Q: How many Forts do you build? How many Temples?

ExitJudas · #1 October 30th, 2007, 06:12 PM

Of course any answer to these questions will differ based on strategy and nation, but I am still wondering to what extent building many forts is even more important than it seems at first sight. It gives you access to buy more commanders (researchers, assassins) per round, which in itself is of course very important, but doesnt it also give you more income? In general how quickly should you expand with forts? how many forts do you usually build if you have, say 10-15 provinces? Do you put them up side by side?

And temples. They seem mighty expensive to me, and very vulnerable, so how many do you build? and do you dare build them on the frontline or only in core provinces?

Let me get some rants here, I'm looking for general trends more than a complete analysis.

Thanks in advance.

Teh MP noob

Evilhomer · #2 October 30th, 2007, 06:57 PM

With 10 provinces I am mainly looking to expand and I will not spend gold on castles at that point in most cases. So I will have the fortress and the temple I started with. At 15 I might have atleast started construction on another fortress, or it might be done. I will add a lab to it but I doubt I will have a temple there anytime soon.

Meglobob · #3 October 30th, 2007, 07:08 PM

A rule of thumb, 1 fortress, 1 Lab, 1 Temple.

If I ever discover a lab and I don't want to build a fortress there I demolish it.

I never build a temple outside of a fortress.

It depends on the individual nation exactly what your building construction policy is.

I always try to build a 2nd fort ASAP, I feel too vulnerable with just one production centre.

Lazy_Perfectionist · #4 October 30th, 2007, 07:58 PM

Usually I do the same as Meglobob. But occasionally I do vary from the rule.

For instance LA Atlantis - R'lyeh and Abysia are neighbors. Temples increase in value.

I often won't build a fort if I don't expect I can hold it against an enemy force for at least three turns. I've usually got a fairly hostile dominion (death and/or cold), and if I can keep them from controlling a nearby fort, then they're often suffering from -40% supply or worse. Keeping them from reinforcements is valuable as well...

In that case, I might build freestanding temples- I know that they don't increase upkeep, and they can't be a stolen investment, just a lost one.

If I'm in a peaceful research phase, or against a freespawn nation, I'll build temples instead of troops to keep my income high. I won't build everywhere, but five is 2000 gold. The same in troops would be 133 gold upkeep, and putting up a few spare fortresses to increase production _ capacity_, etc, etc. By building the temples and saving for fortresses, for oh, five turns, I save 666 gold that the same number of troops would have cost me in upkeep.

I really change quite a bit what I do, though.

I've also decided never to build border fortresses.

DireAussie · #5 October 30th, 2007, 11:07 PM

A 2nd fort in the early game is critical I've found. Any more after that depends on your income, nation and situation. A rule of thumb is that if you can't afford to recruit more than X mages per turn then its not worth building an (X+1) fort. This will vary depending on cost of mages, some nations get good cheap mages that are useful in battle so a 3rd fort early will be a big priority.

Quote:

doesnt it also give you more income

Yes, but generally it isnt worth building a fort solely because of income, because the cost of building the fort versus the number of turns to recuperate the cost of the fort will be at least 15 turns, usually a lot more. Most of the cheaper forts have a low admin value so you dont get much.

Your primary considerations should always be for recruitment purposes, either for your own national mages or provincial mages.

HJFudge · #6 October 31st, 2007, 12:00 AM

I know I am new so this is more of a question on if what I do is sound strategy then advice...

What I like to do in the SP games Ive been playing is to find any chokepoints. If there are, I'll use my initial army to get there in 2-3 turns and build up a second army at my base to take points around my fort. If there arent really any I'll just expand around my fort to get more resource income so I can make more guys.

I get my 2nd fort either at a chokepoint or just behind it and keep my army at the chokepoint. I will build temples at chokepoints too even if I dont have a fort there because, honestly, my army is gonna be there and if I am expanding out of my fort I wont really need to defend the territory because I will be taking all adjacent ones and hitting the enemy hard. Yeah it sucks 400 bucks worth if they are able to break through but I play MA C'tis, and the dominion spread also makes swamp and heat and I find the harm that does to the enemy nations around it more than makes up for any risk.

It's a valuable 'cold war' type weapon because I dont have to actually attack to damage the enemy. Who wants an army thats all diseased?

Take it or leave it I dont know if thats actually good strategy.

ExitJudas · #7 October 31st, 2007, 05:11 AM

Good and insightful posts all around.

I agree that recruiting is the primary factor in deciding when and where to build a fortress.

However I would have thought that spreading your dominion would be more important (hence requiring a larger focus on putting up temples) than what seems to be the case. You get a hitpoint and morale buff in your own territory. furthermore, against many opponents you also get a fatigue bonus since you can keep them fighing in temperatures of your liking. Are these factors too minor to actually influence the outcoming of a battle? Is it more worthwhile to just spend the 400 gold on units instead?

Lazy_Perfectionist · #8 October 31st, 2007, 05:29 AM

Speaking from a tactical perspective, there's no difference between dominion 3 and dominion 8. Excepting only pretenders, prophets, and certain nation(s) such as Agartha, Golem Cult or R'lyeh for the spawn.

Scales will shift faster with higher dominion (as result of more temples leading to greater max and spread), and be harder for the enemy to counter, yes.

Having your dominion in hostile territory (even w/o scales) will rob that nation of any positive effects from the scales. It can also perma kill gods and combo with certain spells.

Those factors are not too minor- but can often be achieved other ways, i.e. through temperature-changing spells or simply by maintaining a defensive stance and letting the enemy come to you. This means that just enough temples are a good idea, and a temple boom/dominion push needs to have a specific objective in mind, and defensive plans in place. It's not like economics, where its always a good idea. Go for balance, then skew to one direction once you're planning a war.

ExitJudas · #9 October 31st, 2007, 05:41 AM

Agreed. In my first MP game, as EA Arco, Ive encountered Abysia at a choke, but it is my only expansion point over ground. I had sorta decided that a defensive, dom-spread strategy might be the best, especially because Abysia seems to get so many more bonuses when fighting in heat, both spell-wise and unit-wise. But I'm not really sure yet. Oh well we will just have to see what happens. Maybe I get bored with waiting and decide to attack anyhow.

Twan · #10 October 31st, 2007, 11:19 AM

I build forts each time I have a province which may have decent ressources surrounded by my territory and neighbouring no other forts.

I build temples only in forts most of the time (except the first one, built as soon I can near my capitol to help my dominion and recruit some indie priests).

I often build labs without forts on the borders of my realm when I hope a long peace but don't really trust my neighbour ; I send most of my mages scripted for battle to fronteers, and they forge/research there. Also if I play an astral nation, labs on fronteers are cool for surprise gateway spells.