https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=29767919

Here is a game testing how forts work. Take a look through if you wish to see the actual testing scenarios we did. [[ SPOILER: Max won, but I'm pretty sure he cheated. ]]

Learnings on Forts:
- A fort with 0 defenders does nothing (ie: provides 0 defense; an attack of 1 on a fort with 0 armies defending will get captured normally); there has to be at least 1 defender to 'hold the fort', but as long as there is 1 defender, he can defend against any # of attackers
- A fort with 1+ defenders will defend 1 attack by any # of attackers and the defenders will take 0 damage
- Thus you can't capture a territory with a fort with 1+ defenders using a single attack
- The attackers will take regular damage aligned to the # of defenders on the territory
- Once an attack of any size hits the fort, the fort is destroyed
- A second attack in the same turn on the same territory with 1 fort will go through as a normal attack and do normal damage/territory captures as per standard rules
- Multiple forts on a single territory means each fort can defend a single attack, so eg: territory with 2 forts requires 3 attacks to capture it
- However, multiple forts on a single territory with 0 defenders still results in the territory being captured, 1 fort being destroyed, the remainder of the forts become the property of the new owner of territory
- Deploying a fort is the last move in a turn (NOTE: only in context of reinf card plays & normal attack/transfer moves
- The UI will allow you to move the location of the fort deployment inside your order list, but it will always execute last when the turn advances
- The UI will allow you to deploy unlimited quantity of forts, but when the turn advances, once you have depleted your allotment of forts, the rest will be ignored
- The UI will allow you to deploy multiple forts to the same territory on a single turn, but when the turn advances, only 1 fort will be deployed to a given territory; if you want to deploy a 2nd fort, you must do it on a successive turn. Both fort deployments will show up in the move list, the usage will be deducted from your available allocation for fort deployments, but only 1 fort actually gets deployed
- If you deploy a fort to a territory and lose that territory on the same turn, the fort still gets deployed, and it becomes the property of the new owner of that territory (ie: you just built your enemy the fort; or you ally if in a team game, etc); NOTE: this happened in above the referenced game, I took W.Europe and inherited Max's fort that he built there the same turn, but in a Single Player game, was not able to replicate this (the fort just never appeared, the 'build a fort' message does appear in the move order, but never actually gets built, the allocation is wasted)
- Tested with Delay Card, Blockade, Late Airlifts, and the Fort deployments were the final moves of the turn

Fyi, here's what a territory with multiple forts looks like:


Edited 2/4/2022 22:25:32

Learnings on Forts:

There's already a word for "things that were learned" in the English language. It's lessons. Keep that Product Manager nonsense out of video games!

Anyhow, helpful write-up.

A fort with 0 defenders does nothing (ie: provides 0 defense; an attack of 1 on a fort with 0 armies defending will get captured normally); there has to be at least 1 defender to 'hold the fort', but as long as there is 1 defender, he can defend against any # of attackers

Oh, this partly changes the game-breaking dynamic of 0ASG where a 1-tap is always a good/safe idea.

- A fort with 1+ defenders will defend 1 attack by any # of attackers and the defenders will take 0 damage

So there's no point having >1 defender on a fort, generally? New case for a conditional transfer, but also would make 1-taps pretty powerful against a fort.

However, multiple forts on a single territory with 0 defenders still results in the territory being captured, 1 fort being destroyed, the remainder of the forts become the property of the new owner of territory

This is a pretty big downside to multiple forts.

- The UI will allow you to deploy multiple forts to the same territory on a single turn, but when the turn advances, only 1 fort will be deployed to a given territory; if you want to deploy a 2nd fort, you must do it on a successive turn. Both fort deployments will show up in the move list, the usage will be deducted from your available allocation for fort deployments, but only 1 fort actually gets deployed

This sounds like a bug! It shouldn't deduct from your allocation if it doesn't execute.

If you deploy a fort to a territory and lose that territory on the same turn, the fort still gets deployed, and it becomes the property of the new owner of that territory

This is hopefully not intended behavior. If it is, both this and the previous thing should get changed.

Fyi, here's what a territory with multiple forts looks like:

Seems like a UI flaw with the new mod update...

Overall it seems like forts are not good for strategic gameplay.

Seems like a UI flaw with the new mod update...

