[Twan]

Yes I think a king of the hill game rule was not a good idea finally, casting first in defense is a too huge advantage in endgame (on the other hand you had 36 turns to do something, with more reactivity 20 turns ago I would have lost half my provinces and, unable to send reinforcements to the isle, finally everything -but the problem would be the same with any new owner : once endgame spells are researched a defenser in a fort win as long he has good mages + some SCs inside and a sufficient number of gems for them-). In last battle I made a huge error with my Wrathfull Skies, but even with that Ermor had no chance to win.

The only ways I see to actually take the fort would need some turns of preparation and a lot of forging : Ermor would need some good assassins (like spectres with black hearts) to kill my key mages before the fight, inside their three domes ; or to be able to defeat my troops with only well geared SCs and mages (sending anything with less than 20 MR is a gift for my enslavers, and any mage without sufficient protection to survive a rain of stones is useless as well). Except that, my only fear was to have to fight an army able to survive 30 or so rounds and including a SC carrying the unquenched sword (or other fatigue BE caster), to kill all my communion slaves with exhaustion, then a second wave could have defeated me.

Or I should have kept my first idea : a "no fort on the isle" game rule ; finally even a crappy forest fortress make an huge difference : without the fort an army can be attacked several times per turn, so defensive mages can't have gems left for all fights (on the other hand, without fort it can be the reverse problem : it would be impossible to keep the isle if attacked 4 or 5 times per turn).

ps : do we declare game finished or continue untill my ascension ?