castle choice

[Pocus]

So far, what is your choice in castles? My impressions :

castles are better balanced than in dom1, but I still have some complaints. For example the castle 'castle' (80 DP, 40 admin) seems a very good choice, perhaps to good, as I find myself choosing it more often than not.

Second point, with the lower gold income of dom2, the gold cost of castles is of paramount importance. I have problems understanding why anybody would take a mountain fortress for example (except if you know you will never build a second castle, but I discuss medium sized games or above). I think that castles costing 750 gp should be cheaper.

I understand that defence, and number of arrows can be of importance, but still 750 gp is simply too much. Whats more , the gold cost is coupled with the build time, so the situation is even worse!

anyway, discussion welcome.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im always eager for more spread. Anything to boost new strategys. As far as Im concerned everything can be shifted. More spread on cost, arrows, defense, admin, supplies, and build times.

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by Pocus:
So far, what is your choice in castles? My impressions :

castles are better balanced than in dom1, but I still have some complaints. For example the castle 'castle' (80 DP, 40 admin) seems a very good choice, perhaps to good, as I find myself choosing it more often than not.

Second point, with the lower gold income of dom2, the gold cost of castles is of paramount importance. I have problems understanding why anybody would take a mountain fortress for example (except if you know you will never build a second castle, but I discuss medium sized games or above). I think that castles costing 750 gp should be cheaper.

I understand that defence, and number of arrows can be of importance, but still 750 gp is simply too much. Whats more , the gold cost is coupled with the build time, so the situation is even worse!

anyway, discussion welcome.

What makes the 750/5 even more harsh (not that it needed it) is that you have to pay the whole 750 up front. Which often means you have to save up for a turn or two, then pay 750, then wait 5 turns. If it charged 150/turn it wouldn't be quite so bad.

On the other hand - 750 gold is about 75 ordinary troops (neglecting resources), about 5 mid-priced mages, or one and a half Niefel Jarls. Do you really think that the towers of the high level castles don't count for at least that much in a fight (and with no upkeep or supply cost)? Their economic benefits may not be much, but if they cost the enemy enough troops, you're still getting your money's worth.

On the gripping hand - you can't take them with you on the attack, you have to pay the money up front, and some of the expensive forts (like Dark Citadel) aren't even that good on defense.


I'd like to see a MP game where someone has to get through fifty or so City Guards (maybe backed by some poison slingers too) in a Mountain Citadel - in Miasma dominion. That would hurt. What kind of army could you build somewhere else while the enemy was tied down beseiging and then storming your MC? (Of course this depends on having another fort where you can recruit troops - not easy if you are using MC.)

Maybe we should try the merits of the various forts in MP, though. Admin isn't as important as previously, and IIRC mountain citadel has a fairly low DP cost - so as long as you aren't building more than one or two, it might not be that bad. I'd expect that some of the ultra-defensive forts (especially dark citadel and mountain citadel) might need to be improved, but I'd like to see more of them in game first.

[StarTux]

Has anyone tried to take on a Mountain Citadel? How hard are they to take?

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by StarTux:
Has anyone tried to take on a Mountain Citadel? How hard are they to take?

You can use the Mini.map to find out (check out the thread on Battle Simulator)

[ November 08, 2003, 17:58: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Pocus]

or you can download an xls file that I made, posted into a thread of this forum, with the stats of all castles in battle.

[st.patrik]

Here's a suggestion (as if we need any more ) for how to make castle-types more flexible, while retaining their importance re. design points:

How about if the castle you pick when designing your pretender signifies something like the 'maximum tech level' achievable by your culture? In other words, when you build a castle you always first take 2 turns to build a watchtower, or perhaps mausoleum, for 300 gold. Then subsequent to that you can choose to 'upgrade' your basic structure to the castle you picked in god-creation, for however much time and gold.

You'd still retain the advantages of choosing an expensive castle-type, because you could build to it whereas others couldn't, but you'd have an interim step, and the cost broken up into a couple of chunks.

