How to solve castling effect?

[LintMan]

Originally posted by Anglachel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglachel:
Or simply not have temples auto-destroy upon conquering of a province. Require a commander to take out a turn to dismantle it much like someone dismantling thier own buildings in thier own province. Make the timing of the dismantling of said building take place after movement and combat giving time for trying to retake the province and protect the temple. Of course this wouldn't really solve castling but would remove the need to use castles to protect temples somewhat anyways.

Just a thought.

Hrmmmmm, I think I just just saw the problem with the above "fix" thanks to Lintman mentioning the ghost rider spell. If casting the spell on a castle-less province with a temple in it that has to be dismantled by a commander then what would happen to the province when the temple doesn't go away and the province goes to independant status? Oh well, was a nice thought while it Lasted.

---

I don't think that's a big problem... Two reasonable ways to deal with this situation are:
1) A temple in an independent province (or an enemy-held province) is marked as "abandoned" (or as someone else suggested: "damaged", and does not generate dominion checks until the temple owner restores control, or it is destroyed by the new province owner.
2) The temple works as normal in an independent province (and maybe even in an enemy-held one).

I don't think either of these options is unreasonable (though I prefer #1). Of course, either of these would require a bit of coding on Illwinter's part (with #2 likely a bit easier), but nothing that seems to me (as a programmer myself) that it would be particularly hard/complex to do.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And I've said that what you have said is not true, and mad castling with AllFather or BlueDragon is much more "brittle", as you put it, than with VQ. Are you disputing it?

Every time you crash a VQ, you lose a rather expensive suit of equipment. If you're just kamikazing a naked VQ into your opponent over and over, you're going to get smacked down over and over: A naked VQ is not really that tough, and can be easily killed: I've done it.

I have no way of knowing what happened in these games that you are refering to, no do I know the level of your oppoennts that you are talking about.

Given your history of lies and distortions you surely don't expect me to take your word on it.

I'm not protecting a cover identity here, so I have no reason to lie. Besides, reliable sources can corroborate the results.

The only possible and logical way for you to prove your point is to stop using the only tactic that you are constantly using to win your games, which is VQ + mad castling + clam hoarding.

I return in victory from a reported ladder match with a W9 Blue Dragon. The mad castling stays, however.

If you will win such games against experienced opponents than it'll be clear proof for everybody that you are indeed winning because of your skills and not because of the fact that you are using cheesy and exploitive strategy, that requres little skills to impliment. Since you never done that, prefering to use the same lame strategy in all your games, the rest of your "personal" examples is meaningless for the purpose of this discussion.

See above. Currently involved in another ongoing match with stock Pan and a Carrion Dragon instead.

Personally I've been in 4 games with you so far, and it was always the same - mad castling, massive clamhoarding(unless prohibited), and uber-VQs. Must be purely coincidence of course...

Given that you admittedly avoid games with me, this is hardly surprising. I have non-VQ pretenders when more applicable.

Death can happen. To VQ as well to any other pretender. Nobody is invincible. But some are immortal.

Death is the bride of the warrior, Stormbind. Your mother was a trout.

[ May 27, 2004, 04:32: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Death is the bride of the warrior, Stormbind. Your mother was a trout.

It's impossible to have logical discussion with you Norfleet. You are clearly sick and need a professional help.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
It's impossible to have logical discussion with you Norfleet. You are clearly sick and need a professional help.

Don't be silly. I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it. Why would I want help?

[Stormbinder]

Back to the original topic.

Personally I like a lot the suggestion about commanders having to manually destroy enemy temples next turn after they conquered province with temple.


That would go a very long way toward making mad castling less attractive, since the main point of mad castling is to protect temples against sudden raids. It should also be relatively easy to implement I think. And it feels better in general than some artificial limitations on the total number of castles.

[ May 27, 2004, 13:04: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Taqwus]

Feh. Building lots of castles is rather expensive in gold, gems or blood slaves depending on how you do it -- unless you're astoundingly lucky with fortress sites and fortress events. If somebody's building castles everywhere, that's a lot of gold expended plus time consumed with commander-turns. Then garrisoning all those bloody castles is expensive unless they're undead, most of which defend the gates rather poorly.
You might as well argue that the game encourages having decent armies backed by mages.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Taqwus:
Then garrisoning all those bloody castles is expensive unless they're undead, most of which defend the gates rather poorly.

The castles AREN'T garrisoned: Usually, they're instead defended by mobile forces that teleport, gateway, or fly between the threatened castles. The drawback is that in order to make this in any way affordable, the castles tend to be constructed of paper and breach quickly, necessitating a rapid response: Attacking more castles than your opponent can respond to at once will pose major problems for him.