The problem of fort types

[Sombre]

This is a subject I've been talking about in the IRC channel for a little while.

Generally speaking the admin, defence value and tower weapons of a fort are far less important than the build time and the cost. This leads to the supposedly 'bad' fort types like say swamp fort actually being preferable to build and fort types like fortified cities which cost a lot, and most importantly take 5 turns to build, being neglected. Actually the way things are now, nations which have fort types specialised to certain territory as a reward are actually being punished. Take Ctis. They get to build swamp cities in swamps - this is supposed to be an advantage over the other nations who can only build 'crappy' swamp forts. But the fact is the swamp fort is the far better choice - the added admin on the swamp city is particularly useless given that swamps automatically have low population.

In order for the swamp city to actually be a reward to Ctis and encourage building in swamps, it would have to have the same kind of cost and build time as the swamp fort, while still providing the bonus in terms of admin and defence. Although it doesn't seem that logical, I think the forts should all have equal cost and buildtime. That way you can reward nations by giving them flat out better forts like the cities and so on with higher admin, instead of the current situation where in order to make a nation great at fort building you'd basically just give it low build time low cost 'crappy' ones.

What do you guys think?

[Renojustin]

Really great point. Instead of making everything the same, though, we could just hope for 'reward' forts being better at the types of things that ARE important, as you say... namely, cost and build time. You'd think that lizardmen would know how to build quickly and cheaply in swamps.

And why build a city for 1500 inhabitants? It's not intuitive.

[ano]

IMO, one of the serious advantages of a nation is the ability to build fast cheap forts. And that is what makes, for instance, EA Mictlan who has cheap forts in mountains and forests far better than LA Mictlan who has fortcities everywhere. When you're short of money, this really makes a difference and when you have cheap little mages, ideal for research and other tasks, build time is your money, research and potential.
So I definitely agree with Sombre.

[Sombre]

You make a good point there. If swamp city and fortified city were the same in cost and build time, Ctis would then build in the farmland/plains provinces rather than the swamps, so they'd still be neglecting them. Perhaps in special cases like that they need a flat out awesome bonus like a fort with strong admin and defence, but also very low build time and discounted cost.

You could give Abysia really great forts for wastelands too, for instance, actively encouraging taking and holding these normally crappy provinces to get forts up on.

[Digress]

Could not agree more.

On a completely different note I think scouts and the like should be able to report that your opponent is building a fortification - given the accuracy with they are able to report on the composition of the garrison (PD) - it seems absurd that they are unable to notice construction activity (especially of high admin forts).

[vfb]

Sombre, I agree, I'm always trying to find the 'worst' terrain type to build a fort in. In a recent game, I was happy to see real mountains within two provinces of my capitol! Except, I was Skaven. Arggh! I forgot they build a 5-turn 1200 gold Cave Fort in the mountains, and I only had 800 gold saved. Had to head to a forest instead.

I don't know what the best answer is, but I'd really like to be able to building more thematically appropriately sited forts for my nations without wasting time and money.

[capnq]

Hmm, I've never even given the terrain type consideration when placing forts. It's always strategic location and resource requirements that decide where I put them.

[cleveland]

Too bad you can't tie fort price to province population.

A 15,000 person fortified city is bigger than a 1,500 person fortified city, no?

[Zeldor]

Nothing beats fortified cities in <500 pop provinces though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Even Fortified Village would be too much for that...

[Sombre]

If it were tied to population it still wouldn't be worth paying the extra time and money for the high admin city. Forts are to make more commanders (mages) per turn and to get some more resources worth of troops a turn nearer the front lines, with defence and income/supply increase coming as largely incidental concerns.

I'm currently thinking all forts should cost roughly the same, time and money both. It's less confusing for the player and it's easier to identify when you're actually getting a good deal, plus it rewards the nations with 'better' fort types. When it comes to nations like ctis and their swamp buildable, you could just make that particular type, swamp city for example, slightly cheaper/faster. You'd do the same for other special fort types. So say all forts would be 1k at 4 turns, with specials being 750 at 3 turns.

