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

If the move order were tweaked with, I wouldn't mind seeing an army's strategic move factored in, probably affected by survival skills vs terrain.
In the extreme case, for instance, it should be fairly hard for an army of move-1 Abysian Lava Warriors to leave a province to attack another they just overran before a Vastness or Doom Horror arrives from next door. Less extreme, Machakan spider knights in a forest should have an easier time of keeping the initiative than would their Ulm heavy infantry pursuers.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, you have yet to prove it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have yet to prove what ? I haven't said anything about castling and it wasn't the main topic of the original post, nor do I have an opinion on it, either way.

What I was saying is that the original post represents commonly used poor, inflammatory and illogical arguments.

- Kel

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think we were arguing past each other back there.

I was taking issue in one post with the above claim of yours; now I realize most of what you have been saying pertains to what you see as inflammatory rhetoric used against "whiners."

However, I am curious to know what evidence you think has been provided, other than the sort I mention a few Posts ago, or the type that Zen discusses.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I was taking issue in one post with the above claim of yours; now I realize most of what you have been saying pertains to what you see as inflammatory rhetoric used against "whiners."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Exactly so. I have no arguments for or against castling, none at all. I don't currently see it as a problem but I will listen. I didn't think that was your main point. If it was, then I should have started a new thread or held my tongue.

Quote:

However, I am curious to know what evidence you think has been provided, other than the sort I mention a few Posts ago, or the type that Zen discusses.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I haven't kept up with the evidence on castling, to be honest. There may or may not be any at all. I think both sides of most balance discussions have extremists who write off each others points and thus, some Posts on balance problems will be reactionary and *won't* have evidence.

However...some subjects, such as clamming and VQs, had a great deal of salient points and yet you still see poor, arrogant, dismissive behavior (in addition to some good counter-points, to be fair). Evidence might be a bad word because it implies that it is sufficient and swaying. 'Arguments' or 'points' might be a better word. I hate to see arguments dismissed based on anything other than the logic of the argument. That's all.

- Kel

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, that is a difference between us. I would dismiss arguments based on anything other than real evidence, no matter how logical the argument itself is.

Arguments based on anything other than real evidence are just people expressing their preference for how they wish the game was different.

Although people may have made good points pro and con the various changes advocated, I don't think we have seen much hard evidence on any of them.

What kind of evidence, you might ask? The kind of stuff Zen talked about:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you advocate a change without taking the time to gather evidence like that, you are basing your arguments on preferences and opinions, whose relationship to reality is questionable.

Advocating change without the type of evidence above is what's been called whining.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How are these tactics illegitimate, and what is the evidence?

It's hard to refute opinions, and other than reports of "I hate playing against a castlespamming VQ clam-hoarder" I have not seen much evidence put forth that any of these are in any way illegitmate.

I will grant that VQs appear to be underpriced compared to some other Pretenders, or rather, some of the 125 pt. Pretenders are probably overpriced.

But...how can buidling castles be illegitimate? Where does that particular line of thinking stop? Should we limit the number of temples a player can build? Number of labs? Number of uber summons? Number of mages? Number of provinces to take a turn? Why not, and how is it different for the reasons given for outlawing castlespamming? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Easy. The best suggestion I've heard so far is to make temples destructable only by the order of commander (the same as with labs). This way you can protect your temples against raiders without having castels in every province, which is the main reason of "mad castling".

I don't think it'll elimiate mad castling alltogether, but it'll go very long way toward making it less promiment, without actually nerfing anything or adding some artificial limits. With such sustem you can still build as many temples as you want and protect them against raiders using your network of castles as strongholds and nodes in your defense system.

[ May 28, 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

Kel - very intelligent and well argued Posts.

With recent local emotional level raising, it's a rare sign to see these days, especially when discussing controversial and provocative topics such as this one.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The castles were built to keep out pesky enemy VQs, since everyone knows vampires can't come inside unless they're invited. Besides, what ELSE would you build in a province? Temples would explode constantly. Plus that annoying sacred troop limit requires castles to enable their churn-out, temples to increase the rate at which they can be churned out...and castles again to protect said temples.

Everything in Dom2 boils down to those temples, after all, and when your production bandwidth depends on those temples, even losing control of one temporarily as suggested in a proposed solution would be unacceptable. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Apparently, that's a "no, he didn't do without castle-spamming"!

Sometimes Norfleet makes a lot of sense to me, and sometimes, like above, he makes very little sense to me:

"Everything in Dom2 boils down to those temples, after all..."

It does? Temples do several things, but I don't think any of my games have "boiled down" to temples. Then, I haven't used many immortals, nor relied on blessed national units.

"Besides, what ELSE would you build in a province?"

What kind of question is that? How about, nothing, building things in production centers instead? How about, an occasional good indy unit that is worth buying? How about, a lab? Or, PD?

PvK

[ May 28, 2004, 00:58: Message edited by: PvK ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you don't build temples, enemy dominion gets into your land. I've tried building temples in every single province, and it STILL wouldn't stay out. Clearly, what the game is trying to tell me is that I don't build enough temples.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">An occasional indy mage doesn't really consume that much of you funding that you can't build a temple. Besides, see above problem with dominion maintenance.

More importantly, while this is certainly an alternate approach to spending your gold, it does not address the problem of what you do with the empty province! Yes, you could buy a ton of troops, and conquer a ton of empty provinces. When you do that, I'm going to go, "Hey, thanks for the provinces", and start taking them from you - which will be easy because there's nothing stopping me from doing it, now that you have so generously removed the pesky indies for me!

As I've stated in the past, if you're not able to hold what you conquer, you're just conquering it for someone else's sake.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, yes, duh. Building labs goes alongside building temples, particularly if you have mage-priests to churn out. Of course, you can't crank out your mages anyway without building a fort, and once you have a fort, you may as well situate a temple there.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You're joking, right? Besides, 3 PD costs all of $6. That hardly represents a major expenditure.

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

IF castle spamming is a problem then a simple linear increase depending upon how many currently exist sounds like a decent solution.

But I don't know how much of a problem they are. I do know that I like building them though! They are great!

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you advocate a change without taking the time to gather evidence like that, you are basing your arguments on preferences and opinions, whose relationship to reality is questionable.

Advocating change without the type of evidence above is what's been called whining. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think you're being unreasonable. I saw Peter's clam evidence, and while I'm sure it took some time to put together it was still relatively straightforward to develop. As I recall, it was essentially a mathematical formula that calculated how many astral gems you would get if you started making clams from water gems, and then more clams from alchemized astral gems, etc., etc. Forgive me if I've oversimplified it a little. But the point is, it required absolutely no in-game testing. It was just a matter of determining what the proper formulas were and then crunching some numbers.

