[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by PvK:
Is it a problem without a SC VQ involved? Seems to me adding cheap-o castles everywhere costs about as much gold as it's worth for a one-turn delay in sacking a temple, and little other benefit. Also, by taking a wimpy castle type, your home province isn't particularly well protected, either.

If it's only a real problem with a SC VQ, then I'd say the solution involves doing something about the SC VQ, rather than the castles. Either in-game (go nail their home province, with its wimpy castle, and bring some folks who can kill the VQ, like a few Bane Lords with Flambeaux), or some mild nerfing of the VQ, if necessary (as discussed in other threads).

I can't really comment about how efficient the same "mad castling" strategy would be without VQ. Obviously I never done it myself, since I consider it to be cheap and abusive. The notorious mad castler Norfleet on the other hand, with whom I played multiply times, is always using uber VQ and massive clam hoarding, since it is obviously multiply the effects of his "mad castling" strategy.


I suspect however that while having immortal uber-VQ clearly makes this strategy much more efficient, it could be done without it as well, although less efficiently.

As for the line of thought "temples get destroyed way too easily by attack spells without castles, so I must build castles everywhere, or else I won't be able to have temples everywhere", I think that argument has a flawed premise, specifically:

* Players who expect to be able to build temples everywhere, and have them be safe.

Consider that building temples everywhere is a huge and boring project. Why should it be expected that everyone will do it everywhere? The existing counter to that practice, is the ease of knocking them out with raiders and magic spells. Seems like a feature to me. Building unprotected temples is a risk, as it should be. No?

PvK

Very true PvK. I agree with everything you've said here.

[ May 26, 2004, 19:53: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]