[Edratman]

The administration value of the various forts is something I pay a lot of attention to. Can't even count how many times I went to zero resources in a province with an irreplacable indy mage because it was castled by two 50 administration forts. (This includes finding a cool site after the forts are built.)

Some nations build 50 admin forts almost everywhere and others have more options, and the options are always lower admin forts which I consider beneficial.

I consider the admin value to be as troublesome, if not more, than the cost and time to build various forts.

[ano]

It is not problem, it is a matter of rules, strategy and micromanagement.

[Sombre]

Perhaps it isn't a problem for you, but I think it could be improved. If elite national troops were priced so high that no-one ever used them and they were more of a burden than a bonus, some people would see that as a problem and some wouldn't. Fixing the problem for those who perceive it as one wouldn't ruin things for everyone else though. It's the same deal here.

Why should Ctis be worse than other nations when it comes to building in swamps? Why should Jotunheim (iron woods) or Pangaea be penalised for building in the forest? Wouldn't the game be more interesting and make more sense if the 'better' forts 'gifted' to various nations actually were better? The way it works currently is completely counter-intuitive. Sure once you get how it works you just build the 'crappy' forts, but when people start out they naturally identify the 'better' ones as actually being better. Madness I know.

I'm pretty sure the devs support the idea of rewarding thematic play where possible.

[ano]

Actually I disagreed with Edratman, not you. Admin problem is not a problem, actually, but a matter of micromanagement and attention.
As for your words, Sombre, I totally agree.

[Tuidjy]

Back in Dominions II one could build only one fort, and got to choose it. There
were two kinds of players. Those who would always choose the cheapest, crappiest,
and fastest to build - the watchtower, and those who would complain that the first
kind was kicking their asses.

I think that the bonus forts should have their own entries, and that they should
be cheaper and faster to build than the equivalent standard fort. I.e. Jotun
would still build a great mountain fortress, but they would do it for one less
turn and 200 less gold. Or something.

[Tyrant]

I agree with Sombre. The big forts are not always a problem, but they mostly are, especially in the early game. I hate having to build a fort in a crappy spot 'cause it's the only cheap option and I'm desperate for that crucial second fort.

Ideally I'd like a big fort/cheap fort option for each terrain type, but i'd settle for Sombre's solution of "bonus" fort being cheaper.

[Wokeye]

I agree 'special' forts should either be cheaper/quicker to build, or confer 'special' bonuses (eg boosted pop growth/resources) - or both.

The factors that set factions apart strategically makes them (and DOM3!) more interesting to play IMO.

+1 for Scouts being able to detect fort construction activities.

[Ironhawk]

Are the fort types for each nation moddable in dom3?

[Endoperez]

You can choose which fort nation builds in spesific terrains, but you can't mod the forts themselves.

[Zeldor]

I would really prefer to see fort types to be more important and useful both in economy and battles.

[Sombre]

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

I'm sticking with my idea of a flat rate for all non special forts, discount rate for specials. That way the best option is usually to go with your racial fort, next best is somewhere like a high gold or high income province, then finally you still might build a 'crappy' fort due to location (like to protect a lab and temple on top of a special site). So you'd get variety and fort choices would be more intuitive, with crappy forts being the rarer choice rather than the other way around.

[kasnavada]

Does anyone have any other ideas on how this could be improved?



Sure !
- having some national units only produced by specific types of forts ?
- having a reduction in gold or ressources when producing on a specific type of terrain ?

To give an example, for sauromantia, building in a swamp would lead to a significant reduction in ressources that make it equivalent to the ressources made if the terrain a mountain, but only for them (maybe more or less for balance reasons ?).

[Carkaton]

How about fort upgrades? Take c'tis swamp city for 1200 gold 5 or 6 months build time(can't remember). If they had the option to build the swamp fort initially for 800 and 3 months, with the possibility of upgrading to the city if desired for another 400-600 and more build time.

This would allow nations to eventually make their good forts but keep their competitiveness short term.

[Sombre]

But the 'good' forts aren't good. No-one in their right mind would actually upgrade.

[kasnavada]

If the forts stay as useful as they are now, I also agree that no one would upgrade... If the upgraded fort gives special bonuses, maybe ?

