Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Ugh. . . maybe you should try keeping the cost between 0 and 120.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Heh. But would you really ever buy a mountain citadel if it only costed 120 less than a watch tower?

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Castle Type_______Points _Admin _Def. _Supply _Time _Cost
Mausoleum_________100 _ _ 20 ___ 25 ____ 25 __ 2 __ 300
Watch Tower________80 _ _ 10 ___ 50 ____ 25 __ 2 __ 300
Wizard's Tower_____120 _ _ 30 ___ 75 ___ 200 __ 2 __ 300
Fortress____________80 _ _ 30 __ 150 ___ 100 __ 3 __ 450
Hill Fortress_________40 _ _ 20 __ 250 ___ 100 __ 3 __ 450
Castle______________80 _ _ 40 __ 100 ___ 150 __ 3 __ 450
Fortified City_________40 _ _ 50 __ 100 ___ 500 __ 5 __ 750
Citadel______________60 _ _ 40 __ 200 ___ 100 __ 4 __ 600
Mountain Citadel_______0 _ _ 10 __ 350 ___ 150 __ 5 __ 750

Maybe

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Hill fortress might be too valuable there - I think it has one of the best defensive layouts with that narrow corridor. Maybe make it 60 points too?

Regardless, I think those numbers would make the nation castle choice a lot more difficult (in a good way).

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

I like this idea. It would be a great response to the madcastling conundrum.

BUT

If you were implement it (were that even possible in dom2) you would simply be waltzing straight into the "ghost rider's are overpowered" holy war, because this effectively removes the only cost-effective defense to it.

Were ghost riders somehow to not have an impact on this design decision tho: I think you have a great idea.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Ghost Riders is overpowered:
Lots of FAST longdead horsemen(speed is what's really huge)
The wraithlord leader(I've seen this fella win provinces in long battles even tho his horsemen died long ago.)
Only 5 DeathGems ! (most Patrolling groups with province defense won't survive a double casting)


Any of these suggestions for making the spell more balanced would be great:
1) Switch the wraithlord with a mummy
2) Increase the cost of gems from 5 to 8
3) Place a chance of failure or chance the spell hits some other random province

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Talking of waltzing into the "ghost riders are overpowered" holy war...


In what context is ghost riders overpowered? You have only taken into account gem cost, and their ability to smash average province defences. In this ability, they are rightly overpowered.
The important, balancing costs are the requirements for conjuration research level 9 and death 4.

I beg to differ.

Which self-respecting horde of undead horseman would ever lower themselves to following a shambling, stumbling pile of bandages?
Sorry, has to be a wraithlord. Wraithlords are COOL. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Nope. 5 gems is just right. If anything, the costs of level 9 magic should be lowered. How about 10 gems for flames from the sky? 10 gem iron dragons, perhaps?
The point is, level 9 magic is cheap, good and effective for a reason, and it should stay that way.

Hey, these aren't a bunch of undead amateurs we're talking about here, like those lousy pirates. The (undead) mounties always get their man.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

They smash way more than average province defense! Even the mighty Jotun province defense at 20 would be crushed with one casting. On a map with 400+ provinces the only protection from this spell is having strong armies way in the back, building castles or labs with magic domes.

Death 4 is not hard for most nations since items can provide the boost needed. And yes it's Conjuration_9... but it's sad when everyone resorts to building cheap castle-types otherwise losing several temples each turn.

Mummy's are commonly known as Kings or HighPriests which died... how much more respect do you need ! Also you obviously did not notice that undead horsemen are MINDLESS. The ghost of a frog could be the leader and they wouldn't care as long as it had enough undead leadership.


No other target summoning attacks provide so many fearless targets on any terrain and none even match the damage done by this spell per gem cost. DO SOME TESTING and you'll see.


There's reasons many have banned this spell and have started the so called holy war against it. First... for those which do single player... the computer AI does not cast this spell which provides an unfair advantage. Second... gamers have few choices in stopping the damage this spell can do and thus resort to mass castling. Third... the leader by itself is worth 5 death gems. Fourth... lots of fearless undead horsemen on any province.


----------
Review:
There should not be one spell which provides such great power at such cheap cost especially when the computer AI does not use it.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Or about 40, depending on how you look at it. Of course, immortality is useless on something that vanishes (and is cast deep into hostile territory), though I can think of several ways to abuse the awesome-commander-for-5-gems that are even better than just grabbing 20 provinces in a turn for the price of 100 gems.

You know, a combined Horde from Hell and Ghost Riders in the same province at the same time would be even more difficult to defend against than casting either one twice, though usually either one alone gets the job done.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Well they are not the same as wraith lords. They don't have the 3D which makes a huge difference . They also don't have the baneblade which is a nice perk. The ghost rider leader is on a horse however which gives the perks of 1 point of defence and a hoof attack at the price of no foot slots.

Anyway ghost riders can be very powerful. Ghost riders slaughters PD, it can kill almost any lone SC ( there are a few that can kill unlimited Ghost riders but they are few ), and it can kill many conventional armies that are unprepared. I think D5 or D6 is a fine requirement. It substantially increases the investment.