26-07-2001 12:04									#1
	Fortress & Military Installation Remove this text

I think the modern day fortress should be something like a military installation(x) (I'm not the person who came up w/ the modern day fortress idea, the specifics of the idea are mine though). The MI would help repair your units at the rate of 50%and do the same thing as a fortress unless the MI can do it better(*). If you wanted a MI inplace of a fortress a worker would have to upgrade it the same way roads are upgraded to railroads. I also think to help prevent so many fortresses being built the fotress & MI should cost money to maintain. The fortress should cost 1 gold per turn. Therefore, the MI should cost 2 gold per turn.

(*)- The fortress & MI would give a 200% defense advantage. Having a unit in a fortress any where in your borders will not cause any unhappiness at all (this is obvious if when a unit is in your national borders you are never caused unhappiness). Having a unit(1) in a fortress outside of your borders will not cause any unhappiness at all but as soon as the second unit(2) from that city leaves the borders, regardless if in a fortress or not, that unit(2) will become unhappy. So the city will inquire one unhappy citizen (variables such as gov., city improvements, luxuries, etc... could manipulate this system). [An example of this is that if you were to be a Republic (Civ2 rules apply here Republic). In London if you had a trireme out sailing the waters, therefore you wouldn't have any unhappiness in London until one more unit left the city. Your Civ has a fortress out of your national borders. In that fortress you have a unit inside it from London. You will still not be seeing unhappiness in London, even though you have two units out of London. But if a third unit were to leave London and go into that same fortress you would be experiencing one unhappiness.] MIs will support up to two units in the unhappiness realm, instead of one like the regular fortress. Fortresses & MIs will be able to be placed on any tile excluding ocean, mountain (to comply with city rule), and city tiles. Side Notes - MI's will be able to be produced at 100% slower rate than a fortress. Also, injured units in a fortress will be able to recover at the rate of 25% per turn.

I think having this new fortress/military installation system they would become much more strategical and valuable. Please comment and add anything to help enhance this system. [Some of the ideas given in the thread have been used.]

Last edited by TechWins on 16-10-2001 at 06:07

	26-07-2001 17:36									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I believe that fortresses have been outdated since WWI, just look at the Maginot Line and Dien Bien Phu. The only reason why Khe Sahn wasn't overrun was because of intensive airpower and resupply (my father was there). I think fortresses should actually be eventually outdated around the armor technology with a replacement being an attack or smaller defensive bonus in nearby territories, sort of like the sensors in SMAC. This would be due to being closer to your supply lines and command leadership.

Another idea is that fortresses they give a sight bonus or a ZOC to a unit without one. I especially believe in the ZOC addition. It makes fortifying your borders a much more important and usable feature.

	26-07-2001 17:58									#3
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV I believe that fortresses have been outdated since WWI, just look at the Maginot Line and Dien Bien Phu.

I don't know about the latter, but didn't the Germans just go around the Maginot Line? I recall that it was state of the art defence and would have been very costly to destroy, and or go over. The Netherlands on the otherhand could be bulldozed (relativly speaking) with little resistance and give an open hiway to the inside of France. Big military instalations are useless if you go around them.

Ioanes

	26-07-2001 18:06									#4
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Big military emplacements have certainly fallen out of favour since WWII. I expect it is because these days shells and missiles can be launched from over the horizon with sufficient accuracy and power to destroy them. Having fortresses go obsolete with the discovery of rocketry would be an idea. I certainly don't agree with modern forts becoming more effective.

Military bases that just repair troops would be no bad thing, but perhaps Firaxis think there are enough cities around that it is not necessary.

	26-07-2001 18:11									#5
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by JMarks I don't know about the latter, but didn't the Germans just go around the Maginot Line?

That was my point, following WWI, large scale fortresses were next to useless, fortresses in Civ2 should eventually become obsolete as well.

	26-07-2001 18:25									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think, Military Base should work as an Airbase and repair units also. ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Systems could be built to Military Bases to defend it from missile attacks, SAM Batteries to help against Air attacks and bunkers to help against land attacks. I think, you should be able to choose, what things to build to your Military Bases (each thing takes some time and maintainance cost).

As for upkeep, ½ gold for fortress would be insufficient. Maybe 1 gold for fortress and 1 gold for 1 type of defense in MI would be good.

Then, I think, you should be able to build some defensive installations such as trenches or bunkers. They could double the defensive power of units and half the damage, done to the units in trenches (infantry in trenches is much harder to over-run than infantry on normal terrain. It's very hard to fire to trench with tank or rifle. Missiles can't be targeted that accurately either, so they would pose little threat to units in trenches). I also think, you should be able to build coastal defense lines (like Atlantic Wall. It fell only because of concentration of the defenses to a wrong place).

Oh, and trenches were used during WW2 in Finland... My grand-father fought at some of those Finnish lines (as a defender) and trenches certainly help to keep your positions, so I really think, they wouldn't become obsolete very soon.