I was thinking of this idea : every fort would have the possibility to add an upgrade, that would give special bonuses to it.

Examples of bonuses :
- recruit one type of capitol-only unit (either a commander or a troop),
- reduce magic cost for one school (depending on the background of the race, ie : 10% of forging for ulm ?),
- auto-spawn one (or more) of the race units,
- reduce the cost of one type of units recruitable there (for example, a tower that would reduce markata cost, or minotaur cost),
- increase gold or production from the province,
- act as a second temple,
- something else.

Short of something like this, there is nothing that would make me upgrade... forts are overpriced compared to what they currently offer. Maybe they are meant to be !

[thejeff]

Right, the good forts are only marginally better. By far the most important feature of a fort, is that you can build your national mages and troops there. Second that you have at least one turn's protection from raiders.

Everything beyond that, more admin, more defense, is nice, but only a minor improvement. If the upgrade idea was implemented, I'd be tempted to upgrade occasionally if the upgrade was only a turn and maybe 100 gold. Otherwise, just save the money for another fort.

[quantum_mechani]

Lets be realistic here, the chances of a major new feature like fort upgrading in a patch are pretty much negligible. Something like Sombre's suggestion, which only changes build time/cost, is at least a theoretical possibility. I still don't think Illwinter would go for it, for the reason that big forts are harder to build.

Probably the more likely way to get something like this accomplished would be to petition for fort modding.

[Baalz]

Some of the suggestions here sound fun, but are immensely unlikely to be implemented as they're fairly significant changes to the mechanics.

It seems obvious that cheaper/faster forts is an advantage. Nobody is arguing that it's almost always better to get cheaper forts. Some nations have an advantage because they have access to a lot of cheaper forts and thus typically have a lot of options as to where to place them. Some nations have a disadvantage because they've got a lot of expensive forts, and often have to make a choice about whether to take a cheap fort in a crappy location or an expensive one where they really want it. This is good, it adds to national variety.

I think the general complaint here is that special fort types are counter intuitively a disadvantage. That's a reasonable complaint, but it seems the much easier solution is to suggest (for example) swamp cities build faster while perhaps re-balancing the fort types for other terrains for C'tis. You don't need special bonuses or whatever to overhaul the system - if C'tis has a choice of building a 3 turn swamp city or a 5 turn fortified city in the plains - guess what? You end up with C'tis generally making a lot of swamp cities. You don't need to worry about admin or resource bonuses...as is well illustrated in this thread those hardly matter at all.

[thejeff]

Agreed, the thematic reasoning that big forts are harder to build is probably what drives this. It's been a problem since Dom2 and the current version isn't as bad.

I do think that allowing a nation's special fort bonus to be the ability to build the same forts more cheaply and quickly in their preferred terrain rather than being able to build bigger forts at the higher price is also thematic.

[BesucherXia]

AFAIK, forts can improve local incomes with a small value like admin/2.
If we increase that scale into some more decent value, (I'll suggest *2 instead) buliding a big city will definitely pay off in long term, just as the forts are supposed to.

[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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[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.

[Ewierl]

Personally, I think the two proposed solutions that're actually viable are the following.

1) Alter the fort data so that forts differ less steeply in cost/admin/etc.
2) Give players some control over their fort type when building, either from a short terrain-specific list (e.g., Man in Forests gets a "big" and "small" option), or even in a terrain-nonspecific fashion.
3) Create new fort types that allow nations to build forts that're both big and cheap, in certain thematic terrains. This could also work in combination with either of the first two ideas.

None of these are moddable, but I think they would make the fort system become something aligned with the way forts are used in practice.

[fantasma]

I thought that having cheap fortresses or expensive is part of the nation's setup like what they have in PD. So it's sort of a pro or con for the nation, mostly based on thematic reasons.

Are there any numbers on how many towers a fort has? Or how many arrows/sling stones/whatever else are in the air? High defense forts should have more. And they should have a longer narrow passage, I think.

[Edi]

Fort defense weapons are not determined by fort type but by which nation occupies the fort. At least it used to be that way in Dom2. Abysia has ballistas. Most nations have short bows. Some have longbows etc etc.

