Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

So far, in ALL of the games I've played, I've chosen the castle as my fortification. However, I'm beginning to wonder if certain fortifcations are more appropriate to certain nations.

Is there a preference per race, or am I safe just sticking with castle through and through?

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

The castle is an excellent choice for a fort: It has a modest cost of only $450, only 50% more than the watchtower, which gives it a modest build time of 3 turns. It has an excellent admin of 40: Only the Fortified City does better, and the Fortified City costs $750 and 5 turns! Unless the map is exceptionally small and/or you have no plans to build many other fortresses, or you absolutely, positively, must have the metric assload of supply that the Fortified City grants, the castle is a very good choice. Pointwise, the cost is the same: 80 points. You certainly can't go wrong with that. The only drawback of the castle is that its defense value is not a great asset, but nor is it absolutely wretched. Besides, who plans a strategy around being sieged? Any castle will buy you a minimum of one turn, and no castle will hold out for any real length of time against real opposition. A higher defense will just make it more bothersome for YOU to take it back!

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

In one of the various threads on playing a specific theme (I forget which theme and the poster, may have been Zen), it was recommended that the el-cheapo zero-DP fort type be used so that you can quickly and (relatively) cheaply pop up forts all over your borders both to channelize the enemy and to allow recruitment of national units right at the front. This works best for nations that do not need to maximize resource gathering (ie: whose main limit is gold, not resources).

Other than this particular example that was cited (I do wish I could recall what thread it was), the Castle which Norfleet mentions is pretty much the best all-around buy.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

I'm a big fan of the fortified city. It's got the best design point to admin ratio, and the high cost and build time is offset by the fact that you get one for free at the start of the game.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

I haven't found any reason to use anything else. As far as point cost/price and value is concerned, I don't really see a decent alternative, unless you really have sucky troops, then you want something with higher defense, because you'll be hiding a lot.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

I happen to really like the wizard's tower for nations that have powerful national mages, and fairly useful troops. This is because it is both cheap and quick to produce, but also provides a decent administration rating. I do often go with just the standard castle however, as it is a good compromise between the various types.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, if you have really sucky troops, hiding is only going to prolong the inevitable slightly, at best: Meanwhile, it'll be that much harder for you retake your own fortress with your sucky troops, since the casualties you'll sustain while establishing the siege will likely prevent you from being quite as effective in bLasting your way in and storming the place under fire. Those high-defense forts may very well prove counterproductive, since with bad troops, it's very likely you'll lose ground before you can rally enough of them to retake.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, but the wizard's tower is a major ouch in the national point Category, and isn't THAT much faster to build than the castle is.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What? It's 200% Faster. I categorize it as "Much Faster". It's also 150 gold cheaper, thats 33% cheaper.

Maybe it doesn't suit your playstyle, but so does anything that isn't played on the world map with VQ's and Ermor.

I consider the Wizard's Tower to be significantly faster, and cheaper, which means you put them up even faster than normal especially considering the mutability of a game.

But that is only because I don't mind 40 Dpoints for what it provides.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe, but the only time I find a wizard's tower is really sufficiently faster is when you're building it by magic with the Wizard's Tower spell. Anything else just doesn't really satisfy a "need it done yesterday" situation. 2 turns, 4 turns....eh. I can afford to wait 2 turns to get a proper castle with a better 40 admin. If I just need a fast castle because all I need is mages, I could just use the Mausoleum or something instead. I'm not saying the Wizard's Tower is something that nobody would EVER take, like, say, the Mountain Citadel, but it *IS* a little steep.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey, now that's just insulting. I *DO* play other nations from time to time. And what's wrong with the World map? I *LIKE* the world map! It's an excellent map for innumerable reasons, among which includes the fact that I can explain what's going on to somebody who isn't in the game without laboriously taking screenshots.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I can understand your perspective on the matter, given that your attitude towards my World map preference is clearly less than favorable: 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.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">10 Admin is 5% Income and only in provinces in which you build a castle. 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. There are situations where certain castles are usable. But I find in the variance of games and playing, that the Wizard Tower is fully worth it's cost. As much if not more in large games as small.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I never said anything was wrong with the World Map. I said your perspective and resulting comments might be skewed by your particular playstyle. Making definitive statements like "THAT much faster" are derived from you playstyle. I consider it much faster because you can build 2 in the time it takes to build 1 castle, that's "Much Faster" to me, by the definition of th word. Just like "cheaper" is defined by it costing less. If you mean to say "In my experience, where I play in this playstyle, 2 turns and 33% Gold is not that big a deal" you can and definitely have a point for it, but saying it's not much faster is untrue.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

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. But of course that might be my 'rush' mentality talking.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

If you paid for the fortified city with DPs, that's what you begin with, and you can build anything up to and including that type. You just wouldn't be limited to only being able to build that expensive choice as you are now in Dom 2.

