Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

Sorry guys, but I'm pretty new to the Boards and have to ask about this...

What exactly is Norfleeting?

From what I have read you create a tower and a lab in every province? This keeps you from being raided and gives you a bit of protection.

And makes sense if you taking only a small percentage to have a tower on each province.

It appears on the Boards that this is a questinoable play style?

Basically what are the benefits, weaknesses and why is it thought to be a dishonest style or is it only because Norfleet uses it a lot and there is a grudge or something?

Christopher

[ July 02, 2004, 15:34: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

I thought it was called Mad Castling

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

I think it is something like building temple, fort and a lab to every province, and when enemy comes to siege it, you harass him with spells that send one-use armies and maybe supercombatants. Vampire Queen, before she was made more expensive, was very useful on this as she was flying, ethereal and had life drain as ana innate ability, as well as being able to have enough magics to cover most buffs and Cloud Trapeze. Norfleet didn't use her immortality as she was died almost never when properly decked with items, but it still healed her afflictions and I think helped in early province grabbing.

I have never played with or versus this strategy, so I might have understood some facts wrong. I only read about it in this forum. Do a search for 'castling'.

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

It's a not-really-that-new strategy that apparently existed also in Dominions I, that I seem to be the flagship bearer of in Dominions II.

Basically, it involves building a castle in every province, then clubbing people over the head with some sort of fast-moving response force, generally SCs, as they try to siege your castles.

Certain individuals complain about it very vocally because they find it to be "boring", as if I was somehow obligated to make attacking me an enjoyable and pleasurable experience in blatant disregard of basic psychology, which states that this would simply reinforce this sort of (undesirable) behavior.

The Good:
Your magic site income, and the temples you build in the provinces to maintain your dominion, are protected from sudden burnination: Since anyone attacking the province must storm the castle before he can burn down the temple, you will never suddenly lose temples without warning. As nearly everything is castled, no obvious point of vulnerability presents itself. Your researchers and other squishes are protected from being suddenly annihilated by a surprise attack from teleporters, fliers, or Ghost Riders.

In addition, the damage caused by any invading army is thus contained for the low cost of only $300. No matter how large the opposing force, he will be stalled for at least one turn unless he choses to bypass the castle entirely and march onwards, which will leave the castle unstormed and the province will revert back to your rule upon the departure of the invading force, unless he cares to leave behind crap as he moves. Either way, the damage is no worse than if you had no castle. No amount of PD can provide this for you.

The Bad:
It's expensive: This tends to necessitate the use of a cheap, and therefore, crappy, castle to cut costs. It also makes it difficult to collect resources by means of the castle's admin rating....not that the crappy watchtower you'd take to facilitate this really HAS an admin rating.

The Ugly:
Certain individuals will whine loudly and complain about how boring this is. These are, incidentally, the same people likely to complain that the game is taking too long, or complain that their turns in a large-map game are now too much work because it takes them 2 hours to complete. This is because they have the attention spans of 6-year old hyperactive children and can't be bothered to concentrate on any task that takes longer than 30 seconds to complete. I place the blame firmly on the fact that they were not beaten frequently enough as small children and did not suffer sufficient hardship and deprivation while growing up. They are thus spoiled and weak, and complain that it is boring if an opponent does not simply roll over and die without resistance.

It should also be noted that the complainers tend to also be the same handful of people. I chalk this up to sour grapes because I always squash them in my preferred slow, deliberate, ponderous, and inexhorable style, which tends to be devoid of any dramatic attacks that tend to rampage unchecked for a bit, then finally fail as the entire mass is caught and annihilated by the defending force, preferring instead to advance gradually, consolidate holdings, and attack only with overwhelming force, or expendable probing attacks.

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Too long, didn't read http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's nice to know that you approve of child abuse along with all your other psychological problems.

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

but i think norfleet is correct .
i can't see any point why castling should be forbidden .
it gives you 1 turn time to react normally . a watchtower has no other advantages than this .
as norfleet said it gives you instead an early disadvantage . unless playing ermor ( there you have other castles which are worse ) you have
-reduced income in your capitol compared to the 40 admin castle
-much worse troop production capacity
if you have good capitol only troops you have a serious disadvantage in building them with a watchtower .

since a watchtower has no walls storming it is easy . it has very little defense so normally after 1 ! turn it can be stormed .

so in general the only thing a watchtower gives you is delaying the enemy attack 1!! turn and choosing if you want to react .
compared to the disadvantages i really don't see why most people here on the forums are whining about mad castling .

ihmo you have only 2 choices :
- cheap watchtower for castling every province .
- the 80 point 40 admin castle .
all other castles are suboptimal choices ihmo .

and another small argument for the watchtower :
some races like mictlan , machaka ... have quite resourcecheap national troops but crappy militia .
you need normally a 2-3 times bigger force to defeat an ulmish pd than to defeat an mackaka pd of equal size .

so any rules limiting use of castles are in favour of e.g. ulm which normally is better building only a few castles for troop production than castling everything . but they have better pd to compensate .

so forbidding mad castling as a mpgamerule is unfair and not the other way round .
norfleet is totally right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

Originally posted by Boron:

"so forbidding mad castling as a mpgamerule is unfair and not the other way round .
norfleet is totally right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif "

It is only unfair if you are FORCED to play one of the penalised races.

OTOH I agree with your analysis but then I am totally nooblacious.


Pickles

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I do not call being smacked with a ruler for failure to pay attention in class child abuse. I do not call being spanked for failure to follow the rules child abuse. But I doubt you're old enough to understand. You weren't around then. You don't remember what it was like.

Re: Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">thnx for agreeing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

just in a hopefully more understandable way some more explanation of my point of view :

if you take watchtowers with this nations they aren't penalised that much because this is their way to cope for their weak defense http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
if you play mictlan and protect your provinces with watchtowers ( the ones with your bloodhunters first ) it is okay .
but if you are forced by the rule to build only 1 castle per e.g. 3 provinces it is a big disadvantage for e.g. mictlan while it is a big advantage for e.g. ulm .

so a no castling rule forces you to not take some nations because it is unwise .
while with castling these races are much more competetive .
mictlans blood hunters e.g. are protected for 1 turn this way and you can send in a rescue force of demons e.g.
as norfleet said otherwise e.g. a ulmish pd will much easier defeat a ghost riders force than a machaka/mictlan one .
if you didn't have a castle you couldn't afford to protect the province without a standing army which is too expensive mostly . while with the castle you don't loose your temple / lab immediately and the ghost riders spell in particular is totally useless against you while it would be almost "unbalanced" if you may only recruit pd .

[ June 30, 2004, 17:10: Message edited by: Boron ]