Castles vs PD

[Cohen]

Personally I like to castle provinces.
It's far more efficient ... if you've income obviously.

I see now this strategy more balanced, because I have troubles applying it in wartime, when you've to pump out mages, troops, etc etc ...

Obviously if I'd free gold and gems, I could castle without any problem ... I believe Mad Castling is a word we can abolish.

[Boron]

yeah some nations need to castle their corelands .
man is such an example .
a jotun/ulm pd is more worth their money .

but i play with the "rule" : castle your base territory before you run into other players , that are about 15-25 castles depending on map , early game expansion speed etc.

then when i expand only castle key provinces first , and castle every province where you want to build a temple first .

if i have time i castle everything but at least my homelands .

lategame the best bet to get rid of "raiders" like the birds is to wipe them out by ghost riders .

imho in the long run the nations which don't need too much resources for their troops , e.g. vanheim , mictlan , pythium , arco .... have a advantage because everything is castled .
the others have the real huge disadvantage that 1-2 ghostriders can wipe out most p.d. + garrison troops .

5/10 deathgems for -200 gold for temple , - 200-300 for pd , some lost garrison troops etc. is normally totally worth it while it has no effect on castled provinces .

i think we can really abolish clam hoarding / mad castling now

[alexti]

5/10 deathgems for -200 gold for temple , - 200-300 for pd , some lost garrison troops etc. is normally totally worth it while it has no effect on castled provinces .

Or 5/10 death gems for -0 gold for non-existent temple, -1 gold for PD ;-)