There is a simple way to mathmatically define Castling if you so desire.

Take the Total cost of X amount of castles of whatever type.

Take the total time to create X amount of castles.

Take the total time saved by creating a castle.

Take the total gold protected by creating a castle.

Take the total gold gained by creating a castle.

Take those #'s and plug them into an offensive force (alternate ones) and take into account that any castle defeated adds the variables you have just defined to your side.

Now show a clear imbalance between the cost and effect of such. Taking into consideration you can't move a Castle and Castles cannot take provinces.

All your arguments are based on only 1 person playing them. So test them not only against each other but opponents of equal skill and even gem income, capabilities. Also take into consideration the time frame involved.

I personally think 'mad castling' is a load of steaming bull. The effectiveness of a castle is only if you allow it to remain and if the castle can be defended. Unfortunately for the castler, even the cheapest castle with the shortest survival time costs 300 gold. And 300 gold for each castle defensively gives 300 gold to offensive forces.

300 gold goes a long way if you know how to protect the troops made with it and you are on the offensive instead of remaining on the defensive and playing into a take and hold strategy.

Stormbinder, unfortunately none of your arguements are really very applicable. And as I've said, Clams are the same way. If you let them be a problem they can be, but that can be said for any aspect of this game.

The reason I know personally that one, two, or even all three of your favorite topics for discussion are not overpowered is that I used to do them at one stage of my playtime. I even wrote a guide on how to abuse 2 of the 3 (castles and clams). While it was very effective for a while; and has many virtues. It is far from overpowered. If you were to try to use such tactics against a competent player who knows they are coming, understands the weakenesses for the entire game, and can act against that strategy (which can be a problem in large games, which is likely why it is so effective as your "New Player" to "Veteran Player" ratio is obviously high). It is no more viable than the "ID's on turn 14" strategy or any other number of seemingly overpowered playstyles.

Edit: Just because I personally think it's this way does not mean anyone else does (though I know a few that do, and that have tried and failed with it). And you can express your point if you'd like, but I have just rebutted it and an entire portion of those that play this game are represented by that statement. So in order for you to present a fully rational and conclusive illustration of your point you will have to revert to specifics which means mathmatical analysis or even saved games if you prefer.

[ May 28, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Zen ]