[Pocus]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pocus:
[qb]hill fortress is an hell to assault (big defence to bring down, then narrow passage & 32 arrows when you assault), coupled with miasma disease, (...) Dont take the dark citadel anyway, too costly, and no arrows when assaulted.

Pros & cons, as Mr G. would say. The higher defense of the cheaper citadels may delay the storming by a turn, sometimes two - more diseases in enemy ranks , and most importantly more time for you to gather reinforcements to lift the siege. Although I certainly would think twice before picking a 600+ gp castle without earth magic (either on the pretender or the national mages).

---

I think I still prefer the hill fortress, compared to the dark citadel. The dark citadel has more defence, so perhaps buy you a turn, but when you storm one, there is nothing in your favor (no arrows).

Whereas try to storm a hill fortress. Even in storm, the 32 arrows fire so close that you are certain to hit units. With some units holding the breach (a mixed group of city guards that you would happen to have and lizard warriors, because they have high morale), you can hold without too much problem at least 8 rounds, and this is a very minimal assessment (there is only 3 squares to fight in the inner courtyard).
During these 8 rounds, you will have fired 250 arrows, at point blank (accurary is not a big problem, even in storm). Thats mean some losses, which means in return less troops to breach the wall of another of your castle.

And dark citadel cost 600 gp, which is simply too much in dom2 (I plan to launch a discussion on this btw, the gold cost is not valued enough I think).