Well, modder's are advised to cap it too 3 icons. So probably forts should be capped to 3 as well.
"Note that cities will "collapse" when more than 3 of them are on a single territory and show the number of them as a digit followed by a single city icon. The rest of the icons do not collapse. Therefore, you should strive to avoid having more than 3 icons on a territory since it will not display well." https://www.warzone.com/wiki/Mod_API_Reference:StructureType

If you deploy a fort to a territory and lose that territory on the same turn, the fort still gets deployed, and it becomes the property of the new owner of that territory

Seems easy to ~~fix~~ change , and sounds like unintended. Would just need there to a territory owner check. (But also, risk reward, might make this a feature balance thing as well )

A fort with 0 defenders does nothing (ie: provides 0 defense; an attack of 1 on a fort with 0 armies defending will get captured normally); there has to be at least 1 defender to 'hold the fort', but as long as there is 1 defender, he can defend against any # of attackers

Wonder if this is intended. Given the code comment, it sounds like this might not be intended? That being said, arguments to call it a feature as well

		--Attack found against a fort!  Cancel any defenders that died, and remove the fort.
		result.DefendingArmiesKilled = WL.Armies.Create(0);

https://github.com/FizzerWL/ExampleMods/blob/42d2bd2dc83192d946a79ab370b8abed8423549a/FortMod/Server_AdvanceTurn.lua#L46

Edited 2/5/2022 09:30:51

So if you have 3 forts and 3 armies, can it survive 3 attacks that turn? Or does it only survive 1?

A fort with 0 defenders does nothing (ie: provides 0 defense; an attack of 1 on a fort with 0 armies defending will get captured normally); there has to be at least 1 defender to 'hold the fort', but as long as there is 1 defender, he can defend against any # of attackers
Oh, this partly changes the game-breaking dynamic of 0ASG where a 1-tap is always a good/safe idea.

Actually I was thinking that it makes it even safer, even more necessary to do 1-taps, b/c until you do, the fort remains. So probably need to do multiple 1-taps to a fort to ensure that the tap goes through, in case you get attacked first and lose the army that would have done the tap, and potentially lose your opportunity to destroy the fort.

Conversely, when attacking from a fort, it's important to ensure that you leave the territory with at least 1 unit, else you're vulnerable to any attack.

So if you have 3 forts and 3 armies, can it survive 3 attacks that turn? Or does it only survive 1?

It will survive 3 attacks that turn, and be vulnerable to a 4th attack. You don't even need 3 armies, just 1 is enough. The only time you lose the additional forts to the enemy on the 1st attack is when you have 0 defending units. Having even 1 unit means the territory in invulnerable for 1 attack.

It goes like this:
[1st attack]
- Territory that has 3 Forts and 1 defending army is attacked by some # of units (doesn't matter how many)
- 1 fort is destroyed, 2 forts remaining, 0 defending armies are killed, still 1 defending army on the territory, 1 attacking army is killed (b/c 1 defending army * 0.7 defense kill rate = 1)
[2nd attack]
- Same territory is attacked again within the same turn by some # of units
- 1 fort is destroyed, 1 fort remaining, 0 defending armies are killed, still 1 defending army on the territory, 1 attacking army is killed
[3rd attack]
- Same territory is attacked again within the same turn by some # of units
- 1 fort is destroyed, 0 forts remaining, 0 defending armies are killed, still 1 defending army on the territory, 1 attacking army is killed
[4th attack]
- Same territory is attacked again within the same turn by some # of units
- Regular damage is done as per active kill rates, forts no longer a factor; if attack succeeds, territory changes ownership

Btw, what about my post makes it PM speak? #confused

Edited 2/6/2022 04:13:54

Fyi, word from the big man is that:

THIS IS INTENTIONAL:
- forts not getting created but using the allocation
--> Essentially, it's like playing a blockade card and wasting it if the territory gets captured before the blockade happens.

THESE ARE NOT INTENTIONAL AND WILL BE FIXED:
- forts being built but then transferring to opponent
- forts with 0 defenders having no effect (does not defend against any attack of any size)
- territories with multiple forts but 0 defenders having no effect and all but the first fort transfer to opponent on attack

THESE ARE NOT INTENTIONAL AND WILL BE FIXED:
- forts being built but then transferring to opponent
- forts with 0 defenders having no effect (does not defend against any attack of any size)
- territories with multiple forts but 0 defenders having no effect and all but the first fort transfer to opponent on attack

Oh. I thought it kind of made sense to need someone to man the fort. But having support for empty forts is also nice.

I just updated the fort mod with these fixes:

- Fixed building a fort on a territory captured by your opponent.
- Fixed building multiple forts on the same territory in the same turn.
- Fixed attacking a fort with 0 armies not repeling the attack

Awesome, thank you!