[Boron]

Originally posted by Pickles:
Originally posted by Boron:

"so forbidding mad castling as a mpgamerule is unfair and not the other way round .
norfleet is totally right "

It is only unfair if you are FORCED to play one of the penalised races.

OTOH I agree with your analysis but then I am totally nooblacious.


Pickles

thnx for agreeing

just in a hopefully more understandable way some more explanation of my point of view :

if you take watchtowers with this nations they aren't penalised that much because this is their way to cope for their weak defense
if you play mictlan and protect your provinces with watchtowers ( the ones with your bloodhunters first ) it is okay .
but if you are forced by the rule to build only 1 castle per e.g. 3 provinces it is a big disadvantage for e.g. mictlan while it is a big advantage for e.g. ulm .

so a no castling rule forces you to not take some nations because it is unwise .
while with castling these races are much more competetive .
mictlans blood hunters e.g. are protected for 1 turn this way and you can send in a rescue force of demons e.g.
as norfleet said otherwise e.g. a ulmish pd will much easier defeat a ghost riders force than a machaka/mictlan one .
if you didn't have a castle you couldn't afford to protect the province without a standing army which is too expensive mostly . while with the castle you don't loose your temple / lab immediately and the ghost riders spell in particular is totally useless against you while it would be almost "unbalanced" if you may only recruit pd .

[ June 30, 2004, 17:10: Message edited by: Boron ]