Can I get some cheese with that...

I misunderstood what the suggestion was. You'll need to be more clear with the "suggestion". If it is as Norfleet says, then I have no real thought about it. I'd have to test it to see if it was enough of a stalling force. Not that I feel it would be, since Burning Things down happens before movement phase of the next turn (I believe) so they would still burn it, just with a scout every time they did it effectively increasing the Miromanagement.

Unless the turn sequence was changed to have things that are "Burned Down" affect after movement, then I could see a potential use.

Also there would be the element of having it retain ownership (if you want to have it pumping the owners dominion) and if that even happens. If they simply do not produce anything then it would turn into a factor of raid it, make it produce nothing then don't worry about it, since in order to reactivate it they would have to burn it down and rebuild it. Unless you also wanted to code in a 'reactivate Temple' command.

All in all, I still go back to the original, even if it was a good idea (undecided). Why do you need to change it to this? Is it Castling and it's unproven 'abuse' that causes this to change? Or is it 'lessen the effect of raiding'?

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zen:
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.

I don't think that's quite what he meant: One of the proposed suggestions is simply that the temple remains an enemy temple, and either is nonfunctional and does nothing, or continues to spread enemy dominion, until you specifically delegate a scout or something to specifically burn it down.

---

For once, Norfleet is right here. That's what I've been telling all along, as I've benn trying to explain in my each of my previous Posts. Someone really have to read more carefuly before replying.

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
For once, Norfleet is right here. That's what I've been telling all along, as I've benn trying to explain in my each of my previous Posts. Someone really have to read more carefuly before replying.

You failed to mention that the Temple would keep producing Dominion or would stop Producing Dominion and whose Dominion it would produce. A Lab becomes yours when you take it over. If you just leave it as a Temple when you take it over and suddenly it becomes yours, it is a much different arguement than if it is still considered an Enemies (Which I don't think this is how the game works. It labels a Province as yours and everything in it, with the exception of an Enemy Army and Tax Rate in the instance of a Siege)

[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 ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
For once, Norfleet is right here. That's what I've been telling all along, as I've benn trying to explain in my each of my previous Posts. Someone really have to read more carefuly before replying.

You failed to mention that the Temple would keep producing Dominion or would stop Producing Dominion and whose Dominion it would produce. A Lab becomes yours when you take it over. If you just leave it as a Temple when you take it over and suddenly it becomes yours, it is a much different arguement than if it is still considered an Enemies

---

True, I didn't specifically mention this, but I asumened it should be pretty obvious. Otherwise, the suggestion would have nothing to do with changes to commanders and orders but would be just "Do not make temples burn automatically".


And of course it would be much worse suggestion than what was proposed, I certanly agree with Zen on that one - making temples less valuble, sudden dominion-shifts, would not make much sense thematic-wise , et cetera.

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
But shifting the blame for it on me is not fair, I think I've writen it very clearly:

Nothing in that explaination says anything about whose Dominion is produced. If the Temple works exactly like a Lab then it comes under your control, pumping out your Dominion. But if it is effectively Nulled or still Produces Enemy Domininon (forcing you to deal with it) it changes the entire suggestion.

Like I said, you seem to think it's win-win. And aside from the point that if Dominion is produced or not and whose, would be a sticking point. Because if it doesn't produce any Dominion, then it does basically the same thing as just taking it, if you have to "Purify Temple" instead of rebuilding one, you would still run into the problem of having Temples everywhere. If you have to kill it or it produces Enemy Dominion, that becomes a much stickier problem and needs to be dealt with and could present the issues that you were saying (having Raiders stay behind or feel the need to destroy the Temple).

[ May 29, 2004, 04:54: Message edited by: Zen ]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
True, I didn't specifically mention this, but I asumened it should be pretty obvious. Otherwise, the suggestion would have nothing to do with changes to commanders and orders but would be just "Do not make temples burn automatically".

Not really. And I think it would be more of a coding issue than you seem to think. I don't know how Capital only Magic Sites are coded (that might be a place to start to see how in depth and what kind of assigned values have to be attributed) and the factors of nulling them once taken by a non-nation player.

