Can I get some cheese with that...

[Scott Hebert]

An interesting discussion, as always.

First, a suggestion for improvement based on reducing micromanagement, to help Mosehansen.

Is it possible to enable a switch, on a commander-level, to stop the pooling of gems from them? The 'large-scale' issue is one of blood sacrifices, but it would also help to avoid the pooling of gems from someone you don't want, which might increase the possibility that gem-requiring battle magic is used (I don't use it in my games primarily for this reason.)

I envision something of a toggle on the Commander orders box, or a toggle box on the Commander's information screen. I don't know how hard this would be to implement, but I just wanted to make a suggestion.

To reduce castling is actually very simple: increase the cost of all castles. I would think that doubling the cost would be about the right amount. With that, I doubt anyone could put a Castle in every province and hope to defend them.

Now, how to avoid the raiding issue? Well, I think the fair way would be to have Move orders processed based on the relative Supply values for each player in the Province being moved to. That is, the closer you are to your supply base, the earlier you would move. Therefore, the deeper you raid into Enemy Territory, the easier you are to catch (theoretically). As a side effect, that would encourage two other historically accurate points. First, castles would be built on borders, both to reduce the enemy's ability to raid and enhance yours. Second, expansion would involve more 'circular' motion. That is, it would be better, from a defense standpoint, to expand in all directions, rather than in a line fashion. This is already strengthened by other game factors, so it shouldn't be a problem.

If this were to happen, raiding would be, essentially, in-and-out. You would raid 'borders', basically. Those nations that are built to raid (e.g., Caelum) don't lose those advantages under this system.

Another minor point is that this would strengthen those castles with better Supply values that have other trade-offs (Fortified City and Wizard's Tower), as they would support more in-depth raiding. It would also boost the Growth scale, which currently is not nearly as useful as certain other scales.

OTOH, Nature magic would _not_ benefit raiding, as Supply bonuses from Nature Magic/items subtract from Supply Used, not add to Supply. Thus, this idea makes the most use of already in-place mechanics.

Anyway, feel free to comment. I'm sure I missed a lot of problems with this idea.

Scott Hebert
Newbie

[Vynd]

Originally posted by Tris:
That's a really good point Vynd. You could argue that the unbalanced strategy is raiding, and castling is just the best way to defeat that.

There are actually two ways to see this:

Raiding is the problem [...]

Castling is the problem, because it does let you build lots of temples. This means the only way to fight the dominion of a castler is to have lots of temples yourself (because you can't destroy his easily). Raiding is needed when people build temples too close to borders, or too many temples. People shouldn't be able to build temples in every province and guard them. It's part of the game to intelligently choose where to invest in your 200gp worth of temple.

I hadn't really thought about it from this second angle, Tris, but it seems to me that you're right. One could call raiding the "solution" to the "problem" of too many temples, and thus see castling as a "problem" because it allows people to maintain too many temples too easily, despite raiding. However, I still think that raiding is a big part of what makes castling attractive, so if castling is a problem then raiding is part of it.

Also, it is a mistake to fixate on how raiding makes temples vulnerable, as if all raiders did was destroy 200 gold temples. For one thing, temples represent more than 200 gold, they also represent the time and effort involved in getting a priest over there and having him spend a turn building the temple. This, as Cainehill pointed out, is in contrast to the free, no action required, destruction of the temple. Furthermore, raiders do a lot more than destroy temples. They deprive you of income and gems, gain them for their owners, spread unrest in "your" territory, wipe out PD and/or isolated units, and require you to track them down with superior forces and destroy them if you want them to stop.

Originally posted by Bayushi Tasogare:
Now, how to avoid the raiding issue? Well, I think the fair way would be to have Move orders processed based on the relative Supply values for each player in the Province being moved to. That is, the closer you are to your supply base, the earlier you would move. Therefore, the deeper you raid into Enemy Territory, the easier you are to catch (theoretically). As a side effect, that would encourage two other historically accurate points. First, castles would be built on borders, both to reduce the enemy's ability to raid and enhance yours. Second, expansion would involve more 'circular' motion. That is, it would be better, from a defense standpoint, to expand in all directions, rather than in a line fashion. This is already strengthened by other game factors, so it shouldn't be a problem.

If this were to happen, raiding would be, essentially, in-and-out. You would raid 'borders', basically. Those nations that are built to raid (e.g., Caelum) don't lose those advantages under this system.

Another minor point is that this would strengthen those castles with better Supply values that have other trade-offs (Fortified City and Wizard's Tower), as they would support more in-depth raiding. It would also boost the Growth scale, which currently is not nearly as useful as certain other scales.

OTOH, Nature magic would _not_ benefit raiding, as Supply bonuses from Nature Magic/items subtract from Supply Used, not add to Supply. Thus, this idea makes the most use of already in-place mechanics.

Anyway, feel free to comment. I'm sure I missed a lot of problems with this idea.

Scott Hebert
Newbie

See, this is an excellent suggestion that addresses a number of issues. It is also historically and thematically pertinant and visible.

It not only makes protecting territory less of a hassle, but adds another element of randomness (especially if you blank out the Supply factor from other players visibity (except maybe spies) and add in a random roll to it).

Now I don't know how easy it would be to code, or if it's even viable with code constraints. But a very good suggestion and well thought out.

Kudos to Scott.

Edit: This will still not affect the CT/Teleport/flying raiding SC's, but for the amount of gems that are used to create them for that purpose, they should have an advantage of mobility.

[ May 27, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Taqwus]

If the move order were tweaked with, I wouldn't mind seeing an army's strategic move factored in, probably affected by survival skills vs terrain.
In the extreme case, for instance, it should be fairly hard for an army of move-1 Abysian Lava Warriors to leave a province to attack another they just overran before a Vastness or Doom Horror arrives from next door. Less extreme, Machakan spider knights in a forest should have an easier time of keeping the initiative than would their Ulm heavy infantry pursuers.

[Kel]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel

No, you have yet to prove it.

---

I have yet to prove what ? I haven't said anything about castling and it wasn't the main topic of the original post, nor do I have an opinion on it, either way.

What I was saying is that the original post represents commonly used poor, inflammatory and illogical arguments.

- Kel

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence
- Kel

I think we were arguing past each other back there.

I was taking issue in one post with the above claim of yours; now I realize most of what you have been saying pertains to what you see as inflammatory rhetoric used against "whiners."

However, I am curious to know what evidence you think has been provided, other than the sort I mention a few Posts ago, or the type that Zen discusses.

[Kel]

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence
- Kel

I was taking issue in one post with the above claim of yours; now I realize most of what you have been saying pertains to what you see as inflammatory rhetoric used against "whiners."

---

Exactly so. I have no arguments for or against castling, none at all. I don't currently see it as a problem but I will listen. I didn't think that was your main point. If it was, then I should have started a new thread or held my tongue.

However, I am curious to know what evidence you think has been provided, other than the sort I mention a few Posts ago, or the type that Zen discusses.

I haven't kept up with the evidence on castling, to be honest. There may or may not be any at all. I think both sides of most balance discussions have extremists who write off each others points and thus, some Posts on balance problems will be reactionary and *won't* have evidence.

However...some subjects, such as clamming and VQs, had a great deal of salient points and yet you still see poor, arrogant, dismissive behavior (in addition to some good counter-points, to be fair). Evidence might be a bad word because it implies that it is sufficient and swaying. 'Arguments' or 'points' might be a better word. I hate to see arguments dismissed based on anything other than the logic of the argument. That's all.

- Kel