Nargott
Auto-translated
No, but I’ll say it anyway... Is a Fort really a fair compensation for going second? Considering all the enhancements and growth mechanics that have been implemented? It seems like an overly generous compensation to me. Unless the resources for building it are taken away from the second player.
The building costs will be different (the Fort will definitely be cheaper than in the original game). The bonus from the Fort isn’t actually that high, as it only provides an initial boost to dwellings of levels 1-5. For example, 3 dwellings after building a Fort will immediately give 3 growth points + another 3 growth points in the second week. And 4 dwellings without a Fort will immediately give 2 growth points + another 4 growth points in the second week. Thus, the Fort is comparable to a regular dwelling.
Why do I say “frequently constructed”? Because there are 3 strategies, one of which doesn’t include fortifications at all:
1) open opening - early Fort (in week 1), for a boost and access to the Stronghold
2) semi-open opening - late Fort (in week 2), for access to the Stronghold
3) closed opening - the Fort/Stronghold/Castle is not built at all, because the focus is on an early jump to levels 6-7, for which they are not needed
Added 2 hours 30 minutes later
The bonus Fort system works not only for two players. In the case of (M+1) players:
(n+1)-th player will have an (n/M) chance of starting with a Fort.
For example, for 3 players: 1 player starts without a Fort, 2 players start with a 50% chance of having a Fort, 3 players start with a guaranteed Fort.
The compensation is lower due to the influence of randomness. However, the game duration increases with the number of players, and the advantage of going first also decreases.
The idea of a bonus building was borrowed from Heroes 3 (there was a chance that the starting city would have an extra level 2 dwelling, but without being tied to the player number).