There's no way I can see to do this sort of abstract number crunching for the issues of castling, or VQ, or raiding, or other things that people have "whined" about lately. There are no numbers to crunch here. No forumla to extrapolate from. The only way to gauge the impact of these various strategies and issues is to see them in action, in a game setting. Which takes a heck of a lot longer than running a few formulas.

Even if you could somehow run a big set of games in which to test your argument about, say, castling, there's no way to control for the variable you are interested in. The endless possible choices that each player can take means that you'll never know if a particular person won because they built lots of castles. Maybe they won because their opponents were just generally incompetent. Maybe they won because they found some nice indie provinces early. Maybe they won because they hoarded clams. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Most likely they won, or lost, based on an interaction of a lot of factors, many of them not readily apparent.

So it is impossible to provide the sort of rigorous evidence you are looking for. And I don't think it is at all fair to tell people that their arguments carry no weight because they can't meet an impossible standard. Besides, it won't work. People will keep making their arguments, based on whatever logic and annecdoatal evidence they can muster. (And I say more power to them!) I suggest that you learn to live with this fact, rather than, um... whining about it.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's the thing: Castle spamming isn't the problem, castle spamming is the solution: Raiding is the problem: Without castles, anyone can simply raid your provinces at whim: PD is utterly impotent and cannot stop anything raiding force more serious than a single cast of Call of the Winds or Wild. Thus, a response to contain the damage caused by raiding had to be devised, and, as in real life, that answer has turned out to be castles. Lots of castles.

Now, of course, people are upset that they can't simply raid at whim, and that their attacks run into these stumbling blocks placed in their paths....ironically for exactly that reason.

Boo frickety hoo. Since when was the defender supposed to be accomodating of the attacker's wishes?

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

[quote]Originally posted by PvK:

Quote:

(...) "Everything in Dom2 boils down to those temples, after all..." It does? Temples do several things, but I don't think any of my games have "boiled down" to temples. Then, I haven't used many immortals, nor relied on blessed national units. (...)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't use a lot of immortals either, and still find temples extremely appealing. (This may be influenced by my having played a lot of CW Pan, admittedly.) Having enemy dominion creep into my provinces is no good, naturally.

And more importantly when using a CP (Combatant Pretender / Prophet), the temples help raise your dominion, which means that your CP has better health, strength, etc.

Immortals (both pretenders and commanders (albeit how many nations, other than T'ien C'hi and Ermor get non-pretender immortals?)) just make lots of temples even more compelling.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well your opinion certainly supports your style of logic and reasoning. I certainly hope that IW will disregard any and every suggestion that is made with as much effort and thought in it as you have so lazily defended.

Saber Cherry is no longer here to do analysis for you, so in order to express points counter to the status quo you'll actually have to put some effort into your arguements but by all means, don't. Because uninformed decisions on balance is a good way to go.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So how can we ever know it is a problem, rather than just something certain players don't like playing against?

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

Illwinter is of course free to decide for themselves what is, or isn't, a good idea. I totally agree with Zen (and everyone else I would hope) there. Which is why I disagree with the way Reverened Zombie and others are blowing off people's arguments and opinions as "whining" unless it is backed up unreasonable amounts of "evidence." Because, as I have said, I don't see how it is possible to provide evidence of the sort that some people seem to be demanding. And demanding people do the impossible before voicing their thoughts amounts to telling them to shut up and go away. That's not right, and it's not going to work anyway, so why do it?

Besides, if the arguments that people are making are so baseless and wrong, then surely Illwinter will see that and not act upon them. I mean, that's more or less what you were saying, right Zen? So why try to surpress them? Better, I think, to let people argue about these issues, blow off steam, and maybe figure out some in-game solutions that way. Or maybe, just maybe, point out some things that Illwinter actually decides could use improvement.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">By "unreasonable amounts of," you mean "any," correct?

And I would not say I am "blowing off" people's arguments as "whining", but "characterizing" them as "whining." There's a difference.

[ May 28, 2004, 16:45: Message edited by: Reverend Zombie ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe you have a different understanding of what this board is for. In my mind it's not a place to "blow off steam", or "demand IW change something". Just because you have the rare instance of actually having developers who care enough to take consideration to suggestions on this board does not mean it's the breeding ground for "What I feel is right" Posts.

And under no circumstance is this a field to argue and go to the lowest depths of personal attacks for people defending pro or con any debate/playstyle/feature/bug etc.

However, that is exactly what people recently have done. For whatever reasoning, be it human nature or merely the trend of games/gamers in general. Suddenly people feel it's their god given right to have developers change something based on their input (which is by and large inadequate) and if others disagree with that input or the thoughts around it, suddenly they are attacked for 'not knowing' what they intimately know.

Counter to public opinion this is not a Rant forum about Dom2. This is a forum that serves as both feedback (in an appropriate manner) and aid for new players as well as old.

So my suggestion is, if you happen to feel something needs to be changed. Bring your game face and some effort and thought into it. If you are just bandwagoning or have the inescapable need to jump onto a side for whatever reasoning. Don't be suprised when the status quo is asking for reasonable proof or evidence of something suddenly needing changing.

A good example of this is: Stormbinder's Mirror Image issue. He brought a bit of information that he felt was wrong, enough to spark interest for others to see if it was or was not working as he said it. It doesn't have to be huge mathmatical analysis but it has to be reasoned and tested against more than one or even a few circumstance/stimulus.

Take it what it's worth. But if you think this is a board for 'blowing off steam' you'll find your Posts and threads with that intention will not be tolerated.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's the general Shrapnel forum faq, but I have not found a "rules of THIS forum" faq like I have seen on other sites.

Does it exist?

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

Not as far as I know. It has never needed them to my understanding. In the past most posters at Shrapnel's Boards have understood that general politeness and rules that are standard on other Boards are applicable here.

Also I feel the caliber of people who play Dom2, in general, do not fall prey to the very base of things that most if not all forums prohibit.

Perhaps when Gandalf upgrades the Forum Software it will have an easy to read FAQ about what is and is not appropriate here as well as allowing you to choose your sort method.

Edit: Just for clarification. This is not a Rant forum in the fact that it's for people to come and ***** and moan about things in an inappropriate manner. Obviously everyone has the right to be angry at any number of things, but within reason. Such as if you are angry that Utgard was broken in a new patch and there was no support or answer for that particular instance, you are totally justified. However, if you got beat by someone using a Archmage with Staff of Elemental Mastery and posted that it was "total bull**** and the Archmage is unbalanced" and then flaming the player of the Archmage, would be innappropriate.

[ May 28, 2004, 19:07: Message edited by: Zen ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Inappropriate, yes.....but I'd pay to see that. That's just too funny to be true.

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

I'd like to see the Archmage kick some butt too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am in total agreement with Zen that no one should be coming on here and demanding that Illwinter do anything. I don't think I said that in my Posts.

