Can I get some cheese with that...

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).