Quote Originally Posted by Nightbringer View Post
could work i guess, would definitely be a bit of a head trip strategy wise though.

As to fort spam. I actually kind of like it. Yes, it blocks you off in ridiculous ways, but it is expensive to do so and if you are carrying siege equipment you can just punch your way through no problem. To me at least, it actually makes the game much more deliberate. If you get yourself out of position without siege equipment, you can easily be cut off. It also makes it far easier to advance because it is so dangerous to march out into open ground in a lead battles game especially. Without the option of a fort screen i would probably do far more camping in cities, waiting for them to attack so i can cut the down in the field then counterattack.

As I said though, I am certainly fine with trying out a game with strict limits placed on them. I haven't actually tried that so who knows, maybe I will like it even more.
The tactic is so powerful that it forces everyone to copy it in order to stay in the game, just like spy spam and assassin spam, and just like the abuse of AI by luring garrisons out and exhausting them.

If one faction is at war with the other, one is using the tactic and the other is not, it's almost a foregone conclusion. No spies versus an army of spies means you lose. No forts versus forts means you lose. No assassins versus tons of assassins means you lose. One faction lures out all your garrisons, you don't, you lose.

When it gets that imbalanced and it's a tactic that must be spammed by everyone, it takes away from the game, doesn't add to it, IMO.

Although I see how others can enjoy using it, I've gotten over it. :P