	26-07-2001 18:31									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'm not arguing against trenches, every infantryman still builds trenches, the US did in the Gulf War, they're represented by the 'f' fortify command. But large-scale set fortifications which is what fortresses represent, those don't work. Look at Saddam's Line of Death in the Gulf.

	26-07-2001 18:41									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

In Gulf, Saddam was greatly outmatched in technology, so it really ain't a very good place to take examples from.

Oh, and fortify command could rather present fox-holes than trenches with minefields, tank-obstacles, bunkers, AA-stations (read, defensive lines) and such... They're quite expensive and need to manned (what good is a defensive line without men), but still they're useful. Iraq didn't stand a chance with their technology during the Gulf War...

	26-07-2001 18:54									#9
	Remove this text

Full trenches don't stand a chance against modern armies, whether they be British, French, German, American, or even Chinese. By taking away your mobility, you take away any chance of winning. The ability to move around fortified positions and just hammer you with artillery make them useless. Smaller fortified positions are okay as they are not permanent structures, but full fortresses of the Civ model are currently obsolete.

	26-07-2001 19:22									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Fortresses, that aren't in any choke point are useless, as you can just go around them. But, when one is in a choke point, it can effectively stop the movement of an army. Oh, and most fortificated positions can stand even the heavies artillery attacks (if they've digged deep enough, the rock will do the job for them). Also, who defender would be stupid enough not to bring some of his own artillery to counter enemy artillery threats.

Oh, and you only sacrafice the mobility for the period of time, when you don't need it. You can still attack and if the attack fails, you still have a place, where to retreat to defend at.

	27-07-2001 01:07									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Reading the posts in this topic made me think about unhappiness in cities caused by military units. In CivII units were tied to specific cities and caused unhappiness only in that city. If I am remembering correctly (and I am way to lazy to check) in Civ3 units will be supported by the entire civilization. Will the unit still cause unhappiness only in the city in which it was built?

	27-07-2001 01:54									#12
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Reading the posts in this topic made me think about unhappiness in cities caused by military units. In CivII units were tied to specific cities and caused unhappiness only in that city. If I am remembering correctly (and I am way to lazy to check) in Civ3 units will be supported by the entire civilization. Will the unit still cause unhappiness only in the city in which it was built?

It hasn't been confirmed on how unhappiness wil used. The unhappiness system I used in post is that units will be produced by a city and then supported by the nation. The city will get unhappiness of a unit that it has built if the unit becomes unhappy. I also figured that your units would only become unhappy if they were out of your borders. I'm not sure if this will be the way that Civ3 will work but I was just assuming it to be this way.

quote: Another idea is that fortresses they give a sight bonus or a ZOC to a unit without one. I especially believe in the ZOC addition. It makes fortifying your borders a much more important and usable feature.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Maybe a fortress could see 2 tiles away and a mi could see 3 tiles away.

quote: As for upkeep, ½ gold for fortress would be insufficient. Maybe 1 gold for fortress and 1 gold for 1 type of defense in MI would be good.

That wasn't an exact number that has to be put inplace. The fortress could be 1 gold and the mi 2 gold. I don't know what numbers would work best for the game. I could tell you some more accurate numbers if I knew a lot more about Civ3. This isn't going to be implemented but it's worth mentioning.

quote: I think fortresses should actually be eventually outdated around the armor technology

Another good idea from you. The fortress would become obsolete at the discovery of mobile warfare (or whatever they are going to call it in Civ3). Also with that discovery you will now be able to build in mis.

	27-07-2001 02:02									#13
	Tired of ads?

cities with barracks repair units there for a full turn to 100% hp.

so if a mech inf was on it, every turn it would have 100% hp again.

sounds whore-ish to me. just stack 10 mech infs on it.

	27-07-2001 02:10									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Serapis: what about Hitler's atlantic wall? the allies spent a couple years preparing to assault it. but your right, fortresses are out of date now.

if fortresses did eventually become obsolete and disappear after a certain amount of turns, wouldn't this fix the AI's fascination with them?

and of course you shouldn't be able to build fortresses after reaching a certain level of technology. robotics maybe?

	27-07-2001 03:03									#15
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

i always found that funny, the AI built fortresses on grasslands one spot away from a mountain-bottleneck.

and more times than a few they build a bunch of fortresses in their own land, and they DONT EVEN USE THEM. SO I DO.

	27-07-2001 04:03									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX i always found that funny, the AI built fortresses on grasslands one spot away from a mountain-bottleneck. and more times than a few they build a bunch of fortresses in their own land, and they DONT EVEN USE THEM. SO I DO.

You know, you are comeletely correct...the best thing the AI does for me in Civ2 is to build all of those fortresses so close to thier cities that I could stack my weak-defenced, high-offence units in 'em and put a defencive unit or two in to protect them... Thanks AI! Well, at least untill RRs rolled around and then I could pick one enemy fortress as a base and use the unlimited movement of the tracks to blitzkried my AI opponents into submission...

... I hope this changes in Civ3.

	27-07-2001 06:08									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: cities with barracks repair units there for a full turn to 100% hp.

