Re: The problem of fort types
 

Personally, I think the two proposed solutions that're actually viable are the following.

1) Alter the fort data so that forts differ less steeply in cost/admin/etc.
2) Give players some control over their fort type when building, either from a short terrain-specific list (e.g., Man in Forests gets a "big" and "small" option), or even in a terrain-nonspecific fashion.
3) Create new fort types that allow nations to build forts that're both big and cheap, in certain thematic terrains. This could also work in combination with either of the first two ideas.

None of these are moddable, but I think they would make the fort system become something aligned with the way forts are used in practice.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

I thought that having cheap fortresses or expensive is part of the nation's setup like what they have in PD. So it's sort of a pro or con for the nation, mostly based on thematic reasons.

Are there any numbers on how many towers a fort has? Or how many arrows/sling stones/whatever else are in the air? High defense forts should have more. And they should have a longer narrow passage, I think.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Fort defense weapons are not determined by fort type but by which nation occupies the fort. At least it used to be that way in Dom2. Abysia has ballistas. Most nations have short bows. Some have longbows etc etc.

The number of towers times number of shots per tower is total shots per round, so some nations are more painful to siege when the time to storm the castle comes.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Hmm... do you have that info in database? I didn't take manual with me to China and I wonder what MA TC and MA Abysia have...

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Manual lists the type of tower weapons used. Most nations have something like 6-8 shortbows to composite bows, but e.g. Jotunheim varies wildly in different eras. Early and Late have 3xBoulder, while MA has 16 shortbows... Those Vaetti must be the ultimate castle defenders!

Re: The problem of fort types
 

It's not all bad with swamp cities is it, though? A swamp fort is completely useless except to build mages. A swamp is a sort of "dead zone" except for the above purpose. At least with a fort that has admin you also get the resources to make it useful for building troops, and the ability for the walls to last longer than it takes a pig-eating anthropomorphic wolf to huff and puff. Not only that, but the strategic synergy of fort placing to maximise resource usage might make a swamp the best location, but that a swamp fort would negate any such advantage.

I'd certainly like the option that races have a special terrain (eg. Pythium would be farmland, Caelum mountains, Ctis swamp), and that terrain allows them to build either a cheap, basic fortress-type-thing or an expensive city/citadel type thing.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

I do not think it likely that the developers will give us new commands. Choosing
the fort to build looks like too much of a change, and thus unlikely to happen.

On the other hand, it is probably simple to add a few fort types to the ones that
already exist. The only problem may be that there is a hard limit to their
number. Assuming that no such limit exist, here is a solution that would be
quite simple to implement and that may take care of a few problems.

Add a few fort types, that have the same stats as the respective existing fort,
but lower build time and cost. For example, a Mountain Citadel, a Swamp City,
a Fortified City, etc...

Assign a 'favored terrain' to each nation. Some are obvious. Pythium and
Machaka would prefer grasslands, Niefelheim and Caelum mountains, Tir Na Nog
and Man forests, C'tis swamps, Abysia wastes. For nations without an obvious
preferance, get creative, or just stick to existing fort types. Serves them
right for being boring.

Assign these new forts to each nation's favored terrain type. Now they will
have a reason to seek out and build their forts there, and the other nations
will be unaffected.

The 'fluff' is easy: these nations are so familiar with this type of terrain
that they can finish construction quickly and cheaply. The balance changes will
be significant, but so what? It's not as if the game is perfectly balanced, and
luck overcomes balance almost as easily as it trumps skill.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Given that Machakan units all have forest survival and they have the God Forest and God Mountain magic sites, I'm not sure they're really a grassland nation.

But I agree with what you're saying, largely. Though I think the forts for swamp and wasteland provinces would have to kick ***, even more so than other specialised forts, simply because those provinces suck so bad. No amount of admin or defense can make up for having about 1.5k population, so it would have to be really cheap in terms of build time and cost /as well/ as being a big fort.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

But the point is, it really doesn't matter. 95% of the benefit of the fort is being able to recruit mages. Then the one turn protection. Admin and resources come a long way later.
That's why having cheap, quick lousy forts is an advantage over having slow expensive good forts.

That's why being able to build better forts in your special terrain is actually a disadvantage.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Couldn't agree more. The 'good' forts have to be either the same build time or less, or they're still a disadvantage.