Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Here's a different angle on the Watchtower issue.

It seems that the devs thought about the costs and benefits of different castle types only (or at least largely) in terms of resource gathering + defense vs. gold cost + build time. But the MP community generally ignores those issues. The Watchtower is the favorite because it is the cheapest lategame defense against ghostriders.

How about re-balancing the design point costs? Make a "middle" castle the 0-point default, and charge design points for deviations either way.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

You just blew my mind.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

...then everyone would still pick the Watchtower, but simply have 80 more points to spend on magic or scales.

The problem with the Watchtower issue is that armies just aren't valuable enough for long enough, and temples are too vulnerable because PD is too weak. So doing this without any other changes would just tilt the game further toward those with strong early expanding SCs.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

No - they would have 80 fewer points to spend on magic or scales.

The idea isn't to fix everything, for goodness sakes. Just correct a glaring imbalance in the basic structure. When you choose a 0-point default it should be worse than the alternatives that cost points. A watchtower might still be the best choice for MP, but at least you'd have to pay for that choice by having less of something else. Currently you are rewarded for making the best choice by also getting more of everything else.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

This is a very interesting idea. It would change MP and maybe breathe some new life into it.

Leadman

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Ah, if only we could mod castles http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Oh my apologies, i understand what you were saying now. I thought you meant to keep the baseline ratios between castles the same but simply make *all* of them cheaper; so the Castle might cost only 40, but the Watchtower would be -40. Your saying to just make the Watchtower more expensive and some of the others less.

Well then i agree with you! Not a bad idea.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Actually the best choice ( if you do not count cost ) is mage tower. But it's hideously expensive.

Don't I wish that one could mod towers.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Mind you, this still makes no thematic sense. Then again, a tiny watchtower's garrison reclaiming an entire province less than a month after a raid by Ghost Riders doesn't make much sense either, so I suppose we're to conclude the basic watchtower was ma-a-agic in the first place.

Color me impressed.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

maybe just reprioritize the pricing

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Castle Type Points Admin Def. Supply Time Cost
Mausoleum 150 20 25 25 2 300
Watch Tower 130 10 50 25 2 300
Wizard's Tower 210 30 75 200 2 300
Fortress 110 30 150 100 3 450
Hill Fortress 100 20 250 100 3 450
Castle 140 40 100 150 3 450
Fortified City 0 50 100 500 5 750
Citadel 50 40 200 100 4 600
Mountain Citadel -100 10 350 150 5 750
</pre><hr />

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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

Maybe

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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

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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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

BUT

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

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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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


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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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


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

I beg to differ.

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

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

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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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

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

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


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


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


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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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

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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

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

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

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Answering the last two posts here...
Saber: you mean the "have an ally splash a GR onto your Charm Offensive province where your Nature mages mind-control the attackers" stunt? ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif ooo how nasty my mind gets these days!)
Huzur: Very good point on the requirement to cast. Any Lamia Queen can forge items to boost herself to D4 (and if that's as far as she can go, she can instead either get to N5 or is eligible for a Ring of Sorcery.. and can now forge her way to D5). Only one in 16 can quickly get to D6 (but with the right timing, she could ring up the Scepter of Dark Regency and hel-llloooo D8!)
And hasn't this discussion gotten off the original point? Although if the reason no-one takes the other castle types is because of GR and nothing else, then maybe it hasn't....
Hoping the Watch Tower isn't the supply crawler of the Alpha Centauri series-- the "use it or you lose" item-- because an otherwise so balanced game shouldn't have a thing that, if the other guy's using it and you're not, you've already lost. (Unless you destroy him before he gets to the easy killer sequence...)

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Shhh!

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Except that it does not work. You cannot capture (Enslave, Charm, Hellbind)
special monsters and province defense. Standard indies and player troops are
fair game. It can be done with other summons (Angelic host, Call of the W-)
but it takes quite the ally to go for something like this.

