Re: Gem use question.
 

Those Castles could have not been repaired from their Last siege, had bonuses to siegeing in some way or otherwise been able to batter down whatever fortress you had on their own. This is remarkably true if you've been fighting long drawn out wars on multiple fronts and your castles are in a constant state of disrepair.

Re: Gem use question.
 

Problem :

My mage has Fires from Afar in his ritual spell list, but its shaded grey.

The Mage has Fire 2 lvl and has 13 fire gems available.

From what I understood so far all I would need is 1 Fire gem to give him Fire3 skill for that spell and 10 gems for the Ritual, correct ?
Then why do I get the message "The ritual is too complex for your mage" ?

Re: Gem use question.
 

Because you can't increase your skill with gems for purposes of casting Ritual spells. You can only do that for casting battlefield spells.

You'll need to get him a fire-boosting item, empower him, or use another mage, before he'll be able to cast Fires From Afar.

PvK

P.S. Fires From Afar is worth it when you hit a province full of valuable and vulnerable flammable units (e.g. a convention of mages and high priests). It's probably not the best use of fire gems when most of the targets don't fit that description.

[ July 24, 2004, 00:20: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: Gem use question.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nice try, but no. It was the first castle on my frontier that the raiders got to, a castle that had been built only a few turns before (so it was at 100% strength), and if the raiders had some bonus, it should have shown up when they got to my second castle, which held out with a single Seithkona in residence for the 2 turns it took my reserves to arrive and lift the siege. It was this experience, which defied what I'd been led to believe about castle defense, that encouraged me to always keep defenders in residence at keeps along hostile borders.

Re: Gem use question.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm with Arryn here - I've seen castles taken without a fight when there was no one inside. Frankly, it makes sense - if there aren't any soldiers inside, it doesn't take a month to climb over the walls.

Re: Gem use question.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Except that it doesn't occur that way in my tests, and hasn't ever occurred that way in any game I've played. Build a castle, leave the province when its finished, and have the other nation invade a turn later. You'll be breaking down the walls, but still have to exceed the defense.

What may have happened in the cases where you saw the castle fall immediately is that your opponent brought along scouts or other stealthy unit with a gate cleaver or horn of bLasting. If you were playing against Vanheim or Tuatha, then you wouldn't have seen all of their troops anyways. You don't receive precise intelligence on the forces outside of your castle, so it's fairly easy to have siegers that only come out from hiding till the walls fall, then leave to go somewhere else.

Re: Gem use question.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps your tests weren't exhaustive enough. Stuff manages to slip past IW's own testing. No one's perfect.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As I posted before, if such was the case, the second castle would have fallen quickly too, yet it didn't. The unoccupied castle falling had nothing whatsoever to do with what was in the raiding force. Which was from Pythium IIRC.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All fine and dandy except there was no Vanheim in that game, and Man was the base theme.

Why is it so hard to accept that there may be an intermittent bug? It wouldn't be the only one that this game has had. I could see people dismissing the idea out of hand if I was the only one reporting it, especially since I have no save games to prove it. But I'm not alone (thanks to Cainehill stepping forward).

Re: Gem use question.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's possible, though I'm not sure what would be the best way to run more tests.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, it's still possible, though unlikely, that the breaching commanders went to a different province. What type of fortress were you using?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's good then, since their lack gets rid of a whole bunch of factors.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's not that hard to accept. I'm simply trying to eliminate all other factors that could be causing the problem.

Re: Gem use question.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If I had thoughts on the matter, I'd mention them. This sort of bug is a real pain to try to track down.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Castle.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My gut feeling is that it's something real subtle buried in the code. It's what usually happens when something works right 99% of the time, but not a full 100%.

I do appreciate you and Zen pointing out all the "normal" ways to cause undefended keeps to quickly fall. heh It make me that much more desirous of maintaining some sort of garrison at keeps that might be at risk.

Re: Gem use question.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Eh, I'd still have troops on the outside of the castle one turn, inside it the next. This was - province and castle are owned by one side. Next turn - the province and castle are owned by the enemy.

Obviously, no message about walls being damaged or breached.

I'm not sure, but I think it was situations where there was no troops defending, period. None inside the fortification, none outside, possibly not even any PD. Army moves into the province, snatches the fortification.

I think I've even done it a time or two.