Why not build forts?

tobyr · November 8, 1999, 17:41

A poster on one of the strategy threads said he never builds forts -- because the front line of an attack moves but the forts do not. BUT:

How about forts on defense?

When I defend a city from an intense attack by putting a few adjacent forts on hills or in forests, I can put a few hitech defenders in these forts and watch the AI waste unit after unit trying to attack them. I'm keeping the attackers out of the city squares, and I can just ignore the attackers and go on about my business. What would be better than that?

- toby robison

------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

johnmcd · November 9, 1999, 05:45

I have never built a fort. What you describe is certainly good and all but there are problems with it too. Instead of a fort you could have had a farm for the time spent, which would always be useful instead of, perhaps, being useful twice. Also to have a useful fort it must have a garrison which must be built and occasionally upgraded (I upgrade phalanx to riflemen to alpine troops to mechanised infantry in threatened areas), the unit(s) will also draw shields in support and if lost a fort can be a pain to regain. Furthermore a city wall offers more protection, your units heal more quickly in a town and you are actually defending what you want to hold which means your units won't be cut off by zones of control or caught out by a surprise landing (while they would presumably not be so far from home they couldn't get back, they may well miss out on their full fortification bonuses). Also once the front line advances past your old defensive position barbarians have a bad habit of making themselves at home.
All in all I see forts as essentially aggressive rather than defensive, and if the computer didn't litter its own terrain with them then I would certainly have to build my own.

DaveV · November 9, 1999, 08:17

It's a cliche, but the best defense is a good offense. The AIs are miserable generals and rarely mount an attack of any substance. If you are Supreme and expanding aggressively, the AIs will usually be so intimidated that they'll scramble to maintain peace with you.

For those who play a more static, "builder" style game, forts make a lot more sense. As they do in multiplayer. But I personally can always find something better for my settlers to do.

jpk · November 9, 1999, 10:57

I rarely build forts. When I do a always have a road from the fort back to the city.

Unless your government is Democracy put two units in the fort so they can not be bribed.

The purpose of the road is to allow you to rotate damaged units back to the city for quick repairs and move a healthy unit from the city to the fort. Usually the AI decides to attack from a certain direction and then operates with a "If at first you don't succeed try, try again" plan of attack. Because of this feature, I find the injured unit in the city generally provides sufficient defense. If you play against a human, this plan may not work quite as well.

The forts the AI builds are another thing entirely. If you place units in forts prior to taking a city you will inhibit the AI's plan for retaking the city. I use their forts all the time. Of course this statement presumes the AI, in fact, has a plan.

Flavor Dave · November 9, 1999, 12:18

This is nuts!! I build forts all the time!!

1. I sometimes play perfectionist, sometimes halfway between perf. and exp. Either way, you get to a point where you don't want to grow any further in a given direction, at least for a while. Find a mountain or hill, put a fast attack and a defense unit in it, and build a fortress. Then you don't have to worry about what might come over the horizon.
2. My main weapons of conquest are spies and artillery (if/when I get to howies, the main work has been done.) I build fortresses outside of the target city, put in one or two strong defensive units, and pound away.
3. I just played a hyper-perfectionist game. I had only 5 cities. I build about a half dozen fortresses on the coastal squares likely to see invasion, and laughed as transports kept coming up and then sailing away. I also build a series of fortresses on the only likely path of invasion, and when it finally came, it got nowhere.
4. Fortresses prevent barbarians from popping up and pillaging the mined coal, or the irrigated plain, or (best square of all) the mined, RR'd, and airbased grapes.

The AI doesn't bypass, it bludgeons. Now, if you're the kind of player who attacks 100%, then fortresses aren't very important. But the more perf. you are, the better they are. They provide complete peace of mind. It's soooo fun to watch the AI waste shields trying to take my muskrat fortressed on a mountain with crusaders.

November 9, 1999, 16:09

I always play on the world or europe, being the russians and expand south and SE, so i build a LARGE wall of fortified musketeers with cannons from the caspian to the arctic sea.

------------------
Alien Infiltrate

Miner · November 10, 1999, 01:04

Yeah way to go Mr Dave! couldn't agree more, tending as I do toward perfectionist play.

Of course the other reason I like forts, you can stick a defender & diplo in one of those spots were barbs appear (you know the ones, usually bad terrain areas no good for cities) and bribe whatever comes near - endless supply of NON units!

tobyr · November 10, 1999, 01:16

I disagree with what johnmcd says above. If I had not built the line of forts, I could indeed have farms instead, but the enemy units would be sitting on the farms as they attacked my city walls, and I would have no use of them. The line of forts defends my precious city squares from occupation.

