Forts have a massive health pool and the splash damage easily kills armies, and for some civs with a great economy forts are broken because by the time your opponent has an army the size to tear down your fort, your economy is so strong that you can easily win now, from personal experience and from seeing others play on twitch I realized that forts make you unpushable and your opponent can’t do anything about it for a long time, and if skill is equal then by the time your opponent has the army to tear it down you’ll have an army to stop them AND the fort, so what I’m saying is that forts really don’t belong to civs like Dutch, ports, Brit, Inca, or USA. What could be done is that the age 3 fort wagon should either, cost wood and gold to send, or just not be an age 3 card because the way it is now you can just invest one shipment and kill thousands of food worth of units, if the forts were only in age 4, That would be balanced cause heavies can kill them. Or if it costed gold and wood to send, then it could still be cost-efficient in situations but not be able to just make in early age 3 and just sit back and go full greed and you would have to choose between spending your gold on making your army larger or making a fort that can delete your opponents army if they try to push in. Some civs have no way of killing early age 3 forts and one fort can completely destroy a push, for example let’s take the germans, against any eco civ like Dutch or ports, against these civs Germans will likely go for a semi into a large push, but if the Dutch/port player drops a fort and makes a few units the German player is screwed because then the German cannot push and if the German doesn’t push they have to just let the opponent boom and lose
I see you are just joining the forum and I would like to welcome you in the community!
But honnestly, the fort shipment in age3 is very underwhelming, and most pro players do not include it in their deck nor build forts. One of the goal of the game is to achieve map control to benefit from lots of hunt and gold mine. With a fort, yes you acquire some map control or you are able to defend yourself, but you can’t compete that much with another player that sent a military shipment instead. Turtling and building mills are usually not worth it, because settlers working a mill gather half as much food when compared to hunter. Same for estate.
You can’t seriously ask for a rework of the age 3 fort shipment, something that has remained unchanged since the release of the game.
You can also have mortar age 3 if you want by sending a card, but I would not recommand wasting a card.
Forts are literally unseen in 1v1, because they are considered weak and easy to circumvent.
Colonial America without forts is like the middle ages without castles. It would feel wrong if every European civ never had the option to make them.
There are times in the past where the Master Sergeant players used forts effectively against me. They can be used to put down a German fast fortress power spike. Forts really suck for a person who hates building artillery or going to age 4.
Forst actually really suck at holding aggression, in DE.
The whole game is MUCH faster than it has ever been, and the Meta is about stalling out your opponent by forcing him to idle his Economy, and have to endure a lot of Vill travel time, while you out-Boom him because of your constant aggro.
A Fort cannot help you against a player that is willing and able to constantly pump out units and dive them into your base, effectively, forcing you to either idle your Vills, or lose them.
We are not in Complete Edition anymore!
They can’t dive into your base if the fort is on top of it. Or at least it makes it very risky. You would waste a lot of units (and therefore resources), if your main base attack isn’t well-timed. If he manages to beat you off he will push right back to your TC.
They easily can, a Fort in your base is doing nothing, by the Fortress age, all available resources are spread out in the map, you cannot be holding base anymore.
But even if you could, a Fort cannot kill units fast enough, to justify itself. They will still force you to idle vills, or lose them.
Of course a fort alone wouldn’t be able to, but what I’m saying is that if you compare to other age 3 shipments such as 8 skirmisher or 5 goons a fort simply outperforms other age 3 shipments and this is why I think it should cost gold or wood to send because if you really think about it, no age 3 shipment can neutralize a fort except for the mortars in age 3, but that costs wood and gold to train the artillery and the fort costs only a shipment and nothing else, a person can forward a fort and you have to vastly outnumber your opponent, another main reason I made this post is because I notice people like to be annoying and stall the game by building a fort in the corner of the map and delaying the game even when you know very well you’ve already won you have to wait for the fort to go down and kill their last buildings, for example, one game I was Brit and vs Spain I defeated my opponent with a timing and he lost his entire main base, but the game went on for another 10 minutes because he made a fort in the middle of the map and shipped more units, of course I won eventually but this is why I believe forts are bad, had he shipped anything other than a fort I would have simply defeated him and not wasted 10 minutes of what could have been a 12 minute game
I think I better understand your point now. Your main complaint are people that simply wont resign when they’ve lost. And you’re saying that the fort enables them to drag the game out longer despite not having a chance. As an example, taking out all of their buildings and villagers and he’s left with a fort and 2 villagers. Please let me know if I misunderstood.
While that is annoying, and probably bad manners on your opponent’s part, that is just part of the game. You could make the same complaint with any card that grants invisibility, or ships boats. This unfortunately is just part of the game. Making it so that people with bad intentions cant extend out the game will radically change the game, and probably isn’t worth it.
It seems like you also don’t like the turtle playstyle in general. I get that it can be frustrating if you mainly focus on timing attacks, but it is one of the core concepts of the game. Turtle beats rush, rush beats boom, and boom beats turtle.
2 things to help you against forts.
- If the opponent sent a fort, that means he didn’t send an economic or military card. This means you can out-boom them, or ship cavalry and raid his economy that isn’t protected by the fort. As long as you don’t attack the fort, you’ll be ahead of him
- Be on top of scouting. Forts take quite a while to construct. If your units see a fort wagon or the foundation starting to build, attack it! You opponent needs an army to ensure that it even gets constructed. Since they shipped a fort, that means that they didn’t ship any military units. You should be able to win the engagement if you shipped military
Oh, and please use punctuation. It is incredibly hard to read your post.
Not true at all. The most important Age3 shipments are 2 Falconets, Refrigeration and Royal Mint.
The vast amount of top players never even use a Fort in any deck, it is static and does not provide enough damage or coverage to be an effective defensive building.
The Fort is one of those Age 3 and 4 shipments that almost never gets even socketed into 1v1 decks, and is rare even in Team Games.
The fort is not used much, the truth is, one almost always when he passes to the third age one sends the units that exist in the third age, such as the 2 falconets, 8 guerrillas, 1000 gold or food, Unique units of the civ, etc. Generally, they include the fort in their deck in case a situation could occur in which you need it, the players worry more about accumulating the army before creating a defensive infrastructure, Note that the detachments are not used much, maybe the walls are, The truth is that in certain situations the fort is too useful that it could be key to losing the game, because it has also happened to me, I understand that the fort is very hard to destroy, but taking into account your suggestion it seems fine to me, But Nor is the idea to nerf the fortress since it is not used too little, I would like perhaps that it costs some wood to ship the fort but in exchange the improvements to the fort are a little cheaper, that way it would be a better investment and at the same time you avoid thepeople use the fort easily
Pressure his hunts and coin mines and follow your opponent up to age3 and petard spam his fort down, but make sure to distract his attention with your main army before running the petards in.
Yeah the only civ where u constantly see forts is the USA since u can produce the foreign units there. And inca but the inca fort is kind of on another level haha.