Either way. I don't think honestly a Castler is castling because of protecting his temples. That is just a side excuse as Dominion is important. A castler is castling to provide a speed bump to encroaching forces in order to manuver a hammer in place to take out the encroacers. So this change would not change the willingness to Castle or not one bit, but would make taking and Holding even easier.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
But shifting the blame for it on me is not fair, I think I've writen it very clearly:

Nothing in that explaination says anything about whose Dominion is produced. If the Temple works exactly like a Lab then it comes under your control, pumping out your Dominion. But if it is effectively Nulled or still Produces Enemy Domininon (forcing you to deal with it) it changes the entire suggestion.

Like I said, you seem to think it's win-win. And aside from the point that if Dominion is produced or not and whose, would be a sticking point. Because if it doesn't produce any Dominion, then it does basically the same thing as just taking it, if you have to "Purify Temple" instead of rebuilding one, you would still run into the problem of having Temples everywhere. If you have to kill it or it produces Enemy Dominion, that becomes a much stickier problem and needs to be dealt with and could present the issues that you were saying (having Raiders stay behind or feel the need to destroy the Temple).

---

Ok, I've removed "shifting blame" paragraph, since you do have some point here.


Anyway, as I said I certanly agree that these solutions are very different and one is signnificantly better than another, and I think now it is clear to you which one I am advocating. So in light of all that was said below, do you like this suggestion?

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
So in light of all that was said below, do you like this suggestion?

In light of that, I can't say. If you want a gut reaction, here it is. IF the Temple still produces the Owner's Dominion it would curb the rampant destrution of Temples by Raiders, thus nulling, in part some of the negative aspects of raiding (negative meaning, things that make you hurt). I don't know whether or not Raiding needs to be addressed in such a way as it is a natural and viable part of weakening an opponent in order to bring a force to bear. You also have to think of the implications that it would have on the nations that use Raiding most successfully (Stealth Nations, Caelum) and how much would it impact them.

IF it doesn't produce any Dominion, it doesn't do anything but add in the micromanagement of dragging a Scout everywhere you take enemy provinces on Retreat and if that provice is not attacked you raise it. If it is retaken, then is the game supposed to reactivate the temple or does it require more action?

That didn't really say much, it would be different, I don't know whether or not it would be good or bad or increase/decrease Micromanagement (something I do not like and would not advocate change for).

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
True, I didn't specifically mention this, but I asumened it should be pretty obvious. Otherwise, the suggestion would have nothing to do with changes to commanders and orders but would be just "Do not make temples burn automatically".

Not really. And I think it would be more of a coding issue than you seem to think. I don't know how Capital only Magic Sites are coded (that might be a place to start to see how in depth and what kind of assigned values have to be attributed) and the factors of nulling them once taken by a non-nation player.

Either way. I don't think honestly a Castler is castling because of protecting his temples. That is just a side excuse as Dominion is important. A castler is castling to provide a speed bump to encroaching forces in order to manuver a hammer in place to take out the encroacers. So this change would not change the willingness to Castle or not one bit, but would make taking and Holding even easier.

---

I've said that it'll not eliminate madcastling completely, but the desire to protect temples is an important one, although not the only one.

With no exceptions all people who were advocating the "mad castling" strategy so far in each and every thread on this board have said that the number one reason they do it is to protect the temples. I have no reason to believe that they are all lying. I think it is an important reason, although I agree that it is not the only one.


But the most importent point why to have this rule is that it would give people alternative ways to protect their temples, without restoring to "mad castling" strategy if they choose not to.


And it would bring all these interesting additional choices/questions for raiders/defenders that I've mentioned in my previous post, increasing diversity even more. This chancge could bring something interesting into the game, without taking anything in return(except maybe making raiding a little bit less profitable, but in the same time more interesting, since now you are facing more choices than just "burn everything and move on"), and it may very well improve both fun and balance, while reducing prominence and frequency of mad castling strategy and giving other strategies better fighting chance.


Besides you can't really argue about whom it will benefit more Zen, think about it this way - one player's (yours for example ) strategy calls for building casltes in 33% (or 50%, or 25%, whatever) provinces in your dominion. And other player is a "madcastler", who builds cheap castles and temples in every province.

Now you are in the full scale war. Then suddenly with this new "temples change" your attacks on mad castler do not change at all, since all his temples are protected anyway, while you have much better chance to protect your territory with the temples against his raiders, since it is harder now for him to burn your temples.


So who do you think will benefit from this suggested new rule more?


And even mad castler (unless he is really die-hard one, such as certain person) may be quite temped to invest a little more into troop/mages production, instead of burning tons of money on building castles everywhere.

[ May 29, 2004, 06:04: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]