Can I get some cheese with that...

[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 ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

If it is retaken, then is the game supposed to reactivate the temple or does it require more action?

Nope, no actions required. Priests were safe and sound behind the strong walls of their temple, while the inviders were ravaging the countryside, asuming that the rescue army had arrived in time(next turn). No need to "reactivate" your temple, so no additional micromanagement here.


The priests (npc-priests ) inside the temple could still pray (generate your dominion) for one Last turn, after their province was conquered, asking in vain their God for the miracle to save them, before/if their temple would be overrun and burned down by enemy, and the priests themselves were killed over the ruined altars of their God.


Or their drastic situation may prevent them from generating your dominion for this one turn while thier province is in enemy's hands. It doesn't really matter much, you can take the pick that you like more.

[ May 29, 2004, 05:57: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]