Post by kallise on Jun 5, 2009 11:41:56 GMT -5
I'm sitting here at work and looking over some things. One thing I noticed is that the Keep development provides +3 Soldiery to the territory it's built on a the cost of 10 Martial and 3 Wealth. The Fortifications development however gives a +2 bonus and costs 15 Martial and 5 Wealth. It also requires a Keep and Works Program to already be in place (somewhere).
I don't mean to stir the pot, but is this a little backwards? Should the more expensive development be less effective than the cheaper one?
The quick and dirty solution may be to swap their locations on the "tree" and costs. Fortifications would cost 10 Martial and 3 Wealth for +2 Soldiery, and a Keep would cost 15 Martial and 5 Wealth for +3 Soldiery.
Fortifications are a semi-vague term for anything from stone ramparts to earthen hills with pickets or even trenches and barbed wire. Basically whatever you have the time and money to erect. While Keeps are the iconic castle on top of a hill (wood or stone depending on time period) and are fairly defensible (assuming your Fortifications hold).
Anyways, just a thought.
I don't mean to stir the pot, but is this a little backwards? Should the more expensive development be less effective than the cheaper one?
The quick and dirty solution may be to swap their locations on the "tree" and costs. Fortifications would cost 10 Martial and 3 Wealth for +2 Soldiery, and a Keep would cost 15 Martial and 5 Wealth for +3 Soldiery.
Fortifications are a semi-vague term for anything from stone ramparts to earthen hills with pickets or even trenches and barbed wire. Basically whatever you have the time and money to erect. While Keeps are the iconic castle on top of a hill (wood or stone depending on time period) and are fairly defensible (assuming your Fortifications hold).
Anyways, just a thought.