I also am opposed to ranting and the use of personal attacks. That sort of thing isn't what I had in mind when I said blowing off steam, but I can see how it could be interepreted as such. Sorry about that.

I'm basically just in favor of as free a flow of ideas as possible, so as to make it easier to identify where the problems are and aren't. I didn't think that Reverened Zombie's categorizing some people's opinons as whining (not a particularly civil word, in my opinion) encouraged this sort of exchange, so I spoke up about it. But I absolutely agree that this exchange of ideas needs to be friendly and respectful. If I gave any other impression be assured it was not my intent.

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

Well, for me, things CAN be tested. It all depends on how much work you're willing to do for it.

Take, for example, the Vampire Queen. You think she should cost more? Go right ahead. You don't have to spend all the points you get to make your Pretender. The formulae used to figure out costs for things like Paths are well-established, and so you can tweak the numbers to what you think she SHOULD be. Then you play her.

Come to think of it, aren't Pretenders able to be modded/created now? You could simply create what you think an appropriate VQ would be, and test to see if she is, IYO, more balanced.

Another thing. Clams. What's the appropriate cost for them? This is, actually, something you can verify in-game. If you think that they should cost 10W and 10S, for example, simply remember that you need 10 Astral gems in your lab for each Clam you own. Alternatively, you could take the 10 Astral cost, convert it into ANYTHING else (giving 5 gems), convert those BACK to Pearls (giving 2 Pearls and 1 Gem), and convert those Pearls back into a gem (giving 2 Gems), and converting back to a single Pearl. Poof, you just had 9 Pearls disappear. Also, make sure you only Forge with capable mages.

Is it work? Yes. Before you reflexively ask, "You expect me to do THIS MUCH just to prove something that already exists?", I'll answer you. Yes. I do. Supposition and 'because everyone does it' is not evidence. It won't get anything changed. The more you can do to identify the problem AND work on a viable solution AND show that that solution is better for the game, the better your chances are for getting the change made.

Mostly, I see people working on only the first problem. Gandalf constantly says it; give us solutions, not problems. And don't just give solutions, give us evidence that show the solutions do what they're supposed to. Only then is IW likely to implement the change.

Scott

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thank you Zen. I am just doing what I can since I love this game a lot and would like to do whatever little I can do to help it become even better. I generally agree with what you have said in your post about purpose of the board, rants, etc.

But I would like to point out one thing though - you have to keep in mind that the Mirror Image issue that I've posted about was a bug, pure and simple. Anybody can do (and did) a quick testing to confirm or deny it.


With "mad castling" it's much more complicated since the issue here is not a bug. Proponents of this "strategy" can (correctly) agrue that they are not using any bugs and therefore have every right to do it. The thing is, however, that the large majority of people (even some of those who defend the right of "mad castling" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) agree that cheap castles/temples in every province makes game extremely boring and mindbogling for everybody involved(except mad castler of course). It also give mad castler (if he knows what he is doing and designed and play to the strength of his tactic) large advantage over not-madcastler.


Therefore it forces everybody, if he doesn't want to be in strong disadvantage in competitive MP with madcastler(s) present, to adopt the same tactic, which is in addition to being cheezy and mindbogling for most people, significantly deminish the diversity of this game (and this is one of the worst thing here in my opinion, since this game is all about different tactics and choices. Where to build castles (as well as which castle type to choose) is supposed to be very importent choice in this game, where you are choosing location based upon the local resourses, magic sites, indep troops available in the province, the resourses of neigborhood provinces, current political situation, your nation overall strategy, other neigboring castles that can provide assistance to new one in case of war, et cetera....

With "mad castling" all these choices are completely irrelevent since you are building castles everywhere, and choose only one of 2(sometimes 3) cheap 300gp castles in the begining.


Now returning to the question of proof. I agree that it is always good to have strong and mathematical evidence to back any claims such as this one. But what kind of evidence you could reasonable expect to have to prove that "mad castling" is cheesy, boring and unbalancing?

We have one notorious madcastler who is infamous for his use of this tactic - Norfleet. He uses the same cheesy and abusive tactic (where "mad castling is the main part of his strategy) it in each and every game of his and because of this win most of them.

You may argue that he wins not because of "madcastling" and other exploits but because he is very good player. Fine. But the only way to prove or reject it is for him to play a game against competent opponents and win without using any of his standard exploits. He, however, strongly refuses to do it, claiming that he don't know how to play without mad castling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif (such game was offered to him only yesterday by his friend Haterider). Depsite my personal feeling toward Norfleet for his lying and cheating in my Last game, I agreed to play the game against him just to settle this question and clear the issue of "madcastling". Norfleet, however, chickened out. He understand very well that once (if) he would be beaten in his first and only game, where he would _not_ be using his standarts exploits, the truth about his "strategies" would become crystal clear fo everybody. He just can't risk it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


There is another, although less strict way to get mathematical evidence that you are asking for. If I understand it correctly, yours, as well as Gendalf's positions is that any tactic, including Norfleet's "mad castling + VQ + clam hoarding" can be beaten with good counter tactic. Ideally, I would agree with you, that's exactly what I love about this game. In reality however ad in case with "mad castling", I strongly doubt it, and this was never proven. AhhhFresh sugested excactly the same game to Norfleet and yourslef some time ago. Norfleet indicated that he is not really interested in it. But even if he would play it and win, he could still claim that he won because of his skills, not because of his cheesy strategy. And you could always say (i am not saying that *you* will, I am speaking strictly not-personally here) that he had strong element of luck on his side, or weak neigbors who he could gobble quickly before meeting his stronger oppoentns, or dozens of other possible reasons.


Finally you may argue that this is not about 1 player, but about the strategy. Again, normally I would agree, but Norfleet, as we all know, is special case. He hangs on dom2 Boards and channels 24hours per day (literally), and my guess is that he participate in at least 50% of all MP games going around here. He even went as low as to sneak into other people game under an alias. Therefore unfortunately he can not be ingored, and more and more games are created with house rules to prohibit partly or wholy his standard exploits.


So here you have it - you have a situation which deals with arguably valid (meaning it doesn't exploit bugs) strategy. At the same time it is very hard to gather strict mathematical evidence that you are looking for, in line with "Mirror Image" issue that you mentioned, since the infamous godfather of this lame strategy is certanly not cooperating, and in fact doing everything he can that would obscure the public opinion on this matter. For example he claims that his "mad castling" strategy is "beatable", since according to him he won a game or two(using his standard mad castling of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )against people who tried to copycat his strategy from him! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif What kind of evidence is that?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif


**********************************
People asked here for the solution, not a problem. All right, here is the solution part for you:


Personally I think that an excellent solution to this whole mad castling issue is to make temples burnable just like labs - meaning special "build/destroy" order would need to be issued by enemy commanders, next turn after the province conquered.

