The problem of fort types

[Kristoffer O]

A bit, yes

[Edratman2]

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.

[cleveland]

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.

[Sombre]

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.