The number of towers times number of shots per tower is total shots per round, so some nations are more painful to siege when the time to storm the castle comes.

[Zeldor]

Hmm... do you have that info in database? I didn't take manual with me to China and I wonder what MA TC and MA Abysia have...

[Endoperez]

Manual lists the type of tower weapons used. Most nations have something like 6-8 shortbows to composite bows, but e.g. Jotunheim varies wildly in different eras. Early and Late have 3xBoulder, while MA has 16 shortbows... Those Vaetti must be the ultimate castle defenders!

[Agema]

It's not all bad with swamp cities is it, though? A swamp fort is completely useless except to build mages. A swamp is a sort of "dead zone" except for the above purpose. At least with a fort that has admin you also get the resources to make it useful for building troops, and the ability for the walls to last longer than it takes a pig-eating anthropomorphic wolf to huff and puff. Not only that, but the strategic synergy of fort placing to maximise resource usage might make a swamp the best location, but that a swamp fort would negate any such advantage.

I'd certainly like the option that races have a special terrain (eg. Pythium would be farmland, Caelum mountains, Ctis swamp), and that terrain allows them to build either a cheap, basic fortress-type-thing or an expensive city/citadel type thing.

[Tuidjy]

I do not think it likely that the developers will give us new commands. Choosing
the fort to build looks like too much of a change, and thus unlikely to happen.

On the other hand, it is probably simple to add a few fort types to the ones that
already exist. The only problem may be that there is a hard limit to their
number. Assuming that no such limit exist, here is a solution that would be
quite simple to implement and that may take care of a few problems.

Add a few fort types, that have the same stats as the respective existing fort,
but lower build time and cost. For example, a Mountain Citadel, a Swamp City,
a Fortified City, etc...

Assign a 'favored terrain' to each nation. Some are obvious. Pythium and
Machaka would prefer grasslands, Niefelheim and Caelum mountains, Tir Na Nog
and Man forests, C'tis swamps, Abysia wastes. For nations without an obvious
preferance, get creative, or just stick to existing fort types. Serves them
right for being boring.

Assign these new forts to each nation's favored terrain type. Now they will
have a reason to seek out and build their forts there, and the other nations
will be unaffected.

The 'fluff' is easy: these nations are so familiar with this type of terrain
that they can finish construction quickly and cheaply. The balance changes will
be significant, but so what? It's not as if the game is perfectly balanced, and
luck overcomes balance almost as easily as it trumps skill.

[Sombre]

Given that Machakan units all have forest survival and they have the God Forest and God Mountain magic sites, I'm not sure they're really a grassland nation.

But I agree with what you're saying, largely. Though I think the forts for swamp and wasteland provinces would have to kick ***, even more so than other specialised forts, simply because those provinces suck so bad. No amount of admin or defense can make up for having about 1.5k population, so it would have to be really cheap in terms of build time and cost /as well/ as being a big fort.

[thejeff]

But the point is, it really doesn't matter. 95% of the benefit of the fort is being able to recruit mages. Then the one turn protection. Admin and resources come a long way later.
That's why having cheap, quick lousy forts is an advantage over having slow expensive good forts.

That's why being able to build better forts in your special terrain is actually a disadvantage.

[Sombre]

Couldn't agree more. The 'good' forts have to be either the same build time or less, or they're still a disadvantage.

[Edi]

Sombre said:
Given that Machakan units all have forest survival and they have the God Forest and God Mountain magic sites, I'm not sure they're really a grassland nation.


MA Machaka would prefer forest. EA would be a more plains-based nation (lions are plains creatures, not forest).

[Tuidjy]

<thejeff > That's why having cheap, quick lousy forts is an advantage over having slow expensive good forts.

<Sombre> The 'good' forts have to be either the same build time or less, or they're still a disadvantage.

My suggestion would result in cheap, quick, good forts in the prefered province. They may be too good,
but a disadvantage they aren't. And the best part is that it is absolutely simple to code, as long as there is
no hard limit to the number of possible forts.

As for Machaka, you are indeed right. For some reason I keep thinking of them as savanna dvelers.

[Endoperez]

Yeah, Fort Modding Commands and a Conceptual Buildings mod would be nice. I suggest sacrificing albino mares on moonless nights, and black cows during full moon.