This is where you guys (do I get points for using 'guys' instead of an insult?)
go wrong. Ghost riders is only one of the many, many ways of laying waste to
an undefended province. Speaking for myself, it is my least favorite one,
together with the other 'annonymous' raiders. Yes, I do use it, but only when
I cannot send a squad that will actually TAKE the province, or when I have a
scout nearby AND gems to invest in an instant castle. As for anyone even
suggesting that Ghost Riders have an use against anything but undefended
provinces, I have one word: 'Play people with a clue, you may learn something'.
The last time Ghost riders have damaged any squad of mine was in the first game
I saw them. I was playing Ulm in that game, so you should be able to figure
out how long ago that was :-)

And yes, I am aware of the trick of making the opponent waste gems by casting
ghost riders. There are three ways of countering that (that I know of) and
one of them is pretty much part of my SOP.

In my opinion, not even close. The crawler had no disadvantages and one had to
be mad not to use it (especially since you are able to produce it at a minor
base and then reassign it to a major one, airshipped/maglifted both ways)

The watchtower has a few major disadvantages, but the people who whine about them
have never tried to play with one. Low income, extremely hard to produce a
conquering army, let alone a second, no supplies to speak of and low defense
that does matter in the early game. The reason I take a watchtower as
opposed to a castle is not the construction cost or build time. It is the
eighty design points. But the time I start fortifying non-essensial provinces,
money is meaningless.

Of course, a well-balanced game does not have ONE thing like that. A well
balanced game has a dozen things like that. I have posted this challenge
before, I it is still standing. I am ready to play 1x1 with any whinner, and
he gets to forbid me from using one additional 'exploit' every game. The
idea is to see how many games it would take him to win.

My point is that if you fail to expand early, search for sites, research quickly,
develop highly mobile defenses, hoard at least one ressource, fortify every
important province, build a strong domain, avoid an early all-against-you
alliance, secure a few good globals, or at least prevent the enemy from doing
so... you are unlikely to win. In a smaller game, you can get away with only
a few of these, but if you plan to win a 150+ province game, you have to do
most of the above.

And what may that be? How comes I have never encountered anything that comes
close to being an 'easy killer'? Hell, I learned my latest new trick from
a game I was not even in. I fully intend to smurf a game and tailor my
development towards chain casting Armaggeddon after making sure that my
important units can take it. But even that is far from being an 'easy killer'.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

I'm really fond of the Wizard Tower. At 120 pts., it's nothing like cheap, but an admin of 30 on a castle that springs up in 2 turns is no joke.

Also, the Mausoleum is really good. Only 40 design pts. and you get an Admin of 20. That's not bad.

In general, I think the Watchtower is one of the weaker options. Both of the other 300 gold/2t castles are better. You pay for that, and you don't always have the points to spend. But if you do, those castles are rather obviously worth it.

-Frank

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

the wizard tower is too expensive. For 120 points you can pick order 3 which nets you +21% taxes. The 20 more admin, which you get from the wizard tower is only 10%.
Sure there is the resource bonus and higher def, but those two aren´t that important.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

Right. But you can't have 3 more Order, can you? You could have Production 3, but that's only 9% taxes. Once you've already made the choice as to whether you are an order/misfortune nation or a turmoil/luck nation, the Wizard's Tower is the biggest chunk of economy you can buy.

Of course, the Mausoleum is even better in that regard - it only costs 40, so it stacks up quite well to picking a point of Productivity o Growth.

-Frank

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

I prefer castles, with 450g / 3 turn build and 40 admin @ 80 points to Wizard Towers. IIRC, as normal races, I've never taken anything other than Castle, Fortified City (on very small maps when I don't expect to build a second castle), or guard tower. Though if you need to fortify all provinces or lose them, nothing above 300g will be a very good idea.

Pumping points into your pretender's fire magic (to enable fire-site searching) can boost your economy nicely, though... I'd rather give a pretender 80 or 120 points of fire / earth searching ability (for non fire / earth nations) than spend the points on Wizard Towers. Alchemizing the gems should make up the difference, and Ironskin / Fire Shield are great on combat pretenders.

Re: Cost/Benefit for Castle types
 

I´d still pick growth 3 over a wizardtower. That´s 4% less taxes at the beginning, but you soon gain more because of the increased growth, especially in conjunction with order 3. Now if you can take order 3 growth3, magic 3, design your pretender and you still have 120 points left, then the wizardtower is a good choice.

I don´t like the mausoleum, because the defense is so low. One single casting of hordes from hell breaches the castle walls immediately.