[PvK]

I'm not clear what the actual problem(s) are.

Yes temples without castles are vulnerable. I think I mostly like the idea to require them to be torn down, requiring an extra turn by some commander. I'm not sure it's a bad thing the way they fall down now, though. Note too that if this change is made, then skillful raiders will want to bring along "silly" leaders like scouts to knock down the temples while the raiding army moves on at full speed. This will also mean defenders will want to "chase" a raiding army, to reduce those temple-toppling leaders. Also, the AI will need to be programmed to either do the same silly micro-management tactic to raid effectively, or it will be made weaker by either slowing its raiding armies to half-speed so they can take out temples (getting them hit by defending armies), or having them raid without hurting players' temples.

Lots of cheap castles have some advantages, but also disadvantages, such as:

* Costs a lot of gold to put castles everywhere, especially if they don't have administration. What else could be done with that gold?

* Cheap castles tend to have low admin. Empires with fewer castles with high admin, will have more gold income and higher resources to build naional troops.

* Cheap castles tend to have low defense, meaning they can be seiged the next turn. Better castles can often hold out for several turns, allowing a relief army to arrive.

* Cheap castles tend to have few missile weapons. So storming them is about as easy as killing the enemies inside on an open field. Better castles are bristling with missile attacks, which can be expensive and dangerous to storm.

PvK