Norfleet and his copycats constantly claim that they have no choice but to build castles everywhere, since this is the only thing that can defend their temples against raiders. (and for some reason they assume that you have to build temples in EVERY province in orde to play this game). Than they moan that PD is inadecuate, temples are so expensive, etc...

Fine. With temples requiring an order for the commander to be destroid, it ives you excellent protection against enemy raiders looking to destroy your temples. It's exactly the same the same as with paper castles in this regard - it gives you 1 additinal turn to counterattack.

The best of all is that such solution does not nerf anything, and is in line with already existing mechanism for labs. You want to have crappy castles and build them in every province? Fine, you can do it! You don't want to mad castle but want to use some other strategy? Fine, now you have the opportunity to do it and still protect your teritory against raiders, at least as far as temples concern. IMHO this change would not eliminate mad castling completely, but it would go very long way to resolve this issue.


P.S. BTW historically speaking a lot of medieval monasteries were VERY impressive fortresses, sometimes much better than the surrounding barons castles. So the reqiurement to spend 1 more turn to burn it to the ground for enemy commander makes a good sense from this perspective. Also as a totally separate and optional idea - instead on destroying enemy temple your prist can spend 1 turn "converting" rival's god temple into your own, puryfying it, etc. The price could be the same as building new temple - 200 gp, or a little bit more than that. That little tweak would give priests another little usefull role in the game.

[ May 28, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

There is a simple way to mathmatically define Castling if you so desire.

Take the Total cost of X amount of castles of whatever type.

Take the total time to create X amount of castles.

Take the total time saved by creating a castle.

Take the total gold protected by creating a castle.

Take the total gold gained by creating a castle.

Take those #'s and plug them into an offensive force (alternate ones) and take into account that any castle defeated adds the variables you have just defined to your side.

Now show a clear imbalance between the cost and effect of such. Taking into consideration you can't move a Castle and Castles cannot take provinces.

All your arguments are based on only 1 person playing them. So test them not only against each other but opponents of equal skill and even gem income, capabilities. Also take into consideration the time frame involved.

I personally think 'mad castling' is a load of steaming bull. The effectiveness of a castle is only if you allow it to remain and if the castle can be defended. Unfortunately for the castler, even the cheapest castle with the shortest survival time costs 300 gold. And 300 gold for each castle defensively gives 300 gold to offensive forces.

300 gold goes a long way if you know how to protect the troops made with it and you are on the offensive instead of remaining on the defensive and playing into a take and hold strategy.

Stormbinder, unfortunately none of your arguements are really very applicable. And as I've said, Clams are the same way. If you let them be a problem they can be, but that can be said for any aspect of this game.

The reason I know personally that one, two, or even all three of your favorite topics for discussion are not overpowered is that I used to do them at one stage of my playtime. I even wrote a guide on how to abuse 2 of the 3 (castles and clams). While it was very effective for a while; and has many virtues. It is far from overpowered. If you were to try to use such tactics against a competent player who knows they are coming, understands the weakenesses for the entire game, and can act against that strategy (which can be a problem in large games, which is likely why it is so effective as your "New Player" to "Veteran Player" ratio is obviously high). It is no more viable than the "ID's on turn 14" strategy or any other number of seemingly overpowered playstyles.

Edit: Just because I personally think it's this way does not mean anyone else does (though I know a few that do, and that have tried and failed with it). And you can express your point if you'd like, but I have just rebutted it and an entire portion of those that play this game are represented by that statement. So in order for you to present a fully rational and conclusive illustration of your point you will have to revert to specifics which means mathmatical analysis or even saved games if you prefer.

[ May 28, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Zen ]

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

Well, here's the thing about castling. As you said, it's a legitimate strategy. Hence, your labeling of it as 'abusive' is purely of your own belief. It's not abusing anything except perhaps the balance of the game. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the game. For me, it's rather the same as being mad at the fact that a Queen can move better than a Rook or a Bishop in Chess.

Luckily, unlike Chess, we can try to see it changed. However, a few things need to happen before any change is implemented.

1) Verification that this is indeed not how the game was meant to be. IOW, if the Designers felt that the desired end-result of a game was to have castles everywhere, they're not going to change it, and you're really just wasting your time.

2) Verification that the strategy is, indeed, 'abusive', as you put it. Is the strategy unfair? Is it inherently superior to any strategy that can be feasibly used against it? Does one person using the strategy force others to use the same strategy, or fail?

If 1) and 2) are verified, then you have identified something as a problem. And, BTW, you need to have more than one person able to reproduce the results of a strategy before it can be termed abusive. The best way is NOT to have that person win without the strategy. If he plays, and wins, you've lost your argument. If he plays, and loses, you can't chalk up the loss to the absence of the strategy. A better way is to have that person explain his strategy in minutest detail to others, so that they understand at the best level how to duplicate it. Then, see if THOSE people can win with the strategy. If they can, and they come to dominate the environment, THEN (and only then) do you have an abusive strategy. If a person with a 'potentially abusive strategy' has explained their strategy to others, and those people have tried to use that strategy against others, and failed, there are a few reasons why that might be.

1) Lack of familiarity with the strategy. They may need more experience.
2) The original player did not explain themselves well enough. This can be accidental or intentional.
3) The original player is winning on skill, rather than an abusive strategy, and therefore his strategy is not abusive.

Now, assuming that you can duplicate this abusive strategy, then you have the task of determining the root cause of the problem. Is the strategy too easy? Is it too hard to disrupt? What element of the strategy is making it abusive? For castling, some possible questions are: Is it the cost of the castles? Is it the way that the turn order is processed? Is it the ease of building SCs?

Once you have identified the core of the problem, you need to propose solutions to the problem that target the core problem, and address its problems. Solutions to the above questions could be: Double the cost of the castles, make sieging happen before Magic (which means you can't Teleport/move a SC in to protect the Castle), or drastically change the way SCs operate.

Finally, you need to test the solution, to make sure that that it does, in fact, deal with the problem. Once you have tested the theory, and found it suitable, then you can present a complete package to IW, from start to finish, and see if they'll implement it. Presuming that 1) was passed, they should.

This is the amount of work that should go into any perceived problem in the game, and the less work you do, the less incentive you give IW to give your arguments credence.

Hope everyone's liked Problem-Solving 101.

Scott

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

I disagree Zen. This issue is not really possible to clearly and accuratly define in purely mathematical way, as you suggested, unlike clams for example. The problem is that you are indirectly assuming that any complex strategy in this game have a mathematical "value" that can be calculated and than used to compare it with other alternative strategies. Granted, it can be true with some simple "spreadsheet" types of strategic games, but fortunately Dom2 is way too complex for that.


