Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nope, no actions required. Priests were safe and sound behind the strong walls of their temple, while the inviders were ravaging the countryside, asuming that the rescue army had arrived in time(next turn). No need to "reactivate" your temple, so no additional micromanagement here.


The priests (npc-priests http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) inside the temple could still pray (generate your dominion) for one Last turn, after their province was conquered, asking in vain their God for the miracle to save them, before/if their temple would be overrun and burned down by enemy, and the priests themselves were killed over the ruined altars of their God.


Or their drastic situation may prevent them from generating your dominion for this one turn while thier province is in enemy's hands. It doesn't really matter much, you can take the pick that you like more.

[ May 29, 2004, 05:57: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, castling does not really serve as a very effective speed bump JUST to enable you to manuever a hammer into place: It actually slightly impedes this, as you can't perform a trapeze-attack anymore, since the trapezers sit in the castle and drink beer.

What castling *DOES* do, however, is protect your temple, and your magic site income, which is the lifeblood of a successful empire. Of course, if temples did not immediately explode when prodded, it would not be necessary to castle provinces merely for the temple: I would, in fact, start favoring a buffer zone of naked countryside next to opposing empires, so that when attacked, I could immediately drop a teleport/trapeze squad on them, making it impossible to escape. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, castling does not really serve as a very effective speed bump JUST to enable you to manuever a hammer into place: It actually slightly impedes this, as you can't perform a trapeze-attack anymore, since the trapezers sit in the castle and drink beer.

What castling *DOES* do, however, is protect your temple, and your magic site income, which is the lifeblood of a successful empire. Of course, if temples did not immediately explode when prodded, it would not be necessary to castle provinces merely for the temple: I would, in fact, start favoring a buffer zone of naked countryside next to opposing empires, so that when attacked, I could immediately drop a teleport/trapeze squad on them, making it impossible to escape. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">See, Norfleet is already backing down from "mad castling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

To do what you have said norf you need to have significant force not only to overwhelm the entire invading army with your teleporters, but you also need to overrun all friendly neigborhing provinces at the same turn, to block the invider's route to escape if the choose to, or you would just end up wasting your time and gems AND would pose yourself wide open for retaliation.


Keep in mind that once your drop you "cloudtrapezing/teleporting squad" you are open to the same present plus some extra from your enemy, since now *you* are the one siting in the open and the enemy knows your numbers and knows what to expect from you.

Also by having line of naked countryside near your neigbors you are risking of losing it all to one coordinated attack.


But anyway, it is certanly an improvement compared to "mad caslers" warfare, in terms of fun if nothing else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 29, 2004, 09:00: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

If "mad castling" is a thing which the natural benefits of Man, Vanheim, and Pangaea (less bit Caelum) seem made to combat, then doesnt that put the whole subject into a Category where its not going to get touched? Any change which would improve the ability of Ulm or Marignon or Pythium against mad castling would lessen the benefits of playing or allying with the nations less affected by mad castling.

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

Well at first I wrote this long-winded statement about balance issues and play styles and then I realized something...
These debates and polls are worthless. How do you prove strategies are unbalanced based on games that you have won or lost, on a game that includes so many random variables (oh look my capital is neighboring the Crystal Citadel and the Council of sages!) and human diplomacy.
I think we have lost site on how and why to give feedback to the developers. This is a game and most of us play it to have fun. So lets give them ideas that can make the game more fun. I then trust in them to decide what is balanced and what adds to the flavor of the game. What they want to add to the game is up to them; it is after all their baby. After thinking about this I wonder whether I really want this game even more addictive?????? lol Heck yeah!

Hot topics:
1.) VQ - Well I use to be of the opinion that she was unbeatable, but after further review I think the problem lies in the overall balance of other Gods.

