The problem of fort types

[Edratman]

The administration value of the various forts is something I pay a lot of attention to. Can't even count how many times I went to zero resources in a province with an irreplacable indy mage because it was castled by two 50 administration forts. (This includes finding a cool site after the forts are built.)

Some nations build 50 admin forts almost everywhere and others have more options, and the options are always lower admin forts which I consider beneficial.

I consider the admin value to be as troublesome, if not more, than the cost and time to build various forts.

[ano]

It is not problem, it is a matter of rules, strategy and micromanagement.

[Sombre]

Perhaps it isn't a problem for you, but I think it could be improved. If elite national troops were priced so high that no-one ever used them and they were more of a burden than a bonus, some people would see that as a problem and some wouldn't. Fixing the problem for those who perceive it as one wouldn't ruin things for everyone else though. It's the same deal here.

Why should Ctis be worse than other nations when it comes to building in swamps? Why should Jotunheim (iron woods) or Pangaea be penalised for building in the forest? Wouldn't the game be more interesting and make more sense if the 'better' forts 'gifted' to various nations actually were better? The way it works currently is completely counter-intuitive. Sure once you get how it works you just build the 'crappy' forts, but when people start out they naturally identify the 'better' ones as actually being better. Madness I know.

I'm pretty sure the devs support the idea of rewarding thematic play where possible.

[ano]

Actually I disagreed with Edratman, not you. Admin problem is not a problem, actually, but a matter of micromanagement and attention.
As for your words, Sombre, I totally agree.