castle choice

Gandalf Parker · #1 November 8th, 2003, 06:52 PM

Im always eager for more spread. Anything to boost new strategys. As far as Im concerned everything can be shifted. More spread on cost, arrows, defense, admin, supplies, and build times.

Chris Byler · #2 November 8th, 2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pocus:
So far, what is your choice in castles? My impressions :

castles are better balanced than in dom1, but I still have some complaints. For example the castle 'castle' (80 DP, 40 admin) seems a very good choice, perhaps to good, as I find myself choosing it more often than not.

Second point, with the lower gold income of dom2, the gold cost of castles is of paramount importance. I have problems understanding why anybody would take a mountain fortress for example (except if you know you will never build a second castle, but I discuss medium sized games or above). I think that castles costing 750 gp should be cheaper.

I understand that defence, and number of arrows can be of importance, but still 750 gp is simply too much. Whats more , the gold cost is coupled with the build time, so the situation is even worse!

anyway, discussion welcome.

What makes the 750/5 even more harsh (not that it needed it) is that you have to pay the whole 750 up front. Which often means you have to save up for a turn or two, then pay 750, then wait 5 turns. If it charged 150/turn it wouldn't be quite so bad.

On the other hand - 750 gold is about 75 ordinary troops (neglecting resources), about 5 mid-priced mages, or one and a half Niefel Jarls. Do you really think that the towers of the high level castles don't count for at least that much in a fight (and with no upkeep or supply cost)? Their economic benefits may not be much, but if they cost the enemy enough troops, you're still getting your money's worth.

On the gripping hand - you can't take them with you on the attack, you have to pay the money up front, and some of the expensive forts (like Dark Citadel) aren't even that good on defense.

I'd like to see a MP game where someone has to get through fifty or so City Guards (maybe backed by some poison slingers too) in a Mountain Citadel - in Miasma dominion. That would hurt. What kind of army could you build somewhere else while the enemy was tied down beseiging and then storming your MC? (Of course this depends on having another fort where you can recruit troops - not easy if you are using MC.)

Maybe we should try the merits of the various forts in MP, though. Admin isn't as important as previously, and IIRC mountain citadel has a fairly low DP cost - so as long as you aren't building more than one or two, it might not be that bad. I'd expect that some of the ultra-defensive forts (especially dark citadel and mountain citadel) might need to be improved, but I'd like to see more of them in game first.

StarTux · #3 November 8th, 2003, 07:54 PM

Has anyone tried to take on a Mountain Citadel? How hard are they to take?

Gandalf Parker · #4 November 8th, 2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by StarTux:
Has anyone tried to take on a Mountain Citadel? How hard are they to take?

You can use the Mini.map to find out (check out the thread on Battle Simulator)

[ November 08, 2003, 17:58: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Pocus · #5 November 8th, 2003, 08:29 PM

or you can download an xls file that I made, posted into a thread of this forum, with the stats of all castles in battle.

st.patrik · #6 November 8th, 2003, 10:33 PM

Here's a suggestion (as if we need any more

) for how to make castle-types more flexible, while retaining their importance re. design points:

How about if the castle you pick when designing your pretender signifies something like the 'maximum tech level' achievable by your culture? In other words, when you build a castle you always first take 2 turns to build a watchtower, or perhaps mausoleum, for 300 gold. Then subsequent to that you can choose to 'upgrade' your basic structure to the castle you picked in god-creation, for however much time and gold.

You'd still retain the advantages of choosing an expensive castle-type, because you could build to it whereas others couldn't, but you'd have an interim step, and the cost broken up into a couple of chunks.

I'm not suggesting being able to build multiple buildings - I think that would mess the game up. Instead trying to think of ways to make castles like the MC more viable.

apoger · #7 November 8th, 2003, 11:04 PM

There is absoutely no reason why all forts should be one type.

I suggest that players should be allowed to purchase as many fort types as they like, using the current system. Add in a selector so you could chosse which will be the capital fort.

When building a fort, let them get a choice from the forms chosen at nation build time. This way if a player wanted more choices, they could get them at the expense of nation points.

For example: If we generating a nation/god I choose fortified city (as capital), wizards tower, and hill fort. This costs 280 nation points (more than enough to balance the advantages). When a character attempts to build a fort, this nation would get the choice of making one of the three forts. That way you could choose between a fast build (WT), best admin (FC) or high defense (HF).

Frankly I've always been surprised that Ilwwinter has stuck with the simplistic one fort theme in such an otherwise complex game.