I'm not suggesting being able to build multiple buildings - I think that would mess the game up. Instead trying to think of ways to make castles like the MC more viable.

[apoger]

There is absoutely no reason why all forts should be one type.

I suggest that players should be allowed to purchase as many fort types as they like, using the current system. Add in a selector so you could chosse which will be the capital fort.

When building a fort, let them get a choice from the forms chosen at nation build time. This way if a player wanted more choices, they could get them at the expense of nation points.

For example: If we generating a nation/god I choose fortified city (as capital), wizards tower, and hill fort. This costs 280 nation points (more than enough to balance the advantages). When a character attempts to build a fort, this nation would get the choice of making one of the three forts. That way you could choose between a fast build (WT), best admin (FC) or high defense (HF).

Frankly I've always been surprised that Ilwwinter has stuck with the simplistic one fort theme in such an otherwise complex game.

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by apoger:
There is absoutely no reason why all forts should be one type.

I suggest that players should be allowed to purchase as many fort types as they like, using the current system. Add in a selector so you could chosse which will be the capital fort.

When building a fort, let them get a choice from the forms chosen at nation build time. This way if a player wanted more choices, they could get them at the expense of nation points.

For example: If we generating a nation/god I choose fortified city (as capital), wizards tower, and hill fort. This costs 280 nation points (more than enough to balance the advantages). When a character attempts to build a fort, this nation would get the choice of making one of the three forts. That way you could choose between a fast build (WT), best admin (FC) or high defense (HF).

Frankly I've always been surprised that Ilwwinter has stuck with the simplistic one fort theme in such an otherwise complex game.

Interesting suggestion.

I think that "extra" fort types should cost reduced points though. Part of the reason for the point costs of some forts (especially the high gold ones) is that you start with one for free.

Maybe extra forts should cost half+10, half+20, etc. so that everyone doesn't take the 0 point fort in addition to whatever other fort they were taking (and also to impose some cost on too much fort flexibility) - but still charge a reduced point cost for forts that you can build later but don't start with a free one.

Of course, it will still be cheaper in design points to have only one fort type.

This is a really good idea - it would allow Man (for example) to have a fortified city capitol, but also have a more reasonably priced fort to build elsewhere (where admin isn't as much of an issue because they can't get wardens/KoA there anyway).

[Treebeard]

I like both Apoger and St. Patrick suggestions, but Illwinter had said before that they wished to keep the forts a very simple thing. Too bad, IMHO.

Given the new economic enviroment of DomII, I must say the most important characteristic of a fortification is its cost in money (hard to come by - now a $1500 event can pretty much define a game). Of the high cost castles only the fortified City is interesting.

An adm rate 10 higher means only 5% more gold, but I still can't see a good use for any of the forts with adm 20 or 10.

That means I plan to use the castle (too cheap at 80 points, should be 100 or even 120), the wizard's tower (the $150 extra over the castle can take more than 20 turns to compensate) and the fortified city (for the cases were I'm doing a holy unit theme and I have no plans to get more).

The citadel is expensive at 100 points, given it cost. 80 would be better.

The mountain citadel is insanely expensive for a 10 adm rate. I would suggest lowering it cost to 450, while increasing the time to build to 6 (there's no need to keep the mathemathical relation between cost and time to build). Probably diminuish its cost to 20 dom points.

The dark citadel isn't that far, either. With no defense towers, I would dimuish the cost to $450 and leave it at 0 dom points.

Hill fortress should cost less, too. 60 points tops, maybe even as low as 40.

Fortress' price is okay.

The watch tower should either cost -40 dom points or be buildable for $150. Very low stats. The mausoleum is a bad pick, too. O dom points.

Mediaval castles are strategically offensive while tactically defensive. I think the second function is overestimated in Dom II, even with the lower movement speed of troops. To be under siege is to have lost the income of a province, probably the most important aspect of the land (depending on the sites). Even if the enemy can't take a castle he can lay iddle or ravage the land, so, if you are under siege you are already losing. Even with a destructive dominion such as miasma.

My $0.02.