
June 15th, 2004, 07:48 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,177
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Mountain Citadel vs. Dark Citadel
Quote:
Originally posted by Norfleet:
quote: Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
In the sort of game you play, mebe. Try Urgaia with 5+ land nations for a change, or avoid generalizations.
|
I think that still would be an awful idea: The ROI on a Fortified City, considering that its admin is a mere 10 points better than the Castle, and thus yields only an additional 5% income, is awful. I don't know any castle type that comes with a decent ROI, even the Wiz Tower - but of course this is completely irrelevant since in that case you aren't going to build any - at least, a priori. The sole point of the Fortified City on small crowded maps is to make your extra income and resources to pay asap and snowball, to get an early edge over the other nations - everyone starts with only one castle, remember? And if someone is willing to build a second castle too early, that will put him even more behind the curve.
Quote:
This means you'll be effectively limited to one fort for most of the game, leaving the rest of your provinces completely undefendable and leaving your probably one-and-only army,
|
You should try at least once before making assumptions like these. Whoever picked the Fortified City in such a game is likely to be the one with the most troops, thus the most armies, thus the one who can defend and invade at the same time, and who can crack your own fortresses open the easier. It is an effective strategy, provided you're offensive-minded. I've seen it used and used it myself many times.
__________________
God does not play dice, He plays Dominions Albert von Ulm
|