Here is the example from your own "blueprint" for gathering "proof", step by step:


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All right, these are obviously a piece of cake to calculate.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not sure what exactly do you mean here (time saved on reseach? Time saved on bringing troops to frontlines? And how do you "add" this to gold saved? By inventing some additional arbitrary multyplier between gold/reseach or gold/time? It's the same as adding apples and oranges (unless you intend to keep these in separate colums for the calculating of your "evidence" ).

However it doesn't really matter, since it'll get "better" later on... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Even this simple fact in the middle of your list is absolutely impossible to calculate. How do you calculate how much gold did you really protect with your castle? The province's income? (plus half/admin value). If so, you are making two wrong assumptions here at the same time:

First you assume that if you would not build the castle, the province would have to be raided by enemy, resulting in money loss. Which does not nessesarly be the case, since not every unprotected province have to be always raided by enemy, for example if it is located far away from your frontlines and you are waging an offensive war on your enemies. Secondary you assume that once you build the castle your investment is totally safe, which is not the case either, since your castle can still be conquered, especially if it is the "paper one" type as with "mad castling" strategy.


And finally even if you didn't protect the province and it was raided by enemy as the result, how do you propose to calculate how much money will you lose? Do you assume that tghe province in question would be raided once during the game? 2 times? 5 times? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif



<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ha! This is the best part. How do you propose to express in mathematical terms the uber VQ defending "completely castled" dominion, against "the alternative" strategy? You can't even calculate how much money did you realy save with your "madcastling". And even "madcastling" is only a part of your overall strategy, after all you don't have a single VQ with no troops defending your dominion by herself.

And even if me or somebody else did that impossible thing, and even somehow to manage to calculate the "value/benefits" of some totally different alternative strategy, it would still be meaningless to our purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Why? Because it is logically impossible to prove that one tactic more powerfull than others tactic in this matter. In any scince filed you CAN'T prove ANY theory by examples. You can only REJECT the theory is by using any numbers of examples.


Related to our problem, even if me, or Vvyn, or any other people who share our opinion on madcastling would take your advice to heart and try to calculate mathematically that "madcastling" is "better" than some other alternative strategy (which is impossible to do as I have said and explained above), all we would prove is the fact that the "madcastling" strategy is superior to this particular "alternative" strategy. That's all.

*YOU* can (theoretically, but not practicaly) prove that madcastling is not the best strategy by calculating it's "value/benefits" and comparing it the *your* own particular strategy, which you calim to be superiour to madcastling. Your opponents in this argument though, can not prove the opposite by using any number of examples. Do you understand what I mean?


The bottom line is Zen - this game have way too many varibles to calculate in the way that you suggested. Much more that would allow you to build any meaningfull AND accurate mathematical model to generate that kind of evidence that you are looking for in case with madcastling. It is not nearly as simple as you imply with your "blueprint". I agree with you, you can (and should) apply mathematics and models to certain simple aspects of the game, such as clams, Mirror Image, etc. But "madcastling" strategy is certanly not one of them.

[ May 29, 2004, 00:34: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this thread, I've been ill. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

But, judging from the very latest Posts... I have a comment.

I think the value analysis of the mad castling phenomenon for living races is very different for living nations than for undead autospawning themes.

The disconnect between gold and "productive" capacity is at issue here.

This ties in with the difficulty, (and differing desirability given nation status above) of replacing population, in a way that is contextually pernicious.

I hope there is an in-game technique refinement that allows ermorian castle spamming to be defeated, even with the nekkid-immortal-SC icing.

I don't know of one, but my ignorance is commodious.


Rabe the Overt Optimist

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Time saved could be ment to equate to the stopping force of any given castle. Meaning that for say, a Watch Tower, you have 1 additional turn at the very least of stopping power for claiming any amount of gold over 1/2 of the province. This is a key factor if you are trying to say Castling is overpowered, because it's primary issue is the time it provides to you respond to any given attack on a province.

Even this simple fact in the middle of your list is absolutely impossible to calculate. How do you calculate how much gold did you really protect with your castle? The province's income? (plus half/admin value). If so, you are making two wrong assumptions here at the same time:

No, a Castle "Protects" Temples, which equate to 200 Gold. It could also concievably protect a Lab from opponent use, though it is not a 'build as many as you can' asset. Also include the Half income of the Province.

Snip

Raiding only lets you lose a province if you choose not to retake it with any sort of force. That means you are choosing not to retake it and the assumption is that the province taker is something you cannot defeat or will move the next turn.


And finally even if you didn't protect the province and it was raided by enemy as the result, how do you propose to calculate how much money will you lose? Do you assume that tghe province in question would be raided once during the game? 2 times? 5 times? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

You can either assume it will always be raided, or raided half the time you play. Halving it's income. You are the one that seems to have an issue with Raiding and it's monumental impact so that you "Must Castle" in order to protect it.

Ha! This is the best part. How do you propose to express in mathematical terms the uber VQ defending "completely castled" dominion, against "the alternative" strategy? You can't even calculate how much money did you realy save with your "madcastling". And even "madcastling" is only a part of your overall strategy, after all you don't have a single VQ with no troops defending your dominion by herself. The issue has nothing to do with "Uber VQ's". It is a seperate issue in and of itself. If you can't seperate it from any of your other issues, you are blinded by the complete issues instead of any single aspect and your logic is flawed, thus being illogical discredited.

And even if me or somebody else did that impossible thing, and even somehow to manage to calculate the "value/benefits" of some totally different alternative strategy, it would still be meaningless to our purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif No it would prove that Castling is more economical than buying armies thus it is an overpowered strategy because it protects and holds assets that are more applicable than other things built with gold (Mages and/or Armies).

Why? Because it is logically impossible to prove that one tactic more powerfull than others tactic in this matter. In any scince filed you CAN'T prove ANY theory by examples. You can only REJECT the theory is by using any numbers of examples. Then, you have already lost your argument. You cannot prove that Castling is 'abusive' on any level and so it is not.


Related to our problem, even if me, or Vvyn, or any other people who share our opinion on madcastling would take your advice to heart and try to calculate mathematically that "madcastling" is "better" than some other alternative strategy (which is impossible to do as I have said and explained above), all we would prove is the fact that the "madcastling" strategy is superior to this particular "alternative" strategy. That's all. That's all you need to do in order to have a leg to stand on to prove that the strategy is overpowered at all, let alone with enough consistancy and without enough drawbacks in order to warrant a change.

*YOU* can (theoretically, but not practicaly) prove that madcastling is not the best theory by calculating it's "vlue/bnefits" and comparing it the your own particular strategy, which you claim to be superior than madcastling. Your opponents though can not prove the opposite by using any number of examples. Do you understand what I mean? Then you understand that Castling is not overpowered, only one alternative out of many.


The bottom line is Zen - this game have way too many varibles to calculate in the way that you suggested. Much more that would allow you to build any meaningfull AND accurate mathematical model to generate that kind of evidence that you are looking for as in case with madcastling. It is not nearly as simple as you imply with your "blueprint". You can (and should) apply mathematics and models to certain simple aspects of the game, such as clams, Mirror Image, etc. But "madcastling" strategy is certanly not one of them.

