May 29th, 2004, 04:00 AM
|
|
|
Re: Can I get some cheese with that...
Quote:
Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I did.
|
No you said it couldn't be done, so you didn't answer it. You dodged it, which is a frequent habit of yours.
Quote:
|
That's not what I've said. As for the burden of proof - I've explained below that you can not PROVE any theory such as this one by *examples* in the way you suggested. It is just logically impossible, as I hope you can see yourself. You can only PROVE that the theory is WRONG by showing the example where it is untrue. And since you are the one who offered this "simple method" and said that it MUST be applied, AND you are the one who claim that his strategy is better than Norfleet's "madcastling" strategy, the burden of proof here is clearly on *you*, if you are willing to do it. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't ask other people to do it, since it just wouldn't make sense.
|
So you are saying you can't accrue the costs and apply it to the same cost to an Army and have the Castle's clearly be a more valuable choice? That is impossible then? I'm saying you can. You didn't even really understand any of the points that I tried to use to gauge Castle's strategic and economic usefulness so it is no surprise you wouldn't understand something as basic as "Castles cost X, you can make X Army with the X amount of Cost and X Army Advantage will reliably conquor X amount of castles"
Quote:
|
I freely and readly admit that it is certanly not fun to have to storm 800 castles. However it is not the main or the only reason for my position.
|
Yet that is the only reason you can prove.
Quote:
I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more.  Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.
|
It devalues them because noone would burn down a temple they would have a reasonable chance to reaqquire. Thus any temple built would stay built baring extraneous circumstances (akin to how Labs are only built down if you plan on losing a province and want to limit the use of an opponent resupplying gems/summons etc). So Temples would mean less because instead of requiring you to defend them, you could just go back and retake it when you felt the need/inclination to.
If you understand how Dominion works you might want to look at that. Temples provide instant Dominion pushing force. So when taking a province that has a temple in it, suddenly you are doing a dramatic shift in the Dominion struggle in that province, and you are allowing instant use of Blood Sacrifice.
No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.
Not to mention the thematic reasons.
[ May 29, 2004, 03:01: Message edited by: Zen ]
|