Anyone use a Fortified City?

Heironeous · #1 January 16th, 2005, 03:25 PM

I like to use a fortified city for Man (standard) in combination with a big blessing for my wardens. Clear out the provinces immediately around the capitol and watch the resources pour in. Note that I usually play on smaller and/or crowded maps, and my choices (Man, fortified city) reflect this.

Yes, build time is a pain, and like Verjigorm said you do need to be very selective when building a new one. I suspect Ulm could make good use of a fortified city (needs lots of resources, has lots of gold) but I've never tried it myself.

CUnknown · #2 January 16th, 2005, 06:57 PM

I have used Ulm several times with a fortified city. It works okay, but a castle is probably better. Fortified cities are definately better than castles, but the extra 300 gold you pay sucks. On a super-small map they might be worth it (because the first one's free!).

I personally think all 300 gold castles should cost like 350, and all 750 gold castles should cost like 650.

Kristoffer O · #3 January 16th, 2005, 08:06 PM

The cost of fortresses is currently 150 * time to build.

Tuidjy · #4 January 16th, 2005, 10:23 PM

As far as I am concerned there are two castles worth considering on land:

1. The watchtower - cheap in design points, cheap and quick to build, and a
stumbling block to any invader.
2. The castle - slightly inferior to the fortified city, as a castle, but cheaper
and much faster to build.

The wizard tower is a very nice castle, but costs 120 design points. Who can
afford this?! Everything else is crap. It is true that in a game of mine I am
getting frustrated besieging Mountain Citadels with 350 defense, but I cannot
help but think that maybe, if my opponent had taken a better castle, he would not
have had to man his capital's walls three turns after invading my lands. By the
way, Caelum fell, it just took four turns.

It is no wonder that in Multuplayer, you mostly see watchtowers. I would say
that the best players use them exclusively.

deccan · #5 January 16th, 2005, 11:31 PM

How about Mausoleums? They have walls but Watchtowers don't.

tinkthank · #6 January 17th, 2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Kristoffer O said:

Quote:

Pocus said:

You know Kristoffer, you should really export this in a text file... I never ever saw somebody playing with a mountain citadel eg. The added defense dont compensate in any way the feeble eco bonus, and the huge cost and build time.

Hmm, yes. We are currently reworking fortresses in dom3. Not sure how dom2 will be affected. Probably not too much, but perhaps some moddability can be incorporated.

Hey, neato!

Quote:

Tuidjy said:
As far as I am concerned there are two castles worth considering on land:

1. The watchtower - cheap in design points, cheap and quick to build, and a
stumbling block to any invader.
2. The castle - slightly inferior to the fortified city, as a castle, but cheaper
and much faster to build.

The wizard tower is a very nice castle, but costs 120 design points. Who can
afford this?! Everything else is crap. It is true that in a game of mine I am
getting frustrated besieging Mountain Citadels with 350 defense, but I cannot
help but think that maybe, if my opponent had taken a better castle, he would not
have had to man his capital's walls three turns after invading my lands. By the
way, Caelum fell, it just took four turns.

It is no wonder that in Multuplayer, you mostly see watchtowers. I would say
that the best players use them exclusively.

This is interesting.
I tend to disagree, but I suppose that depends on what you mean by "best players" and "mostly watchtowers". I suppose those that feel they belong to the "best players" should post here.
Wizard Tower: I have used it with quite palpable success with Pythium, which gets me both decent income and resources for my principes as well as quick forts all over for lots and lots of cheapo communion slaves. As to who can afford it, well, I felt that Pythium could, and certainly even more so could, for example, Caleum, or any nation with high temp settings. Never tried, though, cause I like a castle. I agree with the Mountain Citadel however, I cant imagine the context in which that could be a real boon.

Endoperez · #7 January 17th, 2005, 03:44 PM

Maybe if many "castle plans" could be bought, the Mountain Citadel would be worth buying for those strategically important but economically poor provinces. It might still not be worth buying, but having it in addition to Watchtower/some other cheap castle could provide some interesting possibilities...

Yvelina · #8 January 17th, 2005, 07:28 PM

I am not saying that I am one of the best players, but I will challenge anyone who dares to say that I am not!

I use only watchtowers, but it may be due to the fact that I play only Vanheim. My forces are extremely mobile and mostly undetectable, so I can usually relieve the siege of any castle before it falls... or teleport a welcoming commitee for those who dare storm it.

Why would I even consider another castle? My troops needs little in the way of ressources, I fight mostly with mages, I like to build a castle in every province, and I don't rely on walls, tower archers and PD for defense.

In my present game, there are four races that look like possible winners. One is an underwater nation, the other three use watchtowers.

Pocus · #9 January 17th, 2005, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Kristoffer O said:
The cost of fortresses is currently 150 * time to build.

You know Kristoffer, you should really export this in a text file... I never ever saw somebody playing with a mountain citadel eg. The added defense dont compensate in any way the feeble eco bonus, and the huge cost and build time.

Kuritza_Dru · #10 January 17th, 2005, 10:25 AM

About the administration. Does 'admin 50' mean that a Fortified city can 'pump over' up to 50 resources from each adjacent province? If yes, then admin 40 is more than enough. Usually I consider myself lucky to get even one adjacent province with a res 40+, and two with resources 30-40, even when I have a strong production scale.