Mountain Citadel vs. Dark Citadel

[liga]

Mountain Citadel:

double wall & gates (= inner yard, 2 squares wide)
32 firing points from front towers & side towers

dark citadel:

Dark Citadel:

long passage with giant rock teeths (2/3 wide)
0 firing points

good play
Liga

[Norfleet]

Interestingly, it's rare to see anyone pick anything other than the Castle, Fortress, Watchtower, Mausoleum, or Wizard's Tower, with the castle by far the overwhelming favorite. Very rarely somebody will take a fortified city (and lose), and some newbie's first game may invoke a Dark Citadel, but nobody ever takes the Mountain Citadel: To understand what the strengths of the mountain citadel over the dark citadel are, you'd have to not be a newbie, as the stats on paper look better for the Dark Citadel....but if you're not a newbie, you're probably not taking EITHER of these hideously expensive yet poor admin forts.

[Yossar]

Originally posted by Yossar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HotNifeThruButr:
Mountain Citadels are a **** to storm. I'm pretty sure they're the ones the AI is so fond of, with the long, narrow chokepoint and the towers right on top of it.

That's the one. Can be pretty fun for Miasma Ctis.

---

Actually I was thinking of Hill Fortress. Is Mountain Citidel basically the same thing except a bit tougher? There are very few circustances under which I can see a 750 gold Fortress being a good investment, though.

[Cohen]

I don't believe that those "32" firing points make real difference when you come under siege, and you'ren't able to break siege by sallying forth or sending troops from neighbouring provinces.

If you're able, those firing points don't matter at all.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Very rarely somebody will take a fortified city (and lose)

In the sort of game you play, mebe. Try Urgaia with 5+ land nations for a change, or avoid generalizations.

Better - do both.

[Norfleet]

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. On such a cramped map with such claustrophobic conditions, the exhorbitant cost and lengthy build time of the Fort City will basically preclude you from building another one easily. 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, given that the odds of being able to afford two effective ones is low, with nowhere to duck and cover: That leaves them hugely vulnerable to being wiped out in a surprise attack by an enemy SC before you can bring you own to bear. The fortified city is usually not ideal even in peaceful conditions where you're allowed to actually build them: I don't think they'll do better when you likely won't even be given any time to build any!

[PvK]

Well, a strong fort is good at defending a position, and keeping, say, the magic sites in your possession. If someone does try to storm it, the 32 firing positions and channelled approach can do huge amounts of damage, especially combined with casters and tough defenders inside.

PvK