by jclemen2 » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:06 pm
I like the idea of this from the offensive side, but not the defensive side. I think the defensive benefits far outweighh the offensive benefits. I like the idea of being able to send say 100k - 125k in silver and 5 castles worth of troops from one location. Strategically that makes it much more simple to not only launch real attacks but also makes it easier to launch fakes.
Defensively you're creating a pretty unlikely target. Right now I'd guess people are sending 20k - 30k in troops for a single cap, plus the silver (at least on my server, US5). To make an ATTEMPT at taking a fortress you'd need 100-150k in troops and commit 5 times the silver to the attempt. Also it's easier to defend, because now you have less castles to protect. If someone has 60 castles, you can coordinate with your alliance to launch attacks on some and fakes on the other, that person has to prepare for attacks on all of them. If you convert them to fortresses that's 12 locations to worry about which is far easier.
My solution would be to keep the five castles, but once they are linked the designated castle becomes a fortress. That fortress has benefits such as faster resource production, an increased keep (maybe 40k which would make your total from those 5 castles 120k for example), an increased population of say 1-2k, and some of the other benefits you mentioned. The key would be that when you attack from that location it pulls silver and troops from all 5 linked castles. Now your fakes or attacks from that location are a pretty big added benefit and a reason to upgrade.
Defensively you've created an asset you want to protect, but not an impossibility to conquer. You'd now have 5 locations you could attack, as taking out any of the 5 would "break" the fortress. In battles, you've created a bit of a problem for the defensive side, and some strategic options for attackers. You could fake the 5 linked castle fortress as an attacker while you attack single castles, knowing the defensive side wants to protect that as a priority above a normal castle, or you could make it a priority to take that out since that is a more important target. From the defensive side it is good to have that fortress, but it would make you have to concentrate your defenses on those 5 castles that are linked, since losing any of them would break the fortress, over single castles that may be further away. You would have to weigh that downside when creating the fortress.
I think the key is not making it even harder to fight actual battles. Right now it's pretty easy to take free or inactive castles, having near impossible targets just makes it less likely for people to fight actual battles. If done correctly fortresses could make it easier to launch attacks, but it can't be done in a way that creates targets that nobody is going to go after.
Other notes, I agree that it should NOT have to be full 288 point castles. There should be minimums in each area to be eligible. I never make 288 pt castles, you lose to much in population and it often times takes to long for it to be worthwhile. I usually stop at 5 on market, 21 on arsenal, 28 on lumberjack/mine/quarry. If you had some minimums levels for each category before the fortress research was available I believe that would be an improvement over what I've seen mentioned so far of having to be at the full 288 pts.