Fun solution: I love playing the obscure human Gods like the Alchemists and Druids, make them more of a viable choice - Higher dominion or specialty items that they already have that only they posses - Staff of Summoning: Druid, Alchemist Beaker: Alchemist (transforms all gems to gold)

2.) Castle Mania (really a raiding issue) - While I like the idea of making the temples burnable after one turn we must ask ourselves what would be more Fun!

Fun solution: Province defense should be based off of money (like normal) but also population and dominion. For instance would not you defend your home from invaders? It would be cool to see waves of militia and devout priests defending their homes from the undead waves. Those single SC's might think twice when they raid those 20,000 population provinces if they had to face 800+ high moral militia. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

3.) Clam Hording - Simple solution I think is having the developers compare a similar item and decide if it is balanced accordingly. Example -
Fever Fetish - 5 Fire, 5 Nature, gives disease to owner, Clams - 10 water

Fun solution: Make water gems more precious aka a better use for them. If you look at the item list there are far fewer items that you can make using water gems.
Here are some of my crazy ideas - Staff of Rain - makes fire magic more difficult, Canteen of invigoration - +4 reinvigorate,

4.) Norfleet - (No personal attack meant whatsoever) Norfleet is simply one of the best Dominions II players. He simply plays for keeps using every advantage, ethical or unethical exploitive or not (all debatable) to win the game. If you have never faced this in your real lives you have lived a sheltered life. I for one think he brings a unique flavor to this community and have no problem playing against him. (since each time I learn something more after the loss http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Fun Solution: He should be made (forced by gun if need be) a beta tester. If there is anyone who has the time and insight to find problems within the game it would be him.

Question for Norfleet: What other strategy games have you played before Dom II. I am wondering if I have run into you on other Online strategy games - what was your alias on these games?

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If that's what you got out of Norfleet's statement... hmm. Yes, he wouldn't build castles. OTOH, it makes attacking him even harder. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Between you and me, First - I don't care at all about new tactic that Norfleet' will adopt or will not. It's not about 1 player. It's about strategy, which is called "madcastling". The fact that the most notorious madcastler said that he will abandon it, partly or fully, is an indicator that the changes would indeed be in effect.

Although personally I didn't really put much weight into it, intended it partly as a joke (noticed that "smile"?)


Second - you are plain wrong about "making him even harder to defeat". Read my example to Zen, about two players, one madcastling and one not, and tell me again how this proposed rule will benefit "mad castler" more than "not-madcastler". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Now Norfleet is perfectly free to adopt any other strategy, just like everybody else. Again, this is "anti-madcaslting" change, not "anti-Norfleet" change.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't know about your SP playstyle Bayushi, but in MP SCs are the primary raiding force of choice. Anybody with MP experience could tell you that much.

And SCs do not storm castles by themself.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You have answered your own question. Not only you could, but often you are, making your opponent wonder if it is deep strike or fient, and spend his resourses (lost reseach, gems, troops) in vain, while posing his own troops open to the enemy strike. The choices will be even more intriguing with new proposed rule, as I demonstrated in my previous post, since now raider have a strong motive to try to burn the temple if the can, and both players know it and will act accordingly.

Dispersing is not an issue when most of your raiding force consist of one or several SC raiders, as it very often does in MP. No that is an issue when there are only one or two friendly provinces to retreat.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Do you really think that I am not aware of this fact? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It's the same situation as when Norfleet attacking raiders, only as I said to make sure they are eliminated he would have to conquer not one, but all other surrounding friendly provinces at the same turn. Also FYI - as I said most of the raiders party are one or several flying SC. The first turn can indeed make some difference in this case, but if you are prepared for it (as you should, since now you know exactly what to expect), several simple solutions can negate 1-st turn advantage of flying SC. The most basic and well known is having a hidden scout with Staff of Storms in the province, ready to surface and stop banelords/wraithlords/VQ/Airqueens/whatever from reaching your quickly and start hacking away before you are ready.

