.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Bronze (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=236)
-   -   Towns seems ineffective when you have Palaces available (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=46929)

legowarrior January 16th, 2011 01:43 PM

Towns seems ineffective when you have Palaces available
 
I've been enjoying Bronze a lot lately, and I've only played single player so far, but it seems to me, when I play a nation that have both towns at normal cost and palaces, I never (or almost never) bother with the town. I sometimes wait an extra turn to buy a palace in its place (sometimes this is a bad thing). The palace is just really awesome, and for only one point more, I can't resist it. Only in a completely empty area or area with buildings that can't be stolen, does the town even compete with the palace, and in those cases, I'd still rather build a palace, since the building itself can't be stolen, and it could guard future mines embassies, TOWNS or what ever.

So about the rant, I'm just looking for insight into how the costs were decided.

Bluevoss January 16th, 2011 02:40 PM

Re: Towns seems ineffective when you have Palaces available
 
I don't know - a lot of times I have to go with towns - I simply don't have the cash or will need it shortly. I figure towns are good at the start when you are just trying to plug up the map. Since your forward field is supsceptable to ziggaruts anyway, there isn't much different.

I guess I'm thinking this way becuase of that time I raced to a river with another group, threw down a palace and then couldn't afford the darn bridge. So there I am casting around for silver and the guy is across and away.

Yeah, its nice if you are in a jammed up against someone, but otherwise towns will do.

If a palace was 6, I'm not sure anyone would use them.

MikeLemmer January 16th, 2011 03:19 PM

Re: Towns seems ineffective when you have Palaces available
 
I agree with Bluevoss. The town provides a massive landgrab bonus matched only by palaces, and if palaces were 6 coins there wouldn't be many situations they were more useful than one of the other buildings.

Alexander311 January 17th, 2011 06:02 PM

Re: Towns seems ineffective when you have Palaces available
 
Keep in mind that everything is relative. The Akkadians certainly will not be using their towns as much as the Babylonians or even the Sumerians.

tarot February 25th, 2011 12:43 AM

Re: Towns seems ineffective when you have Palaces available
 
Palaces are obviously better then Towns when there are any enemy tiles - especially Fields - to be converted. Otherwise, I don't think that the Citadel's function of the Palace is usually worth the extra $1 (more than the Town) in cost.

Quote:

I'd still rather build a palace, since the building itself can't be stolen, and it could guard future mines embassies, TOWNS or what ever.
There is rarely anything worth guarding that way. With the $1, I can place a separate Citadel which guards one more space (the very space the Citadel itself is sitting on) from Ziggurat / Palace conversion. It is also rare that I place an Embassy on my own Field which so urgently needs to be guarded (I have 6 turns, if I need to do it at all). And if I place a Palace to guard a future Town, I'm placing my buildings in the wrong order. Basically , in the early game, when I'm spreading out, I want to save every dollar to spend on Towns, Ziggurats and Palaces (when there is something to convert); there is no money to waste (since those things are expensive).

Also in some cases, under the Embassy's peace effect, you want to place a Town in a space where placing a Palace isn't allowed.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2017, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.