Actually you could, but the simple fact that you want to argue even trying means to me that you have no intention of trying and thus it means so little have no intention of making any valid suggestions based on facts and only opinion. Opinion is not grounds for balance changes. Pure and simple.

[ May 29, 2004, 00:30: Message edited by: Zen ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Now see, there is yet another aspect that has to be addressed if you modify any castling. Not only this, but Underwater Nations as well.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not so. I am only arguing against the particular *simple method* that you propose, since I don't think it is possible to do it , that's all. (and I explained in detailes why I think so)


If you think you can do it and if it is as simple as you said it is - go ahead, I would be very interested to see how you will try to do it. Remember, *you* are the one who claim that he knows the strategy that is superior to "mad caslting" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You can't really expect me to calculate the strategy that I am not aware about, using the "blueprint" that I think is impossible to follow, do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for my suggestions - I've said it several times, but you seem to ignore it. It is making temples "burnable" in the same line with labs - meaning to burn it your commander need to issue an order.


The best thing is it is not a "nerf" by any means - you can still do "mad castling" as much as you want. But it would make other strategies a chance to really compete with "mad castling" strategy, increasing the diversity of the game.

I see it as clear win-win situation. And it should be very simple to implement, since exactly the same mechanism is already in place for labs.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:15: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So you are saying you can't beat anyone who castles then? Hrm. You are less competent than I gave you credit for. There are about a hundred different strategies that can. But go ahead and set the parameters of a game and I will detail it as much as I can how you can beat it, you could even, if you so desired, make it so late in the game that you ignore almost any other aspect except for the point you are trying to prove.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't need to ignore it, because unless you can show that mad castling there is no need to change it. If you want to say that Raiding is the problem and not Castling, and that is the answer to it. Then prove that point (that Temples should not be burned when taken over by enemies) or any point really would be nice.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Explain why and how. What other 'strategies' are you saying. The ... build alot of temples without losing them when an enemy takes over ... strategy? Which one is that?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't see it as win-win. I see it as changing Temples because you want to, not for any valid reasoning EVEN if was only: it would make the game more fun and why (you choose not to explain why) if that is your only reason.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: Zen ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not so. I am only arguing against the particular *simple method* that you propose, since I don't think it is possible to do it , that's all. (and I explained in detailes why I think so)


If you think you can do it and if it is as simple as you said it is - go ahead, I would be very interested to see how you will try to do it. Remember, *you* are the one who claim that he knows the strategy that is superior to "mad caslting" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You can't really expect me to calculate the strategy that I am not aware about, using the "blueprint" that I think is impossible to follow, do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


As for my suggestions - I've said it several times, but you seem to ignore it. It is making temples "burnable" in the same line with labs - meaning to burn it your commander need to issue an order. You can read my previous Posts for more details fo you like.


The best thing is it is not a "nerf" by any means - you can still do "mad castling" as much as you want. But it would make other strategies a chance to really compete with "mad castling" strategy, increasing the diversity of the game.

I see it as clear win-win situation. And it should be very simple to implement, since exactly the same mechanism is already in place for labs.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:29: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

Also for reference as of Right now this is the "Poll" of Castling. You don't quite have the support of 'everyone'. But if you want to argue the validity of the poll or the timing you can. It is after all just a point in favor of Popular Opinion, which is not a reason to Balance anything.

Cut and Paste

Is there anything wrong with castling?
Choose 1
No, castles are fine the way they are. 83% (38)

Yes, the 'mad castling' strategy is a problem that needs to be dealt with. 17% (8)

What should our next step, as a community, be?
Choose 1
Insist that the developers change the game to address the problem. 11% (5)

Use house rules that limit the strategy. 17% (8)

Learn to deal with the strategy in game. 41% (19)

Enjoy a perfectly appropriate part of the game. 30% (14)

Select all statements that you agree with.
Choose 10
Mad castling is an abusive strategy that cannot be deal with. 2% (1)

Mad castling is not impossible to deal with, but it certainly reduces my enjoyment of the game. 35% (16)

Mad castling is a strategy like any other, and one needs to learn to defeat it. 61% (28)

Mad castling is a strategy I cannot implement well myself, so I want to prevent other people from using it. 0% (0)

Mad castling is the only strategy that stops me from raiding to my heart content, and I want it gone. 0% (0)

Mad castling is the only strategy that stops raids effectively, and should remain until raiding is balanced. 28% (13)

Mad castling is a strategy that works to my advantage when an oponent is using it poorly. 28% (13)

Mad castling has advantages and disadvantages, but the balance between them needs work. 17% (8)

Mad castling is a strategy that is only abusive when combined with some other unbalanced features, like Ermor, uber-VQ, etc... 24% (11)

Mad castling is a combination of words that I do not want to hear ever again.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure, but I've never claimed that that I have support of "everyone". Otherwise what would be the point of this discussion?

And yes, I could certanly question the timing or the validity of this poll if I wanted to, but I don't. Perhaps I will just do another poll with few simple not-biased questions later on, when the "soap opera" feeling will subdue furthur. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.


And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw, but I think it's simple and elegant solution) regarding burnable temples?

[ May 29, 2004, 01:52: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you won't put the effort into answering my questions there is no reason for me to answer yours. It's common courtesy and the burden of proof is yours. If you want to admit that you in no way can prove that Castling is more economical/strategically feasible than a # of other strategies using the same resources and that Castling is not overpowered you just want to change it because it's no fun to have to storm 800 castles in order to beat certain unnamed people. I will answer your question.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a bad change in my mind. Thematically it doesn't fit in my mind. If you find a temple of the heathen god who claims to be the one True God and I was vying for his place, I would burn anything created for him to the ground, then dance around on the ashes then feed the ashes to a blood slave and sacrifice her for no reason other than to kill it again.

Balance wise, it will too suddenly switch the effect of Dominion and Dominion would be more mutable than I feel should. Dominion is represented in my mind by devotion to a god, this takes time and effort. Even though a good % of the popluation is very fickle in their beliefs, healthy % is not so fickle. Also I don't particularly want to devalue Temples importance.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you won't put the effort into answering my questions there is no reason for me to answer yours.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I did.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not what I've said. As for the burden of proof - I've explained below that you can not PROVE any theory such as this one by *examples* in the way you suggested. It is just logically impossible, as I hope you can see yourself. You can only PROVE that the theory is WRONG by showing the example where it is untrue. And since you are the one who offered this "simple method" and said that it MUST be applied, AND you are the one who claim that his strategy is better than Norfleet's "madcastling" strategy, the burden of proof here is clearly on *you*, if you are willing to do it. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't ask other people to do it, since it just wouldn't make sense.





