Forts and do you build them?

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Forts and do you build them?

This topic contains 27 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by  thabob79 8 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 28 posts - 1 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #70069

    fabeto
    Member

    So my main question is Do you build forts at all? I mean what use do you find in those?

    The only time I built one was to take 3 resource nods. The mana and gold was ok, but i dont think i was making use of the production one(correct me of I’m wrong). Anyway, when my city expanded i destroyed the fort.

    Also there are no choke points. So what use of forts really?

    #70087

    Xem
    Member

    Yep same here, only build them to capture extra resources.
    Shame the mountains don’t stop everyone except flyers/floaters/mountaineering units again or they would have been really useful to have to block choke points.

    #70105

    spivo
    Member

    I only play maps with city funding off, so they play a great part in my games.

    It is though, annoying to see the AI makes no forts at all… I’ve yet to even see an AI builder.
    He doesn’t even attempt to capture my forts…

    #70137

    OwiecPL1986
    Member

    I don’t build. Better is build city. Even if attack enemy, better is surprise attack then wait in fortess.

    This building should have additional ability. Without that no sense to build.

    Or add skills whit extra bonuses for army in our domain. In that case it has a little sense to build fortess near enemy. But fortess shouls be somethin to defense. So mayby they walls should be much better then city walls?

    #70142

    b0rsuk
    Member

    Forts should have zones of control.

    #70143

    spivo
    Member

    It was suggested, that building a city on a fort should give you the wooden palisades building right away.

    #70146

    Nerdfish
    Member

    no, I build cities instead.

    #70161

    grizzz
    Member

    I think forts shud have an area around them that is impassable without engaging any forces stationed at the forts. instantly makes them worth while and gives you some way to stop invasion/ play more defensively.

    #70177

    terrahero
    Member

    I build them for their domain, in order to get extra resources as i usually play without city founding.

    But they arent really used for militairy reasons by me.

    #70180

    Diair
    Member

    When forts were first announced way back when I was excited because I loved the idea of protecting my “country” borders from the enemy, and it was something I had sorely missed in Shadow Magic (atleast in AoW1 we could build towers!). Unfortunately, forts are useless for that purpose, as units can walk everywhere this time around.

    Forts are nice as a forward settlement though, as they give instant access to cheap walls.

    #70206

    Xem
    Member

    I think forts should have an area around them that is impassable without engaging any forces stationed at the forts. instantly makes them worth while and gives you some way to stop invasion/ play more defensively.

    Yeah that would make forts actually useful, maybe they should come with fixed built in trebuchets or cannons when in combat and enemies traversing past get an instant attack from these weapons on the map view.
    I’m hoping they take on everyone’s feedback and improve the forts as they do seem a bit pointless.

    #70216

    Reefpirate
    Member

    Some people in here don’t seem to know that you can upgrade the forts to stone walls… And then built a city on top of it with Settlers to get free walls on your new city. I use them for this all the time… And they’re not a bad place to store a patrolling army for defense. No your enemies aren’t forced to attack it, but if they do it’s a good bonus. You can launch counter attacks from your Fortress after your enemy tries to get around you.

    #70238

    BeardyDan
    Member

    I build them for 4 and a half reasons:

    1. Claming resourses. (duh)

    2. Teraforming the 6 tiles that will be underneath a new city there. Unfortunatly you cant get to the center tile but teraforming the 6 that will be inaccessable once a city is places can be a big deal if it changes the happiness level. Only works for Gobbos, Humans, Orcs & Draconians.

    3. Starting a new city with the Stone Walls +1 Domain radius can be a HUGE boost both in terms of happy terrain & resource nodes.

    4. on a couple of maps theres been a [bridge][tile][bridge] chokepoint, probably not worth putting a city there but the fort kept annoying AI players from entering my domain that route.

    #70247

    RoaRawR
    Member

    My issue is why make fort when you can make a city?, sure you can grab few ressources but it will always produce less than a city who can pay less than the cost for a fort to get the 10+ benefits you get otherwise and also produce units!

    only on good defended 20+ ressources ect I would build fort

    #70293

    darvon
    Member

    It was suggested, that building a city on a fort should give you the wooden palisades building right away.

    It does…

    Needing a quick stone wall for +1 range is about the only use of a fort, seeing as an actual gold producing city is only 65 gold more.

    #70306

    Cannonball
    Member

    Posted this in another thread on this topic (we really do have a lot of fort threads):

    Cities are great. They cost you a bit to get going, but with smart placement they can pay themselves back pretty quickly and will eventually grow into important economic contributors – as well as valuable producers.You should absolutely build as many cities as you can.

    But that doesn’t mean forts are worthless. Forts have a great many advantages of their own:

    Firstly, forts are cheap. A builder unit + fort is only 50 more gold than a single settler (before factoring in the settler’s much greater upkeep). And the builder can be reused again and again. Secondly, forts are fast. Because you can reuse builders, you can pop out forts at a truly alarming rate without eating up your existing cities’ production slots. More than that, forts come with preexisting wooden walls – on their own, those walls would’ve cost you a hundred gold, and several turns worth of production in a new city. And going from wooden to stone walls is just as quick! If you want a staging ground or beachhead in a hurry, you want a fort.

    Here’s a neat little trick: you can settle cities on top of forts. The new city gets to keep the fort’s walls. So you can build forts to claim resources, and then come along with a settler later! You won’t lose anything by doing this because the walls you get from assimilating the fort would’ve cost you just as much to build normally (you gain really – it takes quite a while for an outpost or village to build some walls).

