Just played the latest opendev Hold the Fort and the Strongholds that were prebuilt by my civilization were a constant pain in my side. While they are supposed to act as a benefit to my troops, I often found that in the deployment phase I was unable to deploy in them while the AI was constantly able to. This made my opening volley of longbow men useless and Cavalry charges pointless because of their buff from fortification. I’m talking specifically about the two in Londonia, on the east and west side of the city.

Just to throw out a couple of suggestions; take away the fortification bonus from enemy units, always make it a deployment zone, and/or make it impassible to enemy units (at least in the deployment phase).

I see your point but at the same time I think the design makes sense:

- they act as an advanced defense point outside of your city to take on your enemies before they reach your walls

- they provide added stability and you can build other quarters adjacent to them so they have economic merit. They also act as a spawn point

- if inside your city boundaries they provide a massive added strength bonus

To balance this it makes sense to me that if you abandon them the enemy will be able to use it. You can always put units in them to lock it away from the enemy. It makes the decision to place them more meaningful.

Yeah, if you don't want them to take them, place a garrison. With the +6 defense bonus, just one longbowman would be a pain for them.

irishbobo wrote:
I often found that in the deployment phase I was unable to deploy in them while the AI was constantly able to

Yup, I encountered this too.

That, and the enemy ninja-jumping over the city walls need to be changed, imo.

I agree with the others saying that it is nice from a strategic point of view, you can use it as an advanced defense (a veteran longbow there causes immense damage). However if you choose to abandon it, you will pay the price.

I think the problem is that strongholds in Londonia are very badly placed in that scenario. In a real game I would never place them in such a vulnerable position. They were too open from multiple sides, too far from the city to defend yet close enough for attacking enemy to take them over and benefit. I would place them either closer to city or in a choke point/good defensive position on the border where they can buy more time to prepare for defense and protect vulnerable territories.

eobet wrote:

That, and the enemy ninja-jumping over the city walls need to be changed, imo.

It's not ninja jumping. If you leave a section of the wall unmanned they can use ladders to just climb up. It's actually pretty cool because it makes larger cities hard to defend with smaller armies. The only part where it doesn't make sense is for cavalry and elephants to climb the walls.

i agree with what you're saying. I do feel that the stronghold was badly positioned being too close to the city and surrounded by woods. i do feel that the strongholds could use a buff to fortification to justify them. I never felt it was a good idea to have a single archer in it as they could still take a beating from the enemy and could be surrounded pretty easily. I feel that forification in gereal could be buffed to necessitate the use of seige equipment. I'd also love to see seige towers implimented to counter a stronger forification!

Tanel88 wrote:

eobet wrote:

That, and the enemy ninja-jumping over the city walls need to be changed, imo.

It's not ninja jumping. If you leave a section of the wall unmanned they can use ladders to just climb up. It's actually pretty cool because it makes larger cities hard to defend with smaller armies. The only part where it doesn't make sense is for cavalry and elephants to climb the walls.

If I am not mistaken, they even get a charge bonus while doing so (Cavalry). Absolute No-Go and my biggest Turn off for this game. In reality they would get crashed horse skulls by chargin city walls. And an animation of soldiers climbing ladders would do miracles to unaware players too.