|
|
|
 |

April 3rd, 2008, 05:27 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hannover, Germany
Posts: 198
Thanks: 87
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
Re: The problem of fort types
AFAIK, forts can improve local incomes with a small value like admin/2.
If we increase that scale into some more decent value, (I'll suggest *2 instead) buliding a big city will definitely pay off in long term, just as the forts are supposed to.
|

April 3rd, 2008, 06:58 PM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
|
|
Re: The problem of fort types
If admin had a greater impact on gold income that would probably help make the 'good/big' forts more attractive, but it is somewhat sidestepping the issue. I'd be in favour of that in addition to the cost changes we're pondering.
Fort modding would be fine as well though. I'm happy to have a go at balancing them and even with the ability only to mod build time cost and admin, with the fort type modding already available for nations you could create an improved/revamped fort system for the game.
|

April 19th, 2008, 06:16 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
|
|
Re: The problem of fort types
Sorry to bump this but I wonder if it has attracted KO's attention at all.
|

April 19th, 2008, 10:39 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,463
Thanks: 25
Thanked 92 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: The problem of fort types
A bit, yes 
|

April 19th, 2008, 11:15 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 33
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: The problem of fort types
I think the price/administraion value of the forts is fairly correct. What I would like to see is to have nations Like C'tis to get a fort with a turn reduction, but the same cost, for building in swamps, and a penalty in both for building in forests. Corresponingly, Pangaea would get the time benefit for a forest fort and a penalty for building in swamps.
This would greatly increase the number of fort numbers to address all possible permutations, so I don't know if it would be acceptable to the developers.
|

April 19th, 2008, 11:29 AM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: guess - and you'll be wrong
Posts: 834
Thanks: 33
Thanked 187 Times in 66 Posts
|
|
Re: The problem of fort types
Quote:
Edratman2 said:
What I would like to see is to have nations Like C'tis to get a fort with a turn reduction, but the same cost, for building in swamps, and a penalty in both for building in forests. Corresponingly, Pangaea would get the time benefit for a forest fort and a penalty for building in swamps.
|
I really like this.
|

April 19th, 2008, 11:34 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
|
|
Re: The problem of fort types
The problem with that, Edratman2, is that Ctisian players still wouldn't build in swamps. A high admin expensive fort in a swamp still offers no synergy, even if it's faster to build. Hence you'd either have the players building elsewhere, or if that was punished heavily, you'd just be dumping all over Ctis.
Time cost is clearly the biggest issue, but the gold difference between an 800 fort and a 1200 isn't a trivial matter, particularly in the early game. The 1200, even if it took the same number of turns to build, is fairly unlikely to recoup the cost effectively.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|