11 replies to this topic

[nocompile]

Romans wooden fort seems too expensive

Costs more than stone fortress

Sure you can build it anywhere, but still it should be more of advantage, shouldn't cost THAT much

[Mythos_Ruler]

Improve your econ.

[nocompile]

Why build 600wood+200metal building when I can build a 500 stone fortress just by putting a 300/300/300 civ center nearby and sucking up all the economy near wherever I'm attacking?

I'm just saying I should be less to build the wooden structure than fortresses. Right now, in game, it's close. Almost about asthetics.
This building should be a boon for the romans, so I think it should be less, or build faster than it does.

[Spahbod]

nocompile, on 19 March 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Why build 600wood+200metal building when I can build a 500 stone fortress just by putting a 300/300/300 civ center nearby and sucking up all the economy near wherever I'm attacking?

I'm just saying I should be less to build the wooden structure than fortresses. Right now, in game, it's close. Almost about asthetics.
This building should be a boon for the romans, so I think it should be less, or build faster than it does.

Because a normal fortress cannot be built in enemy territory.

[nocompile]

Spahbod, on 19 March 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

Because a normal fortress cannot be built in enemy territory.

It doesn't make sense.
At all.

Why does a WOODEN fort cost more than a CASTLE????

Also why don't I just build a municipum and a castle? I can get right up to the line, build a municipum, then my line is extended, and I put a castle in their territory.

[Mythos_Ruler]

nocompile, on 20 March 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

It doesn't make sense.
At all.

Why does a WOODEN fort cost more than a CASTLE????

Also why don't I just build a municipum and a castle? I can get right up to the line, build a municipum, then my line is extended, and I put a castle in their territory.

That wouldn't be very stealthy of you.

[quantumstate]

Perhaps the building time could be shortened to emphasize the idea that the purpose is to rapidly put it up as a temporary attack base without the opponent being aware. This would fit well historically since the roman legionaries were great at rapidly constructing a camp.

[FeXoR]

1st: The army camp costs mainly wood witch is (on most maps) massively available.

2nd: The normal fortress is to cheep in my opinion
Lets calculate: 15 Upkeep, 20 garrison space and production building ~= 3 towers (125 resources each) + 3 celt huts (100 wood each) + barracks (200 resources) -> 675 resources... and I didn't took in consideration the firepower (I think > than 3 towers) and that you can produce better units.

[Pedro Falcão]

It does make sense for it to be more expensive not only within the game. I don't know how much about construction you know, but i can assure you that every construction has some material losses for builders' mistakes, and even more when the builders aren't professional, but soldiers. Plus, the material of those fortresses were gathered nearby, also by soldiers (what means an almost insignificant bit more loss, but still a loss). Not saying that the builders of the common stone fortresses had to be professional, but they had people with more experience nearby to support the construction, the material was more expensive (what means they had to be more cautious about losses). Maybe it shouldn't be that expensive, but they must be expensive.

[nocompile]

Roman solider were good builders. It does not make sence that it takes more in wood to build this than it takes in stone to build a castle. In life it takes MUCH more in stone (volume) to build a castle than it does to build a wooden fort structure.

Could you shorten the building time or something?

Otherwise I'm going to have to touch those files in my mod, and I'd rather keep that to a minimum.

[Geek377]

quantumstate, on 20 March 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Perhaps the building time could be shortened to emphasize the idea that the purpose is to rapidly put it up as a temporary attack base without the opponent being aware. This would fit well historically since the roman legionaries were great at rapidly constructing a camp.

+1
Yes, building time wasn't as fast as I expected.

[quantumstate]

Geek377, on 20 March 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

+1
Yes, building time wasn't as fast as I expected.

Looks like Mythos agrees http://trac.wildfire...changeset/11378 . Now 400 wood and build time is just under half what it was.