.com.unity Forums - Castles and Citadels and stuff

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)

- - Castles and Citadels and stuff (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=18328)

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
You undoubtedly play primarily on rush maps where a long-term, more patient view of the world is not valued much, and paying an extra 40 points for a tower you can slap up now, now, now may very well pay off better in such a situation than a longer view of things.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call Aran with 5 players or the Desert Eye with 7-8 a rush map. You've got a god 10-20 turns before combat starts to become serious on those maps.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Aran *is* a rush map (it's one of the maps that Zen's used for blitz MP), and the odds are very good, even in a 4-player game, that you'll be in conflict with another human by turn 7-8. Unless you dawdle for a half-dozen turns before leaving your capital, which is a sure recipe for defeat against humans.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Aran is no more a rush map than it is a Water map.

If 'coming into conflict with another player before you are ready or turn 30' is the definition of 'rush' then pretty much every map that doesn't have upward of 300+ provinces is a rush map depending on the players.

I personally categorize a rush map as something under 60 Provinces. Urgaia and Sundering are what I would consider 'rush' if I were to categorize them in that fashion.

Aran, Eye, Karan, Europe, Inland are what I consider "Midsized Maps" which you can play whatever type of game you want based on the # of Players.

World, Oriana are 'long term' maps, where even if you have 17 Players there is a chance it can be rush or slow, just depends on placement.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Zen:
If you want to use a Mausoleum you get 25 Defense, which can be battered down by a militia with a toothpick. As well as costing you 40Dpoints and 5% income.

This is indeed true, although the lower admin can in part be made up for by building them in more places, since overlap is less of a concern with low-admin forts than it is with high admin forts. While the Mausoleum's measly 25 defense makes it easily sieged, even this will buy a turn, and simultaneously not pose as a huge obstacle should you need to take it back.

Quote:

Well then your view would be skewed. I play all types of games from big beastly long ones that I'm still playing 3 months later, to quick rush games, to VP games, to DominionWin Games, so I have a varied look on things. But if you want to lump yourself into the 'long term and paitent' and me into the 'rush' so you can try to prove a point, it is not proven.

You clearly have more experience in the use of wizard towers. Obviously, you've integrated them into your strategy rather well, so I concede this point to you.

Quote:

I actually prefer Wizard Towers in the "Long term and Paitent" games because as the game progresses the use of Raiding is more and more apparent and Single or Teamed SC's flying in cannot siege a fortress in all reality as well as nulls the advantage of Ghost Riders.

I have noticed this particular point as well: I, too, have taken to using wizard towers for anti-raiding forts, and their admin percentage is rather nice when I erect them in the few provinces that generate me any income at all, as Ermor, and their performance as speedbumps is quite nice. For the emergency uses I often deploy them in, however, even the 2-turn construction can be a little too slow, hence magical construction. For conventional building, however, a mausoleum is just as effective in suppressing ghost rider attacks, as they never stop to siege.

Still, I can see you have very good reasons for choosing the Wizard Tower. I don't quite see it as meshing too well with my present style, but you have obviously found it to fill a niche for you. I think we can both agree that the Mountain Citadel is still a very dubious choice for any reasonable style, though!

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
This is indeed true, although the lower admin can in part be made up for by building them in more places, since overlap is less of a concern with low-admin forts than it is with high admin forts. While the Mausoleum's measly 25 defense makes it easily sieged, even this will buy a turn, and simultaneously not pose as a huge obstacle should you need to take it back.

If I had no need, or intended to put a Wiz Tower in only key provinces where the admin would still help but not every province. Yes. But doing that would cost more in the long run. Especially on big maps. The Mausoleum has it's place, but not with any sort of strategy really utilizing many reasources.

Quote:

I have noticed this particular point as well: I, too, have taken to using wizard towers for anti-raiding forts, and their admin percentage is rather nice when I erect them in the few provinces that generate me any income at all, as Ermor, and their performance as speedbumps is quite nice. For the emergency uses I often deploy them in, however, even the 2-turn construction can be a little too slow, hence magical construction. For conventional building, however, a mausoleum is just as effective in suppressing ghost rider attacks, as they never stop to siege.

In my experience the stopping of Ghost Riders is just a bonus. More often than not, a raiding force from a few nations (Abysia, Caelum, Mictlan) can break down 25 Defense quite easily. But 75 requires just too much time for them, especially if they leave them there to even try. 2 Turn Construction done by a Spy is quick enough for me both early and late in the game. But this is probably where playstyle and experience differ.

Quote:

Still, I can see you have very good reasons for choosing the Wizard Tower. I don't quite see it as meshing too well with my present style, but you have obviously found it to fill a niche for you. I think we can both agree that the Mountain Citadel is still a very dubious choice for any reasonable style, though!

I'd rather gouge out my eyes than pay Dpoints for a Mountain Citadel. They'd have to make a Theme pick it mandatory before I'd ever take it for anything out of whim, fancy, and making the AI's job easier.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

I'm surprised that no one has proposed to the devs adding a new feature so that you have the ability to pick & choose what type of fort to build after the game starts. So that you might have a fortified city as your capital, yet be able to build wizard's towers or mausoleums if you so choose. Obviously this would be such a dramatic change, and hard enough to code, that it would likely have to wait for a Dom 3, but still, I am a bit surprised that no one appears to have proposed it. Well, until now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:
I'm surprised that no one has proposed to the devs adding a new feature so that you have the ability to pick & choose what type of fort to build after the game starts.

This was actually proposed Last November in this thread , but it's a good idea to mention it again probably.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
This was actually proposed Last November in this thread , but it's a good idea to mention it again probably.

Thank you. Patrik and Apoger have good ideas. I also have grumbled (to myself) about having to pay the entire price of a building up front. But doing so is common in strategy games; exceptions like MOO3 are rare. If you could pay for cities at 150/turn you'd probably see more players use them.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:
Obviously this would be such a dramatic change, and hard enough to code, that it would likely have to wait for a Dom 3, but still, I am a bit surprised that no one appears to have proposed it. Well, until now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Hard to code? I do not think so. Unbalancing? Probably. There would certainly be a strong incentive to start with a CHEAP fort as a result, since you can always tear it down and build a better one! The short-term gain of a "good" fort, with a benefit you are probably unable to effectively use for a while, is definitely not worth nation points, and Zen's love of the wizard tower would be totally destroyed by this, since it functionally equates a 120 point national cost to a 2-turn semi-delayed start in troop recruitment. The cost of tearing down your starting watch tower and erecting a wizard's tower in its place would not be so great that it would warrant the expenditure of 120 points, as it does now. Certain types of fortification would thus predominate in an environment where you could freely choose what fort to build, and the nation point cost of forts would have to be entirely rebalanced. The actual code would be fairly trivial, rebalancing the game far less so.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
There would certainly be a strong incentive to start with a CHEAP fort as a result, since you can always tear it down and build a better one!

You wouldn't necessarily be able to tear the fort down. Even if you could, starting with a watchtower instead of a castle would put you far enough behind that most nations that you would struggle just to catch up, let alone match their enemies. Mictlan, R'lyeh, and C'Tis are just about the only nations that can afford the production hit from taking a sloth scale or a fort with less than 30% admin.