The problem of fort types

[Sombre]

If admin had a greater impact on gold income that would probably help make the 'good/big' forts more attractive, but it is somewhat sidestepping the issue. I'd be in favour of that in addition to the cost changes we're pondering.

Fort modding would be fine as well though. I'm happy to have a go at balancing them and even with the ability only to mod build time cost and admin, with the fort type modding already available for nations you could create an improved/revamped fort system for the game.

[Sombre]

Sorry to bump this but I wonder if it has attracted KO's attention at all.

[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.

[Wauthan]

Sombre said:
So we have general agreement. Does anyone have any other ideas on how this could be improved?

If there would ever be a Dominions 4 then forts and battlefields could use an overhaul. In my opinion 'attacking the breach' is not nearly deadly enough. While the defender has an advantage it feels fairly small, and I'm not sure that the attacker risk losing far more units compared to a standard battle.

I've no suggestions that are simple and realistic enough to be implemented in a patch. Mostly because I don't know how hard it would be to implement bonuses or penalties for just one side. But a "cover" bonus seems approriate, which I guess would work like an airshield but affecting all ranged attacks (including spells). Or the wall could function as extra tiles of distance for the attacker, which means only some attacks can actually reach the defenders, until the enemy unit actually makes it through the gate.

[sector24]

Well as long as we're wishing...

Seems like national forts should have battlefield enchantments like the cave fort's darkness effect. C'tis might have a mud effect outside the castle walls in their swamp forts. A 10-20% air shield surrounding the castle for another nation, etc. So they'd still be more expensive, but that expense would translate into a far more defensible castle.

Back in the real world, it does seem counter-intuitive that the "better" castles are less desirable. I think the problem is that if the enemy has an army that can take a crappy fort, they can take a good fort just as easily. Therefore my only fort considerations are indy units like elephants or sites like the Glowing Hill, construction time/cost, and very rarely resources if the nation has excellent national troops.

[Saulot]

I think we should stick to things that could actually happen.

So...
1. Altering the admin effect to be +admin% gold income, instead of admin/2.
2. Improving the tower weapons on the stronger forts significantly... as at this point they're essentially a moot point in consideration of construction and attacking. Specifically the higher cost / higher defense forts to have a lot more.

Maybe 3. Battlefield enchantments on sieging battles. Nothing crazy, just spells like Mist or Quagmire are a good power level, but there's probably not enough variety in battlefield enchantments to properly attach to the right castles/nations, so this isn't really feasible.

[Sombre]

Eh,... those would help, but I don't see how they're more likely to happen than changes to the gold/time costs. If the restricted 'bonus' forts were cheaper and quicker to build, people would build them.