    Forts are also less vulnerable than cities. On the front line, where you expect roving enemy armies, and attacks from global magic you probably want a fort. Because forts don’t suffer unhappiness penalties For example, a warlord can cause a city to revolt almost instantly with a small army and a combination of Conqueror’s Feast and Dread Siege. Not so a fort – it doesn’t care.

    For the same reason, you can use forts to secure resources in terrain that would make your default race despise you if you don’t have access to another. The last thing you want is a super unhappy city because you’re trying to found a draconian settlement in the arctic for example. Forts can help you get resources when that would be a problem.

    And if you’re attacked? And absolutely sure you can’t hold a fort against an approaching force, raze it to the ground! You don’t take any morale or alignment penalties for razing a fort (whereas you do for razing a city!). Deny your enemy without hurting yourself, and then push your builder back to the front to quickly erect a new one when you’ve managed to repel the invasion.

    Forts! They’re really good.

    #70310

    spivo
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>spivo wrote:</div>
    It was suggested, that building a city on a fort should give you the wooden palisades building right away.

    It does…

    Needing a quick stone wall for +1 range is about the only use of a fort, seeing as an actual gold producing city is only 65 gold more.

    Good 🙂
    I wouldn’t know, as I stopped having city funding ticked of after a few test runs.

    In general, I don’t think forts are the problem, but that city funding (and also city development) is so incredibly cheap/fast.

    Would like to see a feature added to builders; “foundation”, or something like that. Where you need 1-2 full turns with a builder to prepare the hex you want to build on first, and then founding cities is to fast.
    This was not a problem in the earlier aow, because they didn’t have the all mighty class unit building.

    #70322

    grizzz
    Member

    Maybe in the form of an upgrade? I feel this is desperately needed I cities as well an upgrade that provides a garrison for the defending structure – fort or otherwise.

    #70553

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    I’m not sure if this counts, but using a builder to erect a fort is also a way of staking a “claim” to an area with multiple resource production sites. The AI is very aggressive with its settler expansion but it can’t settle anywhere within your domain short of declaring war.

    #70574

    thabob79
    Member

    Fort are ‘eyes’ *with the border trespassing messages’ of incoming enemy forces.

    #70630

    apopov
    Member

    No. Forts are useless at their current cost, and barely-there benefit of current walls. In 999/1000 cases, founding a new outpost is a much better solution.

    #70696

    Brandley2142
    Member

    The only reason to put a fort down over a city is to get walls up quicker than the city can. You can always build a city on top of it.

    That way after getting the city up, if it is attacked the moment it is finished being built you already have walls.

    #70702

    Reefpirate
    Member

    No. Forts are useless at their current cost, and barely-there benefit of current walls. In 999/1000 cases, founding a new outpost is a much better solution.

    I’d say it’s more like 50/50 but I don’t know why I bother engaging with some of you miserable people.

    #70931

    Strider
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>apopov wrote:</div>
    No. Forts are useless at their current cost, and barely-there benefit of current walls. In 999/1000 cases, founding a new outpost is a much better solution.

    I’d say it’s more like 50/50 but I don’t know why I bother engaging with some of you miserable people.

    While I understand the sentiment, the OP did ask for opinions. If “apopov” feels forts are useless, he should be allowed to say that, of course, even if he posts like that’s a fact (and not, well, his view on the subject at hand).

    Personally, I find forts useful. When I’m expanding my borders, they serve well as forward staging areas. Getting an Outpost with walls take a bit of time. Also, a Fort taken by the enemy will not give him more gold or produce units. I’m confortable leaving one of them behind. I wouldn’t mind if they had a zone of control though, perhaps this could be tested. After all, you can artificially make a small zone of control by placing one unit at each adjacent hex to the fort…

    #70978

    Caerdon
    Member

    Fortresses are extremely useful. I build them all the time.

    Not only can they gather resources, but they can reserve them for your use, even if you can’t immediately deal with the independents controlling them.

    They make great city foundations. You can build lots of fortresses quickly without actually committing to a new city, so you can expand your empire later as you see fit. Build stone walls in advance. I almost always build cities on top of fortresses.

    Despite what some say, they are very good at protecting both your borders and supporting your front lines. You can have a significant presence in an area while keeping your troops protected within walls. They are good places to fall back to if you are in danger of getting overwhelmed.

    They are good at protecting tactically important watchtowers.

    They provide safety for vulnerable units traveling alone that could easily be destroyed by enemy spies.

    They can limit the domain growth of enemy cities and prevent allies and peaceful opponents founding cities in places you don’t want them to.

    They can hide troops with Urban Concealment.

    …and so on.

    #70985

    dameneu
    Member

    I build fortresses often to try and stop the torrent of settlers the AI keeps pouring out. Whenever I see an enemy settler heading towards some unclaimed resource structure in a corner of my (future) domain, I end up rushing my builder over there to plop a fort down. Mine! Mine, I say!

    Besides that I like putting them next to bridges or in mountain paths where you they’re pretty good at slowing the enemy.

    #70991

    apopov
    Member

    Walls are nice, but wooden walls aren’t very useful. Right now this isn’t a game where being besieged is a winning tactic. While stone walls are more likely to actually hurt you then help (that extra hex of domain, often means greater constraint).

    In the end it comes down to money – money spent on forts just aren’t good return on investment compared to a town.

    For people in favor of forts, keep in mind that currently forts will constrain and slow down growth of any of your cities that they come in contact with.

    I will reconsider this opinion once they are fixed to at least not actively hurt me for building them.

    #70994

    thabob79
    Member

    Maybe worker should be able to ‘de-construct’ structure to remove em and get the ressources back (all or in part)

Viewing 28 posts - 1 through 28 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.