What kind of castles do you choose? - Page 2

SurvivalistMerc · #11 November 22nd, 2003, 08:37 AM

I have been using the 40 admin castles that cost 80 development points.

But I'm actually considering moving up to higher defense after having some of my forts seiged by an AI supercombatant pretender...a wyrm.

Looks like 2 turns for any decent sized army to tear down my walls. Or is that just Ry'leh?

Gandalf Parker · #12 November 22nd, 2003, 04:45 PM

Game size of course means something also. Well actually I guess any scale or setting might have some point in the decision.

But a small map pretty much orders me to invest in strong walls and high admin. A large map makes a strong argument for going with cheap fast builds

Jasper · #13 November 23rd, 2003, 12:12 AM

I have to admit that in practice I typically use the 40 admin castle too, with only the wizard tower being seriously in contention. I _want_ to like the Hill fort, but in the end I never quite take it.

Jasper · #14 November 23rd, 2003, 12:15 AM

Actually, I think the fortress system would be improved if they simply all had the same administration, and were instead simply differentiated by their point cost, expense, independent time to build, and defensive features.

LordArioch · #15 November 23rd, 2003, 06:05 AM

What's so great about administration anyway? 20 administration difference is, IIRC, a 10% difference and income and supposing 50-100 resources worth of surrounding provinces, there's a 10 resource difference, so taking the castle over the mausoleum gets you an astounding 10% more gold at certain provinces (except for your capitol most forts have low income)...and +10-20 resources per fort. The resources is nice but so is a 150 gold discount on fort cost.

The wizard tower on the other hand, costs over 2 scales more than the mausoleum for 5% more gold at fort provinces and +5-10 resources...I'd rather take an order scale and a production scale.
I can see the benefit of the 40 point castle for early troop production, but unless I missed something, I don't see what the expensive forts offer late-game.

#16 November 23rd, 2003, 07:46 AM

Well you have to consider that an initial province attack and hold; fort construction and domination of control of provinces for both gem and army production makes a massive difference.

If you could make double the money and production from turn 4 to turn 12 (Just for the early game expansion) then youll have a massive advantage in any field you choose as you have much more options to spend your valuable gold on.

Take an example of Pythium.

If you could build an Extra Temple that pumps A communicant every turn from an initial conquest of 2 provinces before a player playing a 20 Admin province, you suddenly have yourself a drastic advantage when armies collide because of abusive Communions.

LordArioch · #17 November 24th, 2003, 06:55 AM

Admittedly the player with the higher admin might get a slightly faster start, but nothing close to double the money, and *no* resource bonus until after the nearby provinces are captured. And to get that place producing more communicants you'd need a fort and a temple, so unless the fort admin makes up for the 150 cost gold difference, the low admin fort player is the one likely to be producing lots of communicants.

PDF · #18 November 24th, 2003, 12:08 PM

I almost exclusively use 30 and 40-Admin castle, depending if I can spare 60 or 80 design points...
The rest is either too crappy Admin-wise or just too expensive (Mage Tower in design points, Fort city in gold).
I don't see the point of ever taking a Mountain Castle. Granted, it's very difficult to storm, but using so many design points and gold to get it is a waste of resources IMHO.