Can I get some cheese with that...

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Bayushi Tasogare:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
See, Norfleet is already backing down from "mad castling.

If that's what you got out of Norfleet's statement... hmm. Yes, he wouldn't build castles. OTOH, it makes attacking him even harder.

---

Between you and me, First - I don't care at all about new tactic that Norfleet' will adopt or will not. It's not about 1 player. It's about strategy, which is called "madcastling". The fact that the most notorious madcastler said that he will abandon it, partly or fully, is an indicator that the changes would indeed be in effect.

Although personally I didn't really put much weight into it, intended it partly as a joke (noticed that "smile"?)


Second - you are plain wrong about "making him even harder to defeat". Read my example to Zen, about two players, one madcastling and one not, and tell me again how this proposed rule will benefit "mad castler" more than "not-madcastler".

Now Norfleet is perfectly free to adopt any other strategy, just like everybody else. Again, this is "anti-madcaslting" change, not "anti-Norfleet" change.

To do what you have said norf you need to have significant force not only to overwhelm the entire invading army with your teleporters,

Unless your opponent is invading with SCs, this is not really an issue. If you're invading with SCs/mage assault squads... why aren't you doing this against the castles?

I don't know about your SP playstyle Bayushi, but in MP SCs are the primary raiding force of choice. Anybody with MP experience could tell you that much.

And SCs do not storm castles by themself.

but you also need to overrun all friendly neigborhing provinces at the same turn, to block the invider's route to escape if the choose to, or you would just end up wasting your time and gems AND would pose yourself wide open for retaliation.

You might want to explain this some more. Spell movement happens before 'normal' movement. I don't see how they can 'escape'. It's not like squads made to destroy entire armies are made to let anyone escape. You _could_ place your army on 'retreat' orders, making it a true raid, but then your army gets dispersed, requiring time to reassemble it.

You have answered your own question. Not only you could, but often you are, making your opponent wonder if it is deep strike or fient, and spend his resourses (lost reseach, gems, troops) in vain, while posing his own troops open to the enemy strike. The choices will be even more intriguing with new proposed rule, as I demonstrated in my previous post, since now raider have a strong motive to try to burn the temple if the can, and both players know it and will act accordingly.

Dispersing is not an issue when most of your raiding force consist of one or several SC raiders, as it very often does in MP. No that is an issue when there are only one or two friendly provinces to retreat.

Keep in mind that once your drop you "cloudtrapezing/teleporting squad" you are open to the same present plus some extra from your enemy, since now *you* are the one siting in the open and the enemy knows your numbers and knows what to expect from you.

And the 'sitting duck' goes first. In a fight between squads of the same quality, advantage goes to the defender.

Do you really think that I am not aware of this fact? It's the same situation as when Norfleet attacking raiders, only as I said to make sure they are eliminated he would have to conquer not one, but all other surrounding friendly provinces at the same turn. Also FYI - as I said most of the raiders party are one or several flying SC. The first turn can indeed make some difference in this case, but if you are prepared for it (as you should, since now you know exactly what to expect), several simple solutions can negate 1-st turn advantage of flying SC. The most basic and well known is having a hidden scout with Staff of Storms in the province, ready to surface and stop banelords/wraithlords/VQ/Airqueens/whatever from reaching your quickly and start hacking away before you are ready.

I've eployed it personally against Norfleet (under disguise of Pakhar Njal) several times in our Last game, worked like magic every time, resulting in dead enemy SCs raiders/defenders and no losses.

Also by having line of naked countryside near your neigbors you are risking of losing it all to one coordinated attack.

That all depends on the border involved. If that border is small, then the attacks of both attacker and defender are concentrated. If large, both have to devote larger resources for a smaller gain. This is a wash, IMO.

It is your opinion indeed, and generaly speaking it is a wrong one. In competitive MP any number of undefended provinces on the border with hostile dominion can easely fall at the same turn to the well planed or coordinated attack of SC raiders, regular armies, assasins, remote summons and remote damage spells. Again, I've did it number of times in MP against many differnt opponents, so trust me, I know what I am speaking about. PD is not an adequate, and if you are having small armies defending provinces without castles, you can be sure that each of them will be met by slightly stronger army, custom-made to deal with this particular enemy army. Assuming of course you are playing against competent enemy.

The only real way do defend line of naked border provinces against strong player is to use few neigboring castles as a rally and safe heaven points for you troops, as well as storngpoints for you counterattack on your "naked lands, after they would be overrun by your enemy. Either that, or teleporting/clodtrewezing units from elsewhere, again next turn after enemy attack.


[quote]But anyway, it is certanly an improvement compared to "mad caslers" warfare, in terms of fun if nothing else.

This is nothing more or less than an opinion of yours, and hence not really useful for supporting an argument.

Stormbinder, you seem to be operating under 2 rather common logical fallacies, and it's really hurting any chance you have to get what you want changed.

And this is nothing more than opinion of yours. I am not going to respond to your future "arguments" below, since I find them to be completely without merit, while writen in pretty arrogant and hostile tone. Surface to say I've readen them carefully (unlike yourself when you were reading what I had to say), and I have found that you've connstantly attributed to me the statements and ideas that I've never expressed, just so you could "fight" them with your counterarguments. Since I happen to agree with Zen, in thinking that it is common curtesy to read your opponents post carefully before replying to it, much less accursing him of "logic fallacies" he never made, I don't see why I should spend my time and do for you what you clearly haven't done for me. Sorry.

This also isn't much of an issue for me as a player since I can't play MP very much.

That much become pretty obvious from your post. It's rather pecular how somebody dive head first into discussion of relatively advanced and purly MP concept of "madcastling", and start throwing arround accusations of multiply "logical fallacies" at his opponents, while admiting of not being expereinced MP player, or having experinece with "madcastling", which is a subject of the discussion.


Ignorance is not a crime. But ignorance + arrogance is not a very pretty picture either. Have you been more civil in your post, as well as more carefull with reading what your opponents really said before dismissing what they said as a "wash",as you nicely put it, I would point to you where exactly you were wrong, and would do it nicely. But as it is, I feel no obligation to bother doing it at all, as I am sure you can appreciate.

[ May 30, 2004, 00:14: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]