Can I get some cheese with that...

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.

If you won't put the effort into answering my questions there is no reason for me to answer yours. It's common courtesy and the burden of proof is yours. If you want to admit that you in no way can prove that Castling is more economical/strategically feasible than a # of other strategies using the same resources and that Castling is not overpowered you just want to change it because it's no fun to have to storm 800 castles in order to beat certain unnamed people. I will answer your question.

And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw) about burnable temples?

This is a bad change in my mind. Thematically it doesn't fit in my mind. If you find a temple of the heathen god who claims to be the one True God and I was vying for his place, I would burn anything created for him to the ground, then dance around on the ashes then feed the ashes to a blood slave and sacrifice her for no reason other than to kill it again.

Balance wise, it will too suddenly switch the effect of Dominion and Dominion would be more mutable than I feel should. Dominion is represented in my mind by devotion to a god, this takes time and effort. Even though a good % of the popluation is very fickle in their beliefs, healthy % is not so fickle. Also I don't particularly want to devalue Temples importance.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
[qb] And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.

If you won't put the effort into answering my questions there is no reason for me to answer yours.

---

I did.

It's common courtesy and the burden of proof is yours. If you want to admit that you in no way can prove that Castling is more economical/strategically feasible than a # of other strategies using the same resources and that Castling is not overpowered

That's not what I've said. As for the burden of proof - I've explained below that you can not PROVE any theory such as this one by *examples* in the way you suggested. It is just logically impossible, as I hope you can see yourself. You can only PROVE that the theory is WRONG by showing the example where it is untrue. And since you are the one who offered this "simple method" and said that it MUST be applied, AND you are the one who claim that his strategy is better than Norfleet's "madcastling" strategy, the burden of proof here is clearly on *you*, if you are willing to do it. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't ask other people to do it, since it just wouldn't make sense.

you just want to change it because it's no fun to have to storm 800 castles in order to beat certain unnamed people.

I freely and readly admit that it is certanly not fun to have to storm 800 castles. However it is not the main or the only reason for my position.

quote:

---

And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw) about burnable temples?

This is a bad change in my mind. Thematically it doesn't fit in my mind. If you find a temple of the heathen god who claims to be the one True God and I was vying for his place, I would burn anything created for him to the ground, then dance around on the ashes then feed the ashes to a blood slave and sacrifice her for no reason other than to kill it again.

Balance wise, it will too suddenly switch the effect of Dominion and Dominion would be more mutable than I feel should. Dominion is represented in my mind by devotion to a god, this takes time and effort. Even though a good % of the popluation is very fickle in their beliefs, healthy % is not so fickle. Also I don't particularly want to devalue Temples importance.

---

I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.

[ May 29, 2004, 02:42: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I did.

No you said it couldn't be done, so you didn't answer it. You dodged it, which is a frequent habit of yours.

That's not what I've said. As for the burden of proof - I've explained below that you can not PROVE any theory such as this one by *examples* in the way you suggested. It is just logically impossible, as I hope you can see yourself. You can only PROVE that the theory is WRONG by showing the example where it is untrue. And since you are the one who offered this "simple method" and said that it MUST be applied, AND you are the one who claim that his strategy is better than Norfleet's "madcastling" strategy, the burden of proof here is clearly on *you*, if you are willing to do it. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't ask other people to do it, since it just wouldn't make sense.

So you are saying you can't accrue the costs and apply it to the same cost to an Army and have the Castle's clearly be a more valuable choice? That is impossible then? I'm saying you can. You didn't even really understand any of the points that I tried to use to gauge Castle's strategic and economic usefulness so it is no surprise you wouldn't understand something as basic as "Castles cost X, you can make X Army with the X amount of Cost and X Army Advantage will reliably conquor X amount of castles"

I freely and readly admit that it is certanly not fun to have to storm 800 castles. However it is not the main or the only reason for my position.

Yet that is the only reason you can prove.

I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.

It devalues them because noone would burn down a temple they would have a reasonable chance to reaqquire. Thus any temple built would stay built baring extraneous circumstances (akin to how Labs are only built down if you plan on losing a province and want to limit the use of an opponent resupplying gems/summons etc). So Temples would mean less because instead of requiring you to defend them, you could just go back and retake it when you felt the need/inclination to.

If you understand how Dominion works you might want to look at that. Temples provide instant Dominion pushing force. So when taking a province that has a temple in it, suddenly you are doing a dramatic shift in the Dominion struggle in that province, and you are allowing instant use of Blood Sacrifice.

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.

Not to mention the thematic reasons.

[ May 29, 2004, 03:01: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Norfleet]

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.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

So you are saying you can't accrue the costs and apply it to the same cost to an Army and have the Castle's clearly be a more valuable choice?

>sigh< I don't think it would make sense to continue this line of discussion further - we are clearly arguing in circles here.

I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.

It devalues them because noone would burn down a temple they would have a reasonable chance to reaqquire. Thus any temple built would stay built baring extraneous circumstances (akin to how Labs are only built down if you plan on losing a province and want to limit the use of an opponent resupplying gems/summons etc). So Temples would mean less because instead of requiring you to defend them, you could just go back and retake it when you felt the need/inclination to.

This is bad logic. Unlike with labs, which indeed stay in place forever unless you are planing to lose province for good and decide burn it, you can bet your *** that the enemy will try to burn your temple down if he can, with scouts/raiders/whatever, as soon as it captures your province. Therefore you have to recapture it immideatly, not "sit back and recapture when you have need/inclination". And doing this may not be as simple as before, since now the enemy have strong motive to hold for your province for at least one more turn, to finish his "scorthed earth" tactic. And since unlike yourlelf he can bring the reinforcements from all neighborhood provinces by using "friendly province movement", and he can do it first (unless you try to counter it with remote summons/teleports), he may very well pull any number of nasty surprises on you - since now he have a motive to do it.

If you understand how Dominion works you might want to look at that. Temples provide instant Dominion pushing force. So when taking a province that has a temple in it, suddenly you are doing a dramatic shift in the Dominion struggle in that province,

Wrong. You are still not getting it - NOTHING changes dominion-wise, until the *next* turn, when you have opportunity to burn the enemy temple to the ground. So there is no "dramatic shift" or *any* shift in dominion when you take enemy province with the temple, it can only happen in a turn after that, when/if you'll succeed of burning it to the ground.

Thematically speaking, think of medieval priests and monks hiding behind strong walls of their monasteries while war would be raging all around them. Happened all the time historicaly during dark ages, that's why so many medieval monasteries and temples looks like fortresses. These were a brutal times of constant warfare, similar to the Ascension wars.

and you are allowing
instant use of Blood Sacrifice.

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.

Not to mention the thematic reasons.

You are asuming here that you are allowed to perform blood sucriface in enemy temples. But who said you should be allowed to do it? Thematically speaking , you should first convert the temple to your god (or burn it down and build new one) before you are allowed to have any benefits from it, be it "dominion push" or "blood sacriface".

If it is implemented this way that this argument of yours is also not valid.

[ May 29, 2004, 03:54: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

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.