[Twan]

Wauthan said:
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.



Being able to cast first means in endgame a defender with powerful mages and a good script destroys or enslave any normal army without any chance for the attacker to counter it (as all defender spells are cast before the attacker can doe anything). I've seen situations where storming is only possible with SCs, any troop with less than 20 MR being enslaved, and any mage without lots of hp or protection being killed by battlefield round one dammage (with combos using mass enslave spells with penetration gear, army of gold/fog warriors and chained rain of stones or earthquakes).

The only known counters are to attack the province several time a turn, so defensive mages waste their gems in magic phase or against another opponent ; or destroy defenders with rituals (hoping they go through the domes).

A fort allow the defender to be sure to be attacked only one time per turn, so it essencially make him invincible as long he has a good number of powerful mages inside (and domes/resist gear to protect them from rituals) and the attacker don't have a sufficient number of assassins (only way to make mages use their gems before storming) nor teams of SCs able to take the fort alone.

If there is one day a dominions 4 my first hope for the battlefield system is to see an initiative system between individuals instead of the actual all defenders cast then all attakers, all defensive mages always casting first + forts allowing to be attacked only one time/turn are a too big advantage making endgame boring (for the defenders of a fort) or frustrating (in attack) as hell.

On the fort subject I know it will never be the case, but I think the best system would be to globally limit the number of forts (with a system like : each fort built increase the cost of the next by half ; or each nation can only make a fort if the nation has actually less than 1 fort for 6 or 7 provinces) and to make fort building impossible out of a limited number of terrains for each nation (most nations should be allowed to build only on plains and farmland + one national terrain ; and some nations of exceptionnal builders on more). Then terrains would become really important, and you'll see Ct'is declare wars just to get one more swamp.

[Sombre]

If we had fort modding you could make that a semi-reality by assigning a 100 turn build time fort to any terrain you didn't want them building on. Actually a gold cost of 800000 might make more sense since that would stop the AI being stupid and going for that 100 turn one.

[Xietor]

I agree that the number of forts does make the endgame fairly unbearable.

Some sort of limit on the number that can be built, or that forts cannot be built next to another fort would help move the games along. Especially maddening in the endgame is when forts can be erected instantly by magical means.

Making warfare on a 300 province map between 2 skilled players(last 2 standing) a slow grinding fatiguing process.

[Zeldor]

Xietor:

I am just starting war like that. Turn 91, 2players + AI left. Map not so huge, but still. Heavily fortified landscape... that will take ages to finish.

[Ironhawk]

Twan said:
A fort allow the defender to be sure to be attacked only one time per turn, so it essencially make him invincible as long he has a good number of powerful mages inside (and domes/resist gear to protect them from rituals) and the attacker don't have a sufficient number of assassins (only way to make mages use their gems before storming) nor teams of SCs able to take the fort alone.




Eh? Just because the defender can act first does not make them invincible by any means. If you have the defender seiged in a fort then they are at your mercy. Let them starve while you carefully prepare your army with whatever resistances you need to meet thier mages. Then just storm and wipe them out. I think you are seriously overrating the defenders ability to act first - either on the field or in a seige.

[Twan]

I was speaking about endgame, when high level spells and indies/summoned mages with interesting paths are available (and matrixes are forged if a communion is needed).

Acting first means the ennemy
- can't cast army of gold/lead or fog warriors, so will lose all mages without armors, and any low protection troop, against a few rain of stones or earthquakes (when your own will be protected by one of these spells)
- can't cast antimagic so enslave with a mage with penetration gear steals half his army (or other mass MR spell work as well)
- can't cast any resist spell so the high level 25+ squares AoE destroy any troop at range
- will have reduced effects for all spells his surviving mages may cast as you will have used antimagic, a mass protection spell, fog warriors, all resist spells you want, etc... before their first action

[Argitoth]

One thing I always wanted was roads between castles. As in, no movement hinderance between castles regardless of land type.

[LDiCesare]

Starving an opponent in a fort is quite pointless endgame considering the amount of nature magic and items you can get in your lab at little or no cost.