Anyone use a Fortified City?

[Turin]

I would add the fortress to the usable castles. It´s almost as good as the castle, but costs 20 design points less.

I agree that the others are pretty useless. So how much should they cost, so that you would choose them?

I would see every castle as viable, if these changes to design point costs were made:
watchtower,mausoleum,fortress,castle,wizardtower unchanged.
hillfortress: -20 points
fortified city: 40 points
citadel: 40 points
dark citadel: -40 points
mountain citadel: -60 points

I´d probably still go with watchtowers in most games, but I might choose the negative point castles if you just need those few extra design points.
The citadel or fortified city would be a real alternative to the castle/fortress, if you want to have an high admin castles.

[Chazar]

alexti said:
The main reason is that the defensive bonus doesn't worth much.

That's why I proposed in a parallel thread to just add a "move and storm" command (opposite to "move and patrol"), which just works when defense is exceeded twice by the attackers.

Then big numbers of national troops would have an advantage, since attacking armies would not be delayed by weakly defended watchtowers anymore; while temples would still be protected from ghostriders, teleporters, lone raiding-SCs or mere skirmishing armies. On the other hand, having a siege strength of more than e.g. 320 to immediately storm a 150 defense castle protected by 10 militia without 1 turn delay is not an easy feat as it should be, making high-defense castles more interesting to choose: You can take still take a cheap watchtower, but it would not delay big armies anymore...