[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cohen:
The fact is that Norfleet is right about castles.
They're the lone way to defend a province.

If there's no castle many spells can burn your temple.
Armies can do that too, since PD isn't worthing it's cost above 10 or 15 ... and 10 or 15 means a very weak army composed of the worst of your troops.

Nobody is talking about prohibiting all castles Cohen. You can (and should) build a strong mutually supporting network of castles, covering up to 1/3 of all your provinces (more in potentially hot spots), together with temples. (and btw who said that you have to build temples in _every_ province?) Than you'll rely on your castles backbone to retaliate against raiders and destroy them. Even loss of single not fully equiped SC is much worse for attacker than loss of 1 turn province income (and possibly temple) for you.

IMHO this would make the gameplay richer and clearly closer to what was intended by devs - instead of covering each and every province by crappy castles, you actually have to choose where to build them , based upon your strategical and tactical situation, your intelligence on the enemy, local resourses and your future plans. With copycated castles in every province all these points are mostly irrelivent.


Last but not least - keep in mind that everybody is in the same boat. So it would be equally easy or hard for everybody to defend/attack their territory.