I was looking at the description for the future patch and saw this

[MagisterCultuum]

100 seems a little much. I was thinking 20 or 30 would be good, plus that a later game stronger defensive structure (like a Keep) should be added.


Hmm, Keeps were mostly castle dungeons, so getting rid of dungeons and moving all their functions to Keeps (plus the defensive boost) might be a good idea.

 

[kidcarson]

100 seems a little much. I was thinking 20 or 30 would be good, plus that a later game stronger defensive structure (like a Keep) should be added.


Hmm, Keeps were mostly castle dungeons, so getting rid of dungeons and moving all their functions to Keeps (plus the defensive boost) might be a good idea.

why not just give the dungeon a slight improvement, say get rid of the unhealth penalty and then bring back the castle(you can rename this the Keep) which we already have the graphics,etc. for and have a mid/late game defensive structure.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

For familiarity's sake, I'd rename the second tier of fort evolution (the one between fort and citadel) to Keep, and call the more advanced defensive structure a castle.

 

[Tarquelne]

100 seems a little much. I was thinking 20 or 30 would be good,

Perhaps. I tried starting with lower bonuses but the prize - wiping out a civ early - was too valuable. 33 and 50 seemed too small. Not a big sample, and our settings (Huge, Marathon) are extreme, but the way it worked for us was that the bonus needed to be very large to really make a difference.

An additional defensive structure later in the game wouldn't address the problem I was trying to solve: Civs wiped out early.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Well, Citadel would be the most logical name for the fortress that defends a city. I said keep because that would be essentially a dungeon with fortifications that can be used for the city's defense too; I chose it because it could still have the dungeon's effects too, since another purely defensive buildings could be boring. A keep is really only a part of a defensive structure.


I would prefer Redoubt/Castle/Fortress instead of Fort/Castle/Citadel with Citadels as a building or calling the building a Keep if the forts stay the same.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Personally I don't give a damn about the names but calling the city structure a castle would be the easiest for newbies who are used to BtS and want to get into FfH.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I tend to think that adding palace defense isnt a real solution because it just stalls the last step. If you can get a civ down to just its capital its usually game over for them anyway. Making that last city hard doesnt really balance, just drags the game on.

Not really, due to vassalage and domination victories.

 

[eerr]

perhaps the capital should get a free castle instead?

 

[Ekolite]

I like the keep building idea. It could be the building requirement for paladins and eidola as well, now that the castle has been removed.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I still say that if we add a Keep (by that name) it should also take on all the functions of a Dungeon, whihc should be removed.

 

[Vehem]

I still say that if we add a Keep (by that name) it should also take on all the functions of a Dungeon, whihc should be removed.

It does actually have two distinct meanings. The first is "stronghold of a castle", the other is "jail".

 

[Tarquelne]

It does actually have two distinct meanings. The first is "stronghold of a castle", the other is "jail".

Hmm. Wikipedia says:

In its original medieval usage, the dungeon was the keep, the main tower of a castle which formed the final defensive position the garrison could retreat to when outer fortifications were overcome. It was also a safe, if not comfortable, place to keep prisoners. Once more luxurious housing for the lord of the castle was constructed, the dungeon was used mainly for this purpose. Its meaning has evolved over time to also mean an underground prison or burial vault, typically built underneath a castle.

We've GOT to stick to original medieval usage! If we don't... well, the mind just boggles.

And to do otherwise would display disloyalty toward the Wikipedia! AHW

 

[Vehem]

We've GOT to stick to original medieval usage! If we don't... well, the mind just boggles.

And to do otherwise would display disloyalty toward the Wikipedia! AHW

Not wanting to blaspheme against the holy wiki, but I was going with the dictionary

keep
n.
1. Care; charge: The child is in my keep for the day.
2. The means by which one is supported: earn one's keep.
3.
a. The stronghold of a castle.
b. A jail.

 

[Mesix]

I tend to think that adding palace defense isnt a real solution because it just stalls the last step. If you can get a civ down to just its capital its usually game over for them anyway. Making that last city hard doesnt really balance, just drags the game on.

On the other hand it does push early rushers to go for ancillary cities instead of the capital, which if the sacrifice stalls their advance (they werent able to "roll over") is less fo a hit than taking a capital.

They are talking about balancing the early warrior rush. The idea behind this strategy is that you build a stack of warriors and take over nearby civilizations while the capitol is their ONLY city. By giving the Palace +20% defense, you would make the early warrior rush less of an exploit, and as you pointed out the bonus would not have such a powerful effect later in the game.

Even under the current system, it is easy to take out two or three nearby civilizations early in the game. With nerfed cultural defenses this will be even easier.

I like the nerfed coultural defense. Building fortifications will actually be an important aspect of the game. The Pallisade building is a good idea too.

Another idea might be to make the Palace defense greater for a civ with the Defensive trait. Maybe every civ could have +20% defence for the Palace while a Defensive leader would have +40%.

 

[Mesix]

For familiarity's sake, I'd rename the second tier of fort evolution (the one between fort and citadel) to Keep, and call the more advanced defensive structure a castle.

This is a good idea. Fort -> Keep -> Castle progression. Palisades and walls add additional defenses. Perhaps the Citadel could be a (national?) Wonder that adds more defense to a single city along with some culture.

 

[westamastaflash]

I'd really like it if archers didn't require a building - instead, the archer range / bowers gives city garrison promotions...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I think archers should have no buildings prereq, but their upgrades still should.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

This is a good idea. Fort -> Keep -> Castle progression. Palisades and walls add additional defenses. Perhaps the Citadel could be a (national?) Wonder that adds more defense to a single city along with some culture.

No, no.

I want Fort -> Keep -> Citadel progression for the field improvements.

I want castles to be the most advanced defensive city structure (I.E a step above walls or whatever.)

 

[MagisterCultuum]

That doesn't make as much sense though. A Citadel is by defination a fortress in a city, whereas castles are pretty much always set up to defend the country side.