I've eployed it personally against Norfleet (under disguise of Pakhar Njal) several times in our Last game, worked like magic every time, resulting in dead enemy SCs raiders/defenders and no losses. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is your opinion indeed, and generaly speaking it is a wrong one. In competitive MP any number of undefended provinces on the border with hostile dominion can easely fall at the same turn to the well planed or coordinated attack of SC raiders, regular armies, assasins, remote summons and remote damage spells. Again, I've did it number of times in MP against many differnt opponents, so trust me, I know what I am speaking about. PD is not an adequate, and if you are having small armies defending provinces without castles, you can be sure that each of them will be met by slightly stronger army, custom-made to deal with this particular enemy army. Assuming of course you are playing against competent enemy.

The only real way do defend line of naked border provinces against strong player is to use few neigboring castles as a rally and safe heaven points for you troops, as well as storngpoints for you counterattack on your "naked lands, after they would be overrun by your enemy. Either that, or teleporting/clodtrewezing units from elsewhere, again next turn after enemy attack.


[quote]But anyway, it is certanly an improvement compared to "mad caslers" warfare, in terms of fun if nothing else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And this is nothing more than opinion of yours. I am not going to respond to your future "arguments" below, since I find them to be completely without merit, while writen in pretty arrogant and hostile tone. Surface to say I've readen them carefully (unlike yourself when you were reading what I had to say), and I have found that you've connstantly attributed to me the statements and ideas that I've never expressed, just so you could "fight" them with your counterarguments. Since I happen to agree with Zen, in thinking that it is common curtesy to read your opponents post carefully before replying to it, much less accursing him of "logic fallacies" he never made, I don't see why I should spend my time and do for you what you clearly haven't done for me. Sorry.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That much become pretty obvious from your post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It's rather pecular how somebody dive head first into discussion of relatively advanced and purly MP concept of "madcastling", and start throwing arround accusations of multiply "logical fallacies" at his opponents, while admiting of not being expereinced MP player, or having experinece with "madcastling", which is a subject of the discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


Ignorance is not a crime. But ignorance + arrogance is not a very pretty picture either. Have you been more civil in your post, as well as more carefull with reading what your opponents really said before dismissing what they said as a "wash",as you nicely put it, I would point to you where exactly you were wrong, and would do it nicely. But as it is, I feel no obligation to bother doing it at all, as I am sure you can appreciate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 30, 2004, 00:14: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Could you elaborate on this please Gandalf? Not sure what you meant. Madcastling is a strategy that can be successfuly employed by any race. Although some races can benefit from it more than others (Miclan, Ermor, Caelum, R'lyeh, Vanheim, others), but anybody can benefit from it. (especaily considering the fact that you can have uber-VQ pretender with any race, which can multiply effect of madcastling). You can do it with several other pretenders as well, although with more risk to yourself.

The proposed change indirectly but surely will make "madcastling" less atractive (by helping *any* not-madcastling strategy). Therefore it will make madcastling less promiment, while at the same time helping any nation who will find itself dealing with die-hard madcastler.

I agree that it will probably help more nations who were the worst suited to deal with madcastling to begin with, giving them more of a fighting chance. But it'll benefit any race nevertheless as far as madcastling concern. So I don't really see here a serious problem.


Besides as I said it'll make the game more complicated (in a good way) by making raiding and counter-riding more intriguing (by adding additional choice of "burn temple" to the raiding commanders, and additional goal and things to consider when you are raiding, instead if just current "burn everything in sight and move on" tactic).

While I think that the first reason is more importent, I can appreciate how people who for some reason don't consider "madcastling" to be an serious issue in MP games, would still like this change for the additional choices it brings to the game.

[ May 30, 2004, 00:06: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Heh. I don't think I have enough blackmail info on Illwinter or Shrapnel to get in there. Ain't gonna happen.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You wouldn't have: I'm not a huge fan of most popular RTSes, and tend to dislike hanging around their multiplayer communities in general, and most TBS games are fundamentally unsuited for multiplayer play.

