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!