<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I freely and readly admit that it is certanly not fun to have to storm 800 castles. However it is not the main or the only reason for my position.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a bad change in my mind. Thematically it doesn't fit in my mind. If you find a temple of the heathen god who claims to be the one True God and I was vying for his place, I would burn anything created for him to the ground, then dance around on the ashes then feed the ashes to a blood slave and sacrifice her for no reason other than to kill it again.

Balance wise, it will too suddenly switch the effect of Dominion and Dominion would be more mutable than I feel should. Dominion is represented in my mind by devotion to a god, this takes time and effort. Even though a good % of the popluation is very fickle in their beliefs, healthy % is not so fickle. Also I don't particularly want to devalue Temples importance. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.

[ May 29, 2004, 02:42: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No you said it couldn't be done, so you didn't answer it. You dodged it, which is a frequent habit of yours.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So you are saying you can't accrue the costs and apply it to the same cost to an Army and have the Castle's clearly be a more valuable choice? That is impossible then? I'm saying you can. You didn't even really understand any of the points that I tried to use to gauge Castle's strategic and economic usefulness so it is no surprise you wouldn't understand something as basic as "Castles cost X, you can make X Army with the X amount of Cost and X Army Advantage will reliably conquor X amount of castles"
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yet that is the only reason you can prove.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It devalues them because noone would burn down a temple they would have a reasonable chance to reaqquire. Thus any temple built would stay built baring extraneous circumstances (akin to how Labs are only built down if you plan on losing a province and want to limit the use of an opponent resupplying gems/summons etc). So Temples would mean less because instead of requiring you to defend them, you could just go back and retake it when you felt the need/inclination to.

If you understand how Dominion works you might want to look at that. Temples provide instant Dominion pushing force. So when taking a province that has a temple in it, suddenly you are doing a dramatic shift in the Dominion struggle in that province, and you are allowing instant use of Blood Sacrifice.

No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.

Not to mention the thematic reasons.

[ May 29, 2004, 03:01: Message edited by: Zen ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think that's quite what he meant: One of the proposed suggestions is simply that the temple remains an enemy temple, and either is nonfunctional and does nothing, or continues to spread enemy dominion, until you specifically delegate a scout or something to specifically burn it down.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">>sigh< I don't think it would make sense to continue this line of discussion further - we are clearly arguing in circles here.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is bad logic. Unlike with labs, which indeed stay in place forever unless you are planing to lose province for good and decide burn it, you can bet your *** that the enemy will try to burn your temple down if he can, with scouts/raiders/whatever, as soon as it captures your province. Therefore you have to recapture it immideatly, not "sit back and recapture when you have need/inclination". And doing this may not be as simple as before, since now the enemy have strong motive to hold for your province for at least one more turn, to finish his "scorthed earth" tactic. And since unlike yourlelf he can bring the reinforcements from all neighborhood provinces by using "friendly province movement", and he can do it first (unless you try to counter it with remote summons/teleports), he may very well pull any number of nasty surprises on you - since now he have a motive to do it.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wrong. You are still not getting it - NOTHING changes dominion-wise, until the *next* turn, when you have opportunity to burn the enemy temple to the ground. So there is no "dramatic shift" or *any* shift in dominion when you take enemy province with the temple, it can only happen in a turn after that, when/if you'll succeed of burning it to the ground.

Thematically speaking, think of medieval priests and monks hiding behind strong walls of their monasteries while war would be raging all around them. Happened all the time historicaly during dark ages, that's why so many medieval monasteries and temples looks like fortresses. These were a brutal times of constant warfare, similar to the Ascension wars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are asuming here that you are allowed to perform blood sucriface in enemy temples. But who said you should be allowed to do it? Thematically speaking , you should first convert the temple to your god (or burn it down and build new one) before you are allowed to have any benefits from it, be it "dominion push" or "blood sacriface".

If it is implemented this way that this argument of yours is also not valid.

[ May 29, 2004, 03:54: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

I misunderstood what the suggestion was. You'll need to be more clear with the "suggestion". If it is as Norfleet says, then I have no real thought about it. I'd have to test it to see if it was enough of a stalling force. Not that I feel it would be, since Burning Things down happens before movement phase of the next turn (I believe) so they would still burn it, just with a scout every time they did it effectively increasing the Miromanagement.

Unless the turn sequence was changed to have things that are "Burned Down" affect after movement, then I could see a potential use.

Also there would be the element of having it retain ownership (if you want to have it pumping the owners dominion) and if that even happens. If they simply do not produce anything then it would turn into a factor of raid it, make it produce nothing then don't worry about it, since in order to reactivate it they would have to burn it down and rebuild it. Unless you also wanted to code in a 'reactivate Temple' command.

All in all, I still go back to the original, even if it was a good idea (undecided). Why do you need to change it to this? Is it Castling and it's unproven 'abuse' that causes this to change? Or is it 'lessen the effect of raiding'?

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think that's quite what he meant: One of the proposed suggestions is simply that the temple remains an enemy temple, and either is nonfunctional and does nothing, or continues to spread enemy dominion, until you specifically delegate a scout or something to specifically burn it down. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For once, Norfleet is right here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif That's what I've been telling all along, as I've benn trying to explain in my each of my previous Posts. Someone really have to read more carefuly before replying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You failed to mention that the Temple would keep producing Dominion or would stop Producing Dominion and whose Dominion it would produce. A Lab becomes yours when you take it over. If you just leave it as a Temple when you take it over and suddenly it becomes yours, it is a much different arguement than if it is still considered an Enemies (Which I don't think this is how the game works. It labels a Province as yours and everything in it, with the exception of an Enemy Army and Tax Rate in the instance of a Siege)

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You did indeed.


Anyway I am glad that you have finally seem to see some merits in this suggestion. I agree with you, obviously the "burn temple" command should be executed around the "building" stage, after the "movement" stage. (I also don't remeber for sure when exactly it is executed right now.)

As for your question "why it is such a interesting idea in my opinion" - the answer is simple. All "mad castlers", starting with Norfleet, say that they have no choice but to "mad castle" every province, in order to protect their temples. (they argue that PD is expensive and unadequite, keeping regular troops to defend uncastled temples is unrealistic, 2 burned temples cost more than the whole castle, etc.)

With this simple change it will give everybody , "mad castlers" and not "mad castlers", another valid option to defend your temples. Now you don't nessesrly *have to* madcaslte if you, like norfleet and comp, want to build temples everywhere (although you still can if you want). On the other hand, it doesn't force everybody to adobt the same tactic in order to compete (although I understand that you personally do not agree with this Last argument.


But in any case, it doesn't "nerf" anybody, and it can actually make game more interesting and diverce. Think about new choices for both attackers and defenders:

For defenders: "Should I counter attack with small force and try to save my temple, or should I expect enemy ambush there and counter attack in mass? Or should I just let it burn and wait until I get more forces, siting tight and holding to what I still own?"

