The problem of fort types

[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 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.