nocompile Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Romans wooden fort seems too expensiveCosts more than stone fortressSure you can build it anywhere, but still it should be more of advantage, shouldn't cost THAT much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Improve your econ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nocompile Posted March 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spahbod Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nocompile Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumstate Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeXoR Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 1st: The army camp costs mainly wood witch is (on most maps) massively available.2nd: The normal fortress is to cheep in my opinionLets 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Falcão Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nocompile Posted March 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishFTW Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 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.+1Yes, building time wasn't as fast as I expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantumstate Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 +1Yes, building time wasn't as fast as I expected.Looks like Mythos agrees http://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/11378 . Now 400 wood and build time is just under half what it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.