]

A year ago I edited the fortresses, making them a little cheaper, a little stronger, and a little quicker to build. Otherwise, with no EFFECTIVE ZOC, they weren't worth the effort to build except in rare cases (such as blocking a peninsula).

Edit!

[Brizey]

Jaybe:

You are right about the AI. If other players can't deal with it, then tough noogies.

It would also add another dimension of unit differentiation. For example, take the Roman legions. One of the reasons they are given such a high defense ratings is because they were awesome at field defense works. In other words, they were tough to surprise with flanking attacks. With unit facings, this could be reflected by a nullification of the attack bonus when attcking from behind or from the side.

[Alex]

IMO, fortresses should play an important defensive role at all times in the game, but, unfortunately, that is not what happens. They are most useful in chokepoints and that's all.

[Shr3dZ]

They a couple more uses now that PtW is out. Use them to defend your radar stations and such, all it takes is 1 enemy unit to pass thru the terrirory and its destroyed.
Plus I perfer to have them with a couple arty in them to take pot shots as the AI attack, you can usually send most of the attackers home wounded before they get a chance to attack.

[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.