The problem of fort types
 

This is a subject I've been talking about in the IRC channel for a little while.

Generally speaking the admin, defence value and tower weapons of a fort are far less important than the build time and the cost. This leads to the supposedly 'bad' fort types like say swamp fort actually being preferable to build and fort types like fortified cities which cost a lot, and most importantly take 5 turns to build, being neglected. Actually the way things are now, nations which have fort types specialised to certain territory as a reward are actually being punished. Take Ctis. They get to build swamp cities in swamps - this is supposed to be an advantage over the other nations who can only build 'crappy' swamp forts. But the fact is the swamp fort is the far better choice - the added admin on the swamp city is particularly useless given that swamps automatically have low population.

In order for the swamp city to actually be a reward to Ctis and encourage building in swamps, it would have to have the same kind of cost and build time as the swamp fort, while still providing the bonus in terms of admin and defence. Although it doesn't seem that logical, I think the forts should all have equal cost and buildtime. That way you can reward nations by giving them flat out better forts like the cities and so on with higher admin, instead of the current situation where in order to make a nation great at fort building you'd basically just give it low build time low cost 'crappy' ones.

What do you guys think?

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Really great point. Instead of making everything the same, though, we could just hope for 'reward' forts being better at the types of things that ARE important, as you say... namely, cost and build time. You'd think that lizardmen would know how to build quickly and cheaply in swamps.

And why build a city for 1500 inhabitants? It's not intuitive.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

IMO, one of the serious advantages of a nation is the ability to build fast cheap forts. And that is what makes, for instance, EA Mictlan who has cheap forts in mountains and forests far better than LA Mictlan who has fortcities everywhere. When you're short of money, this really makes a difference and when you have cheap little mages, ideal for research and other tasks, build time is your money, research and potential.
So I definitely agree with Sombre.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

You make a good point there. If swamp city and fortified city were the same in cost and build time, Ctis would then build in the farmland/plains provinces rather than the swamps, so they'd still be neglecting them. Perhaps in special cases like that they need a flat out awesome bonus like a fort with strong admin and defence, but also very low build time and discounted cost.

You could give Abysia really great forts for wastelands too, for instance, actively encouraging taking and holding these normally crappy provinces to get forts up on.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Could not agree more.

On a completely different note I think scouts and the like should be able to report that your opponent is building a fortification - given the accuracy with they are able to report on the composition of the garrison (PD) - it seems absurd that they are unable to notice construction activity (especially of high admin forts).

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Sombre, I agree, I'm always trying to find the 'worst' terrain type to build a fort in. In a recent game, I was happy to see real mountains within two provinces of my capitol! Except, I was Skaven. Arggh! I forgot they build a 5-turn 1200 gold Cave Fort in the mountains, and I only had 800 gold saved. Had to head to a forest instead.

I don't know what the best answer is, but I'd really like to be able to building more thematically appropriately sited forts for my nations without wasting time and money.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Hmm, I've never even given the terrain type consideration when placing forts. It's always strategic location and resource requirements that decide where I put them.

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Too bad you can't tie fort price to province population.

A 15,000 person fortified city is bigger than a 1,500 person fortified city, no?

Re: The problem of fort types
 

Nothing beats fortified cities in <500 pop provinces though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Even Fortified Village would be too much for that...

Re: The problem of fort types
 

If it were tied to population it still wouldn't be worth paying the extra time and money for the high admin city. Forts are to make more commanders (mages) per turn and to get some more resources worth of troops a turn nearer the front lines, with defence and income/supply increase coming as largely incidental concerns.

I'm currently thinking all forts should cost roughly the same, time and money both. It's less confusing for the player and it's easier to identify when you're actually getting a good deal, plus it rewards the nations with 'better' fort types. When it comes to nations like ctis and their swamp buildable, you could just make that particular type, swamp city for example, slightly cheaper/faster. You'd do the same for other special fort types. So say all forts would be 1k at 4 turns, with specials being 750 at 3 turns.