 |
|
Killazer
|
|
Do any of you use forts or found any need for forts? If you do why do you build them and have they ever come in handy?
They may be useful as a front line harassment barrier that can weaken invading forces before they get to their targets. I don't know just curious.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jabberwockysr
|
|
Flint, Unfortunately
Aug 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
I'd used forts in a similar manner in my first game, but that was when I had Civ2 ZOC understanding... Chinese cavalry took 2 of my border cities by simply marching past and taking the ZOC shot. Oops.
Since then I've used them in choke points to good effect, but haven't had any long-term borders that weren't choke points... 
Last edited by jabberwockysr on 19-09-2002 at 21:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jabberwockysr
|
|
Flint, Unfortunately
Aug 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Theseus
Chokepoints and Maginot Lines (more like Maginot Walls). |
How can you afford the gpt to pay to man such a line? It seems this would cut into your science, but I've only played on Regent so far... I usually go for rail garrisons and a border patrol instead of a Maginot Line to save on the cost.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mattaba
|
|
How about a war on 2 fronts, a line of fortresses with garrissons on 1 front and you can go on the offense on the other front.
It feels a lot safer when you have a line of fortresses near your border, especially in the industrial age with railroads you can reach them immediately in an emergency.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
XOR
|
 |
Venezuela
Aug 2002 time: 05:22
|
|
I use them A-LOT. One of the reasons is because I always end up with more slaves than cities + my own workers, so there's always a moment where there's plenty of idling (shift+A wating for pollution to come). Additionaly, I defend my strategic resources, not ALL of them, and I dont build fortresses on all of them.
On mountain/hill resources I simply fortify a unit w/o fortress.
On resources that are on the shore I build a fortress and fortify a unit.
On resources that are near land borders I build a fortress and fortify one or 2 units.
If a resource is abundant (I have many and I'm not selling any) I just leave it unprotected, unless I have too many idle troops and workers.
On borderline strategic positions (artillery ranges and offensive deployment routes) I build a fortress, fortify a few good defensive units and a couple of artileries. This does not mean every tile in the land border, in a 20 tile land border, 4 are usually enough.
Borderline fortresses are for peace time only, to get ready for a sneak attack. At war I dont build fortresses, I invade. But I've been getting a huge lack of sneak attacks compared to what other's here claim to get, most of the time I'm only attacked by huge multialiances, seems like the AI wants to attack me all the time but wont go unless it can put it's buddies in trouble with them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jog
|
|
the only use i ever had for them is to station a defensive unit inside a fort on that one single tile that isn't inside your 'cultural borders' before some bastard from across the globe puts a city there and makes things look unattractive...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Anglophile
|
|
Philly, USA
Jan 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
I play on very large maps and build very large numbers of forts; indeed my goal is that no enemy unit can cross my borders without taking a fort or at least getting hit by the free attacks from units in at least one and preferably two forts. In my current game, I have about 150 border tiles with the French, Germans, and Greeks in my homeland and probably 100 more in oversea colonies. Even if one is playing an offensive style - which I don't - no one can launch full offenses over such a broad area, two or more front wars are dangerous and inefficient and some sort of defense line is sensible if not absolutely necessary. I put my best attacking units in the cities along the border to counterattack weakened attackers or move to threatened areas. Having a large fortress network also provides a good source of reserves in extremis as units can be moved from peaceful borders to warfronts. I probably have 60 -70 forts now, and have plans for maybe 50 more to complete my empire's border defenses. When war comes, my cities will be protected, my reserves strong and my platform for offensive operations in place.
One final note - I have about 250 workers at this point (for 97 cities - none of which are mine through conquest) and maybe 10% of them are building forts; a cheap investment for the benefits provided.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Explorer579
|
|
Chicago
May 2002 time: 23:22
|
|
I use forts much less than in civ2. When I decide to block an enemy/neighbour from entering my area, it is usually important to include a fort when you expect the enemy to attack. A month ago, this strategy allowed me to win the game because the enemy had only this strip of land to attack which was defended by that fort.
I wonder though why I use forts much less than in civ2?! Maybe the game has a much faster pace to it now (particularly with fast production). There is no time to build forts if you are on the move. Forts are for long wars with an established enemy. Just like the crusaders!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CiverDan
|
|
whether or not u use forts depends on your strategy and the type of map IMHO. If your going to a cultural victory for example, your probably not going on the offensive that much, and forts can be useful. If your a warmonger, they are almost never used.
As for the map type, on a water filled world..many attacks will be from the sea and its generally worth it more to have a good navy as opposed to fortifying the coast. On a pangaea, there are just too many border squares. It's really only very useful on maps with many choke points.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|