For raiders: "Should I kill and plunder and ravage and move on to the next enemy province, and leting these cowardeous priest locked in their temple live? Should I stay here for one more turn, plundering for one more moneth while rasing these blashemious temple into the ground? Or should I set up an ambush for the attackers, while they will be hurring to save this ugly temple? Or perhaps I should move one, while living single commander with the order to infiltrate and burn down the temple, and hope that the intimidated enemy will not risk to attack the next turn? "


Simple change, no nerfs, almost no coding required, and so much additional excitement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Solution to "mad castling" and increasing diversity of the game at the same time. And less of "storming of 800 castles" syndrom, as you put it, which I think most people would agree is not fun. That's why I called it win-win situation.

[ May 29, 2004, 04:53: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You failed to mention that the Temple would keep producing Dominion or would stop Producing Dominion and whose Dominion it would produce. A Lab becomes yours when you take it over. If you just leave it as a Temple when you take it over and suddenly it becomes yours, it is a much different arguement than if it is still considered an Enemies </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">True, I didn't specifically mention this, but I asumened it should be pretty obvious. Otherwise, the suggestion would have nothing to do with changes to commanders and orders but would be just "Do not make temples burn automatically". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


And of course it would be much worse suggestion than what was proposed, I certanly agree with Zen on that one - making temples less valuble, sudden dominion-shifts, would not make much sense thematic-wise , et cetera.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nothing in that explaination says anything about whose Dominion is produced. If the Temple works exactly like a Lab then it comes under your control, pumping out your Dominion. But if it is effectively Nulled or still Produces Enemy Domininon (forcing you to deal with it) it changes the entire suggestion.

Like I said, you seem to think it's win-win. And aside from the point that if Dominion is produced or not and whose, would be a sticking point. Because if it doesn't produce any Dominion, then it does basically the same thing as just taking it, if you have to "Purify Temple" instead of rebuilding one, you would still run into the problem of having Temples everywhere. If you have to kill it or it produces Enemy Dominion, that becomes a much stickier problem and needs to be dealt with and could present the issues that you were saying (having Raiders stay behind or feel the need to destroy the Temple).

[ May 29, 2004, 04:54: Message edited by: Zen ]

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not really. And I think it would be more of a coding issue than you seem to think. I don't know how Capital only Magic Sites are coded (that might be a place to start to see how in depth and what kind of assigned values have to be attributed) and the factors of nulling them once taken by a non-nation player.

Either way. I don't think honestly a Castler is castling because of protecting his temples. That is just a side excuse as Dominion is important. A castler is castling to provide a speed bump to encroaching forces in order to manuver a hammer in place to take out the encroacers. So this change would not change the willingness to Castle or not one bit, but would make taking and Holding even easier.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nothing in that explaination says anything about whose Dominion is produced. If the Temple works exactly like a Lab then it comes under your control, pumping out your Dominion. But if it is effectively Nulled or still Produces Enemy Domininon (forcing you to deal with it) it changes the entire suggestion.

Like I said, you seem to think it's win-win. And aside from the point that if Dominion is produced or not and whose, would be a sticking point. Because if it doesn't produce any Dominion, then it does basically the same thing as just taking it, if you have to "Purify Temple" instead of rebuilding one, you would still run into the problem of having Temples everywhere. If you have to kill it or it produces Enemy Dominion, that becomes a much stickier problem and needs to be dealt with and could present the issues that you were saying (having Raiders stay behind or feel the need to destroy the Temple). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok, I've removed "shifting blame" paragraph, since you do have some point here.


Anyway, as I said I certanly agree that these solutions are very different and one is signnificantly better than another, and I think now it is clear to you which one I am advocating. So in light of all that was said below, do you like this suggestion?

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In light of that, I can't say. If you want a gut reaction, here it is. IF the Temple still produces the Owner's Dominion it would curb the rampant destrution of Temples by Raiders, thus nulling, in part some of the negative aspects of raiding (negative meaning, things that make you hurt). I don't know whether or not Raiding needs to be addressed in such a way as it is a natural and viable part of weakening an opponent in order to bring a force to bear. You also have to think of the implications that it would have on the nations that use Raiding most successfully (Stealth Nations, Caelum) and how much would it impact them.

IF it doesn't produce any Dominion, it doesn't do anything but add in the micromanagement of dragging a Scout everywhere you take enemy provinces on Retreat and if that provice is not attacked you raise it. If it is retaken, then is the game supposed to reactivate the temple or does it require more action?

That didn't really say much, it would be different, I don't know whether or not it would be good or bad or increase/decrease Micromanagement (something I do not like and would not advocate change for).

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not really. And I think it would be more of a coding issue than you seem to think. I don't know how Capital only Magic Sites are coded (that might be a place to start to see how in depth and what kind of assigned values have to be attributed) and the factors of nulling them once taken by a non-nation player.

Either way. I don't think honestly a Castler is castling because of protecting his temples. That is just a side excuse as Dominion is important. A castler is castling to provide a speed bump to encroaching forces in order to manuver a hammer in place to take out the encroacers. So this change would not change the willingness to Castle or not one bit, but would make taking and Holding even easier. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've said that it'll not eliminate madcastling completely, but the desire to protect temples is an important one, although not the only one.

With no exceptions all people who were advocating the "mad castling" strategy so far in each and every thread on this board have said that the number one reason they do it is to protect the temples. I have no reason to believe that they are all lying. I think it is an important reason, although I agree that it is not the only one.


But the most importent point why to have this rule is that it would give people alternative ways to protect their temples, without restoring to "mad castling" strategy if they choose not to.


And it would bring all these interesting additional choices/questions for raiders/defenders that I've mentioned in my previous post, increasing diversity even more. This chancge could bring something interesting into the game, without taking anything in return(except maybe making raiding a little bit less profitable, but in the same time more interesting, since now you are facing more choices than just "burn everything and move on"), and it may very well improve both fun and balance, while reducing prominence and frequency of mad castling strategy and giving other strategies better fighting chance.


Besides you can't really argue about whom it will benefit more Zen, think about it this way - one player's (yours for example http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) strategy calls for building casltes in 33% (or 50%, or 25%, whatever) provinces in your dominion. And other player is a "madcastler", who builds cheap castles and temples in every province.

Now you are in the full scale war. Then suddenly with this new "temples change" your attacks on mad castler do not change at all, since all his temples are protected anyway, while you have much better chance to protect your territory with the temples against his raiders, since it is harder now for him to burn your temples.


So who do you think will benefit from this suggested new rule more? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


And even mad castler (unless he is really die-hard one, such as certain person) may be quite temped to invest a little more into troop/mages production, instead of burning tons of money on building castles everywhere.

[ May 29, 2004, 06:04: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]