Yeah, exactly. This would enable mis to become very valuable. It shouldn't be too easy to get through a mi. You will have to continue to attack the mi continously, like a city with a barracks. I don't understand what's the big deal about having it be this way.

The mis should cost as much gold per turn as a barracks does (3 gold in Civ2). This would also counterpart the fact that mis are so powerful. Fortress would cost only 1 gold because they are strong but not near as strong as a mi. That's to clear up the gold per turn issue.

Warm Beer and UberKrux, how you are talking about how the AI has so many useless fortresses, having the fortresses/mis cost gold per turn would reduce the amount of fortresses/mis built. Hopefully leading to the AI only wanting to build a few fortresses/mis in key places. If programmed right that problem would be solved by fortress/mi system.

	27-07-2001 06:47									#18
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

In civ2 fortresses did become obsolete and useless at a certain point. When cruise missiles are invented and constructed they render all fortifications obsolete. When you attack even the most heavily fortified unit with a cruise missile you are almost sure to win. Realistic? I think so. As for fortresses being completely obselete in the modern world, I don't agree. Air power can devestate a well built fort but only so much can be done from the air, especially if SAM's are placed within or near the fort. When forts are attacked the average infantryman is at a major disadvantage to the gunfire from the fort and armor will be able to destroy the fort but will be damaged from artillery fire being returned from the fort. The only other thing that could doom a fort (other than air), is long range artillery which can soften up and damage a fort and its defenders to the point where armor and infantry can take it easily. But wouldn't the artillery firing at the fort only lead to an artillery duel with the fort's artillery? In the end, fort's have and always will have the potential to allow a smaller fort defend an area or delay an attacking force.

In the case of the maginot line its only fault was that it didn't go along the french/belgium border, so the Nazis just conquered Belgium and went through it to France. But during the attack 1/3 of the Nazi army was sent to tie up the troops in the Maginot line. Even after the rest of France was conquered the maginot line still resisted and continued to do so until French officials from the destroyed government were sent to tell the soldiers to surrender. The nazi army group which was assigned to the maginot line sustained heavy casualties in the while they were "tieing it down". The maginot line could have been succesful if it had also gone along the French/Belgium border.

In several other instances in WW2 forts were very succesful. For instance, during his invasion into Sicily with the Brits, Patton met 3 German divisions on his way to Medina. At an important pass, Nazi troops took control of a monastery on the top of a low mountain. They moved artillery up there and were able to hault the American progress by raining the valley below with gunfire and shells. Thousands of yankee troops died trying to take that monastery but only a few hundred germans were defending it. I'd call that a success on the german side.

Overall, forts have many weaknesses and strengths. If you like them its up to you. But they have their place in modern warfare.

	27-07-2001 20:37									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The zone of control feature for a fortress is a good idea as is the additional visibility. Was it a radar station of some sort in CTP that gave you significant extra visibility? This sort of feature in Civ3 would make defending your borders more manageable, especially if you have a civ that has a lot of land area and not a lot of cities.

	28-07-2001 04:11									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think, you should be able to build ABM and SAM batteries around the map. When enemy moves a missile unit (ABM) or air unit (SAM) near them, the battery should fire (air unit could engage the SAM). This would make the AA defense easier and missile defense more realistic.

	28-07-2001 04:22									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I'm sorry to say, but forts just don't have much use in modern times. Yes, the Maginot Line was formidable and would have cause Germany a lot of problems if they had not simply gone around it. However, that's exactly what they did - they went around it. Hitler's Atlantic wall was devastating not so much because it was a great fort but because the Allies couldn't land anything on the beach much bigger than a jeep for a long time. There are the occasional examples of places, such as the monastary in Sicily, where a fort might work, but then again it might now. If the Allies could have called in air power to attack the monastary then chances are it would have surrendered sooner.

The point is that while forts were extremely useful until only a century or so ago, they're much less effective now. So I suggest that forts be allowed in Civ3, give the units a defense bonus, repair the units faster, allow the player to see x tiles away, and cost some maintenance each turn. Then, when they're made obsolete they can be replaced by military installations. These should cost more to maintain, but can repair units, see x tiles away, and refuel air units. However, they shouldn't really give a defense bonus. After all, most modern military installations are pretty vulnerable to attack. They're major defense is a good offense.

	28-07-2001 04:41									#22
	Support Apolyton

The point in fortified defenses is that you must make the line to a choke point to prevent enemy from simply running around and force them to face it. Atlantic Wall couldn't reach it's potential because of a mistake from german lead. They estimated the landing place wrong (Allied trick worked here) and concentrated their defense to a wrong place. If the place had been right, there are very high chances that Allies wouldn't have ever gained a foothole.

Also, remember that Atlantic wall was a coastal fortress, not a fortified defense line. Defense line that it built to prevent from going around and enforced with SAMs, artillery and ABMs could really prove an overwhelming problem for any possible army. The thing is, that no big country needs a defense line now, so they don't build one. Our president dork Bush is building ABM defense thought and disturbing the balance of the force...