It would be a bad idea to permit buying a cheap fort during god design and allowing the building of better forts in the game. A really bad idea. IMO.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, what defines "up to"?

Do you mean in cost paid, so that paying for a Wizard's Tower means you can build all fort types? Or do you mean their order on the fort list, starting with Mausoleum and working up to Mountain Citadel, so that somebody taking the (godawful) Mountain Citadel would be able to build any fort?

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

One possibilty I suppose is to have a "preference" and/or "discount" for a choosing fortification type. This could be faster build time, cheaper cost, morale boost for garrison units, so on. And penalties otherwise.

Alternatively, you can restrict possible type placement based on terrain. E.g. all are buildable at grassland, but Fortified City/Mausoleum not allowed in Forest, so on... While a nationally choosen type ignore such restrictions (or is buildable but are higher prices than normal).

My apology if these ideas were presented already.

-Gateway103

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This method.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This method. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm... Zen would love this. He can pay for the cheaper Castle or Fortress, and build his preferred Wizard Tower, while saving 40~60 DP for something else...

-Gateway103

[ March 16, 2004, 07:05: Message edited by: Gateway103 ]

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This method. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm... Zen would love this. He can pay for the cheaper Castle or Fortress, and build his preferred Wizard Tower, while saving 40~60 DP for something else...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I misspoke. The order on the list is by gold, not DP. My opinion is that it should be by DP. Sorry for any confusion.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

Then noone would ever take more than an 80 Point Fortress.

Starting City = Fortified City.

Then they have the option of building Mausoleums if they need quick defense (with some admin), Hill Forts if they need defense and have time, and Normal Castles for in betweens.

No point to ever build a Mountain Citadel or a Dark Citadel, along with a Fortress.

It'd also be a moron to ever take a Wizard's Tower or Citadel.

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

nm, Zen beat me to it.

[ March 16, 2004, 07:18: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So the list, in order of increasing DP (alphabetized if same DP) is:

0__ Watchtower
0__ Kelp Fortress (only water nation)
40_ Dark Citadel (water & land nation)
40_ Mausoleum
40_ Mountain Citadel
60_ Fortress
80_ Castle
80_ Fortified City
80_ Hill Fortress
80_ Kelp Citadel (only water nation)
100 Citadel
120 Wizard Tower

Ok, this makes way more sense http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

However this also make a number of the choices less attractive given the alternatives...

-Gateway103

[ March 16, 2004, 07:21: Message edited by: Gateway103 ]

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

This idea seems to make anything OTHER than the Fortified City as your starting citadel VERY unattractive, as Zen pointed out. Clearly, the costs of all these forts would have to be rebalanced in general to avoid this. Your choice of fort suddenly becomes a lot less important when the distinction between the different forts of that point class are eliminated and reduced to a choice of "pick the best and most expensive thing to start with".

I'm inclined to say that this is looking like a "leave it alone, it ain't broken, don't fix it, and I seriously doubt the developers are going to touch it in a patch or make it a moddable item".

[ March 16, 2004, 07:27: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

What would be nice would be a build up advancement.

Pick up to a certain type of Fortress and a build string. Every turn you have the option to either continue building (up to your 'cap') or hold and remain on a lower Version. This would also incrementalize the cost of building.

Like this:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Wizard Tower Citadel
| /
| Dark Citadel - Mountain Citadel
| /
Watch Tower - Mausoleum
\
Fortress - Hill Fortress
|\
| Castle
Fortified City</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or something similiar, the stats would have to be adjusted and costs, but if each level cost say for example: 150 Each (And lower the Watch tower to 0 Admin, 25 Defense to represent it) then you could have a sort of build string while maintaining the difference in cost. It still doesn't change the IMO screwy Dpoint cost of some of the Fortresses.

[ March 16, 2004, 07:36: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which Zen already pointed out. There is no way a simple list reordering can be made to balance things. It would require a rebalancing of the entire list, both gold and DPs. Obviously not something that would happen shy of coming out with a new game (Dom 3).

Re: Castles and Citadels and stuff
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which Zen already pointed out. There is no way a simple list reordering can be made to balance things. It would require a rebalancing of the entire list, both gold and DPs. Obviously not something that would happen shy of coming out with a new game (Dom 3). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">One solution would be to separate between "starting fortress" and "ability to build fortress". You'd only get one of the former, and potentially several of the latter.

Clearly, the most expensive starting fort would be the fortified city; the ability to build it would not necessarily be cheap, either, but with its in-game price, these 120 DP mostly pay for the privilege of starting with one.

The Wizard's Tower as a starting fort would be very cheap; what's really valuable is the ability to quickly, cheaply, build a decent fortress with a lone scout.

Now, I don't know how much the option would be used, but it might be fun to find out.