Mountain Citadel vs. Dark Citadel

[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

[Cohen]

Perhaps he was referring to the Mountain Citadel ...

However it's too poor in Admin, so you cannot gather properly resources from neighbouring provinces, in a 5 player Urgaia map ... and I suppose in the beginning you're in dire need ot troops.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't know any castle type that comes with a decent ROI, even the Wiz Tower - but of course this is completely irrelevant since in that case you aren't going to build any - at least, a priori. The sole point of the Fortified City on small crowded maps is to make your extra income and resources to pay asap and snowball, to get an early edge over the other nations - everyone starts with only one castle, remember? And if someone is willing to build a second castle too early, that will put him even more behind the curve.

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,

You should try at least once before making assumptions like these. Whoever picked the Fortified City in such a game is likely to be the one with the most troops, thus the most armies, thus the one who can defend and invade at the same time, and who can crack your own fortresses open the easier. It is an effective strategy, provided you're offensive-minded. I've seen it used and used it myself many times.

[Maltrease]

The wizard tower and castle do not have bad ROI's, particularly if playing on a Rich map setting.

If you built a wizard tower in a provence generating 100 income it will increase your income by 15 gold a turn, and pay for itself in 20 turns.

Finding provences with higher base income produces even quicker returns. Obviously if you plop a fortress down on a provence generating 20 income it will never pay for itself.

If you playing with high income scales (3 order, 3 production, 3 growth), rich maps, or big long games this can a significant motivation in your plans.

It also combines nicely with the lvl9 nature enchantment spells that doubles your income.

And of course having lots of fortresses has many other benefits besides simply enhancing your economy.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Maltrease:
If you built a wizard tower in a provence generating 100 income it will increase your income by 15 gold a turn, and pay for itself in 20 turns.

Exactly. Anything that takes more than 10 turns to pay for itself in Dominions has a poor ROI in my book. OFC your mileage may vary.