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If that's what you got out of Norfleet's statement... hmm. Yes, he wouldn't build castles. OTOH, it makes attacking him even harder. Meanwhile, the game devolves from 'endless castle sieges' to 'endless cat-and-mouse antics'.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unless your opponent is invading with SCs, this is not really an issue. If you're invading with SCs/mage assault squads... why aren't you doing this against the castles?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You might want to explain this some more. Spell movement happens before 'normal' movement. I don't see how they can 'escape'. It's not like squads made to destroy entire armies are made to let anyone escape. You _could_ place your army on 'retreat' orders, making it a true raid, but then your army gets dispersed, requiring time to reassemble it.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And the 'sitting duck' goes first. In a fight between squads of the same quality, advantage goes to the defender.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That all depends on the border involved. If that border is small, then the attacks of both attacker and defender are concentrated. If large, both have to devote larger resources for a smaller gain. This is a wash, IMO.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is nothing more or less than an opinion of yours, and hence not really useful for supporting an argument.

Stormbinder, you seem to be operating under 2 rather common logical fallacies, and it's really hurting any chance you have to get what you want changed.

The first logical fallacy you're using is that of the 'bandwagon philosophy', or 'if it's popular, it's good'. Popularity is not without merit, but it cannot be the basis for a discussion on whether something is quality, not quality, etc. etc. One of the arguments used for VQs (especially) and castling and clams (to a lesser extent) is 'everyone uses them, so it has to be broken'. It is a fact that people tend towards the most powerful/abusive parts of a game, because the object of the game is to win. However, that by itself is not enough to prove that a strategy is broken. In fact, actual anecdotal evidence shows clearly that it's not a strategy easy to use, and that few can implement it properly.

The second logical fallacy you're falling under is that of the self-evident statement. You are _assuming_ that castling is a problem, and using that as the starting point to suggest solutions to it. You quite nicely are sidestepping a crucial point in the problem analysis procedure, namely determining whether the point under consideration truly is a problem.

This is where your argument is falling down, and Zen is quite right in showing this over and over again. You haven't given us any real information showing how castling everywhere is a problem. Zen has even suggested ways for you to do this. Since you seem unwilling to do so, I'll do it for you.

Let's say you have a 300g Fortification (which is at the heart of this strategy... it's also the 'best' situation for the defender, so we're talking a 'best case' scenario in favor of the defender). Let's say you've built X of them in your kingdom. The amount of gold you've spent on them would then be 300x. That's all the analysis we'll do for now. We won't go into temples/labs involved, or anything else that might be harder to quantify.

Now, the question is, can the attacker build an army with 300x gold (where x is the number of defending castles) that can take out the defender's castles? Now, a specific answer would require assigning a number to x, which as you point out varies on a case-by-case basis. However, something that you CAN see, just by the numbers, is that as the number of castles the defender has increases, the relative size of the attacker's army increases. This leads to easier and easier capture of castles. Therefore, putting a castle in every province is not a very good strategy, per se, as it is something that gives more and more advantage to the attacker.

"But wait!" you say. "That isn't the castling strategy! It requires rapid-response units to prevent the castles from ever falling!" And that is correct. But before you can propose a solution to a problem, you have to know where the problem lies. By the above _simple_ analysis, simply building castles everywhere is a losing proposition, all else being equal. Therefore, if there is a problem, it doesn't exist with the way castles are built.

You must then analyze if the fault lies in 'raiding', or in the ease of moving SCs around (to prevent breaches in lines), or something else entirely. But the thing here is, you're not defining your problem clearly enough.

Would your suggestion of requiring an action to burn down temples solve the castling question? Perhaps. It removes what some claim is the incentive for castling. But is that fixing the problem, or only the symptoms of the problem?

Personally, I feel the issue stems down to SCs being too easy to build and too mobile by far. But I can't prove that either. This also isn't much of an issue for me as a player since I can't play MP very much.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Scott

Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually I also do not care much for the typical RTS but there are a few with merit - Kohan, EU2, Hearts of Iron