[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:
I misunderstood what the suggestion was.

You did indeed.


Anyway I am glad that you have finally seem to see some merits in this suggestion. I agree with you, obviously the "burn temple" command should be executed around the "building" stage, after the "movement" stage. (I also don't remeber for sure when exactly it is executed right now.)

As for your question "why it is such a interesting idea in my opinion" - the answer is simple. All "mad castlers", starting with Norfleet, say that they have no choice but to "mad castle" every province, in order to protect their temples. (they argue that PD is expensive and unadequite, keeping regular troops to defend uncastled temples is unrealistic, 2 burned temples cost more than the whole castle, etc.)

With this simple change it will give everybody , "mad castlers" and not "mad castlers", another valid option to defend your temples. Now you don't nessesrly *have to* madcaslte if you, like norfleet and comp, want to build temples everywhere (although you still can if you want). On the other hand, it doesn't force everybody to adobt the same tactic in order to compete (although I understand that you personally do not agree with this Last argument.


But in any case, it doesn't "nerf" anybody, and it can actually make game more interesting and diverce. Think about new choices for both attackers and defenders:

For defenders: "Should I counter attack with small force and try to save my temple, or should I expect enemy ambush there and counter attack in mass? Or should I just let it burn and wait until I get more forces, siting tight and holding to what I still own?"

For raiders: "Should I kill and plunder and ravage and move on to the next enemy province, and leting these cowardeous priest locked in their temple live? Should I stay here for one more turn, plundering for one more moneth while rasing these blashemious temple into the ground? Or should I set up an ambush for the attackers, while they will be hurring to save this ugly temple? Or perhaps I should move one, while living single commander with the order to infiltrate and burn down the temple, and hope that the intimidated enemy will not risk to attack the next turn? "


Simple change, no nerfs, almost no coding required, and so much additional excitement.

Solution to "mad castling" and increasing diversity of the game at the same time. And less of "storming of 800 castles" syndrom, as you put it, which I think most people would agree is not fun. That's why I called it win-win situation.

[ May 29, 2004, 04:53: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]