Support of the troops in the fort is an issue, but I'm getting a great return. I have to replace a unit maybe once in twenty turns, and one to three units die attacking them EVERY turn.

By the way, in the case I discuss, I am a democracy, and I believed I was not strong enough to counter attack this country.

- toby robison

------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

johnmcd · November 11, 1999, 07:55

Well first of all I still believe I believe I'm right. I have never had a city laid siege to by the AI and with roads to your city the AI will spend one turn at most clogging up your farms. I don't see what difference playing perfectionist makes, I do too. Of course your cities are precious and that is exactly why you should defend them directly, not obliquely. I sometimes have a man in the field wandering around the border looking for spies and diplos, but I'll use an explorer so as not to cause unhappiness. I believe that the resources put into defending a frontier at three or more points with forts is far in excess of what could have been done more effectively in city. As jpk mentioned above to be certain your defence will not go horribly wrong you must have two units per fort. At the end of the day though, there are so many methods and means of doing things right in Civ that no one technique is the right one.

Grishnakh · November 11, 1999, 12:34

One good thing with fortresses is that you can use them to send back home enemy diplos. In a game a while ago, the sioux kept sending a couple of diplos to one of my cities over and over again, just to be expelled by my fortified riflemen. I had a good laugh! I use this strategy quite often when I play in democracy and have stopped expanding in a certain direction, it's a very efficient way of keeping the AI's dirty hands off your mobile warfare or whatever he's looking for in your cities

Campo · November 11, 1999, 14:02

How do you deal with the annoyance factor when the AI keeps repeating an action? Recently I was in the situation you described above, with spies trying to steal my tech. I had to expel the same two spies every single turn. I wasn't ready for war, so I didn't want to kill them, but I got tired of expelling them again and again.

The AI has no boredom limitation.

jpk · November 11, 1999, 14:25

The repeated futile actions by AI diplomats is a great annoyance. To the best of my knowledge there is no way to stop it short of going to war. What is really maddening is that the AI often has a viable alternative strategy that is never used. For example build a boat, put some diplomats on the boat, sail up to a city, and then swipe a technology or whatever.

Sieve Too · November 11, 1999, 20:38

Forts are a must for perfectionist players. Why let the barbs and AI inside your city radii at all? There's nothing more annoying than watching the AI or barbs pillage your land.

I also disagree with the notion that forts provide less defense than city walls. In general this is not true since cities tend to be built on grass or plains while forts are built in mountains or hills

Finally, don't forget the value of forts for the offensive player. Two Engineers can instantly build a fort next to an AI city while you are working to bring up the "big gun" units (Cannon, Artillery, Howitzer) to fill it.

My Wife Hates CIV · November 11, 1999, 22:55

I use forts now only when attacking. I pre work settlers on forest or hill sqaures. move them next to a enemy city and *poof*, instand fort. I than move in defensive units and whatever I have for big guns. Next turn I start pounding on the city. The AI has no way to defend against this. This also works well in MP. I'm more careful now about placing roads in MP. Roads connecting my cities need watch point forts now to prevent other players from doing this to me.

Is this a cheat?

johnmcd · November 12, 1999, 06:12

I don't think it's a cheat. I think it is probably what forts are meant to be used for. I go for a similar, though more aggressive technique. In a time of peace I'll ensure that there is a road to the target city. Then, using a pair of engineers, I can lay railroad to the door. This allows me to launch my attack the same turn. If you can spare a dozen engineers for one turn you can cover six tiles in railroad in a turn, then role in and flatten the city with said artillery. The advantage being that there is not even one turns warning, a proper blitzkrieg.

IMHO have made my repost to Steve Too's first paragraph in both my previous posts on this thread, and on the strategy thread that is refereed to at the kick off. As I say, I have never been pillaged by the AI as far as I can remember and barbs are a nuisance rather than a menace. You also spend much more in shields for very little more in defence. For a more humorous take on the personal problems suffered by these fortified units outside town read Lycidus's posts on http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/000865.html
If I can't persuade you, maybe their testimony will.

[This message has been edited by johnmcd (edited November 12, 1999).]

Aaron Burr · November 12, 1999, 18:30

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 · November 12, 1999, 20:20

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 · November 12, 1999, 20:59

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 · November 13, 1999, 14:15

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 · November 13, 1999, 17:49

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 · November 13, 1999, 17:52

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

Carolus

Sieve Too · November 15, 1999, 21:10

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 · November 15, 1999, 21:57

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 · January 4, 2000, 17:01

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 · January 4, 2000, 17:58

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 · January 4, 2000, 19:14

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 · January 5, 2000, 01:10

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 · January 5, 2000, 08:21

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 · January 5, 2000, 08:40

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 · January 9, 2000, 18:48

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?"