[baruk]

Tuidjy said:
> BTW, has there ever been a comment from a dev that indicates that they think
> blanket castling is even an issue?

Thanks the Powers that Be, no. I would even go further - there aren't that
many players that think that ubiquitous casles are a problem. Last time I
made a survey about this, the votes were overwhelmingly against making mad
castling impossible. Many players said that they hated it, but it was part
of the game, and one had to learn to deal with it.

1. The Devs don't determine what aspects of the game are discussed here. I suspect for the most part they have better things to do, like make Dom 3, or watch tv. If they think something is an issue, often the first time the players hear about it is in the patch notes.

2. I'm totally against the suggestions to make "mad-castling" impossible. They strike me as unworkable, awkward and unnecessary, such as the limits of building castles in only a fraction of your territory. I don't think there is anything "wrong" with ubiquitous castling.

Tuidjy said:
Speaking for myself, I do not see a problem. All a castle does is provide
the defender with one turn of safety. People go on about the attacker being
subject to remote spells, as if the defender is somehow protected. I think
that, as Yvelina said, anyone who want to conquer a strong empire should be
able to deal with a defended castle. In my book the attacker still has the
advantage.

Check my previous post.
My suggested alteration to the "move and storm" idea restores the "one turn of safety" to the defender's castled province, as long as the province is controlled by the defender.
The option for earlier storming becomes available once the attacker has taken the castled province, but not the castle. The attacker's storming force can be kept in reserve, then move up and storm the castle in a single turn once the province is taken (as long the fort defence has been reduced to zero). Also, seiging forces at the castle would be able to have a seige and storm order, so that they would storm the fort as soon as defences hit zero, instead of waiting around for a turn

Tuidjy said:
Castles, just like hoarding, or building mages, or any useful stratagem have
a cost and a return. In my ongoing game, I gave someone a three turn warning,
and when I attacked, about two thirds of his provinces were castled. So?
I have two gatecleavers, and two sizable armies. Five turns later, most of the
castles are mine, and in two or three turns, they will all be. Saves me the
cash to build them, and makes me wonder how many additional Niefel Jarls I would
have had to face, were the money invested otherwise. In the same game, Ermor
had a castle in each province of his. At some point, there were about ten of
them. According to my scouts, right now he has exactly one left.

It is turn 50 in that game. Most of my castles used to belong to someone else.
The ones I built were raised around temples, bloodhunter labs, or particularly
impressive magic sites - a sound investment to protect a valuable ressource.

Its not that hard to take a poorly supported castle. I could give my own list of examples.
The combination of blanket forts and a well run magical industrial complex in the late game is a potent defensive force. The (unnecessary and unrealistic) extra turn endured by castle seigers, between seiging and storming, really begins to hurt when up against a prepared opponent. Removing it would make the endgame more playable, in my opinion, leading to fewer stalemates.

Tuidjy said:
Where is the problem?

Well, if there is a problem, it lies in the fact that most of the existing
fortifications are improperly priced, or simply extremely ineffective, which
leads to only watchtowers and castles being used in multiplayer games.
-snip many interesting castle ideas

I would like to see a boost given to forts, to make them more variable and interesting. The ability to build them quickly and cheaply seems to be the main selling point at the moment. The effectiveness of raiding, coupled with the weakness of PD, has led to the rise of the cheap castle.
About the income generation/maintenance idea: forts already boost province income by a percentage equal to their admin value. Would this be removed under a castle maintenance system? I like the idea of investment and reward with castles, but maybe there is an argument for the quick, cheap castles to have a net maintenance cost, and the slow, expensive ones to boost your income overall. Though the more castles become polarised in this way, the greater the effect on smaller maps, when your free, starting castle has a greater influence.

Tuidjy said:
Instead of proposing ridiculous, poorly thought-out anti-castle measures, which
would create horrendous problems, like a 'move and storm' command, something
should be done about making castles more varied and useful.

I'd like to hear more about these "horrendous problems" a move and storm order would create, as no one has mentioned them before. This is a forum for discussion, after all.

Tuidjy said:

As for castles being too hard to take, give me a break. Any task force that
cannot weather a storm of fireballs and a dozen of ghost rider squads will not
take one of my castles anyway.

I suppose that you are suggesting that your castles are garrisonned with the finest mages, troops and SCs? My point is that you don't have to, as the defender you have the extra turn you need to 'port in the troops and mages you need to repel the castle stormers. You can quite happily keep your rapid response units safely tucked away behind your protective domes, whilst you wait for an enemy to attack one of your ungarrisoned castle provinces.

Tuidjy said:
Oh, and a question for those hypothetical whinners who find it too hard to take
castles right now. What in the world makes you think that after you change the
rules, I and my ilk will be slow in addapting to them? We will formulate a
winning strategy and make you cry 'Cheese!' before you have finished patting
yourself on the back for the latest nerf.

Zen's mods are well thought-out, and do a good job at eliminating no-brainers.
But did someone notice powergamers doing worse under his conditions? I doubt it.
When the dust settles, there are two kind of players standing - the proud
powergamers and the closet ones.

I too am a powergamer, I've never said otherwise. It doesn't have any relevance to my ideas or suggestions, which should be valued on their own merits.

As I said before, do not confuse the means with the end. The end is always to improve the game in some way. Game balance is just one means of doing this, it's not an end in itself. Adding extra orders for seiging armies is hardly a game balance issue anyway, as it will affect all nations equally.

I have no desire to make the game easier or harder for imaginary distinctions of players, such as "powergamers" or "noobs". I want to improve the game for everybody, I think the "move and storm" suggestion in particular may make the endgame more playable, and less of a stalemate.