Devil Review

[archaeolept]

generally, the easiest way to tell if something is a bit too cheap is how prevalently it is used. on that yardstick, ghostriders is too good a deal. I love them, and use them all the time, but I think bumping up their cost, even to say 7 death gems, would be a good thing. As it is they are just one of the many things that makes castling such a necessary strategy, as the open lands are so dangerous.

[Cainehill]

archaeolept said:
generally, the easiest way to tell if something is a bit too cheap is how prevalently it is used. on that yardstick, ghostriders is too good a deal. I love them, and use them all the time, but I think bumping up their cost, even to say 7 death gems, would be a good thing. As it is they are just one of the many things that makes castling such a necessary strategy, as the open lands are so dangerous.

Having been the Ghost Rider (not the Marvel comics one, mind, though that would be even cooler), I can state that a moderate army can deal with multiple ghost riders. A moderate meat shield (20-40 vine ogres, easy to come up with) both slows the undead down and kills a lot of them. Having several priests doing banishments, or astral mages doing the anti-undead fire spell, or fire mages doing Holy Pyre, or death mages doing wither bones, or ....

Ghost riders _are_ vicious. I don't think they're as much of a cause of castling as the cheap/easy raiding mechanism is, and they are, after all, a level nine research spell requiring D4 casters.

A very minor tweak might be okay for them - at 5 gems a cast, they already diminish your supply of death gems severely. And remember, unlike blood's Contracts, there actually are many other great things to be doing with death gems than spamming Ghost Riders : wraith crowns, Liches, Spectres, Tartarians, etc.

[Taqwus]

'course, one might note this: in combination with castling, Ghost Riders makes a nasty anti-raider spell as well. Enemy arrives in your province, perhaps by flying or magical means (several Tartarians cloud-jumping in for a visit, say), then get nailed by 5-6 castings of Ghost Riders before they can move away (short of using the Boots of the Planes or Gateway Stone to 'port/astral travel away) or breach the walls.

It's handy against PDs or unprepared small/medium armies; against the larger armies FFTS, Murdering Winter or perhaps even Beckoning can do more damage.

[alexti]

archaeolept said:
generally, the easiest way to tell if something is a bit too cheap is how prevalently it is used.

What about scouts, sages and indy priests then? They are used all the time. In all cases it's just the right tool for the common task. Same for GR - raid interception/raiding. However, for raiding purposes it is not efficient in general. You lose 5 gems and gain whatever is the target province income. After that you'll lose the province unless you bring some forces, in which case you could just take it using those forces (except, if there was overly well organized PD). So this exchange is good only for rich provinces, but they're usually castled/well protected. So it leaves GR for raid interception and tactical raiding (cut out escapes, demolish temples or high PD, allowing your army to advance without revealing details of tactics etc)

archaeolept said:
on that yardstick, ghostriders is too good a deal. I love them, and use them all the time, but I think bumping up their cost, even to say 7 death gems, would be a good thing. As it is they are just one of the many things that makes castling such a necessary strategy, as the open lands are so dangerous.

I don't see why it makes castling necessary. Sure you'd castle your best and strategically important provinces, but otherwise, what do you keep in the open lands which makes you afraid of GR? If the enemy wants to spend 5 gems to "neutralize" your 10 gold, 1 gem income province, better for you, those 5 gems could've been used for something nastier.

[Boron]

alexti said:

I don't see why it makes castling necessary. Sure you'd castle your best and strategically important provinces, but otherwise, what do you keep in the open lands which makes you afraid of GR? If the enemy wants to spend 5 gems to "neutralize" your 10 gold, 1 gem income province, better for you, those 5 gems could've been used for something nastier.

When you only castle the important provinces with e.g. a citadel or high admin castle then you won't have a lot temples .

So to protect your temples a bit you normally castle .
Otherwise you get probably either dominionproblems or the enemy kills your temples with ghost riders / other raiders always .

[Cainehill]

Which means you either build castles for your temples, or you build enough PD to neutralize spies (so they don't know where your temples are) or you build temples in spots where you have enough forces to repel ghost riders.

Admittedly that Last is really best suited to certain themes / nations, but _most_ themes can afford to sit a mage down in a province to shepherd a bunch of maintance free summoned critters.

[alexti]

Boron said:
When you only castle the important provinces with e.g. a citadel or high admin castle then you won't have a lot temples .

So to protect your temples a bit you normally castle .
Otherwise you get probably either dominionproblems or the enemy kills your temples with ghost riders / other raiders always .

Many strategies are not dominion-oriented and you don't suffer too much from fighting in enemy's dominion, so you don't need too many temples. If you're doing well, it's not uncommon to have 1/2 of your provinces outside of your dominion. And often it's a good idea to pick up your castling neighbour. With him spending his gold on castles he often is an easy prey. Then you can build your temples in his forts and reuse his labs as well. On top of everything you will get temples right where you need them - in hostile dominion

[Cainehill]

Yep, you'all should listen to Alexti. He's almost as good as, er, no, he's probably better than me, he's almost as good as ... Cohen or Boron or Stormsomething

Ahen - sorry, no insult meant to Alexti by use of those names. A lot of people have been put up on pinnacles as being "good", and frankly, most of them aren't - or at least, they're good at particular strategies, and not at the game as a hole.

(A hole - like a house, in which you throw money).

I'm the same way - I have certain nations I'm solid at, so of course I like to play those. In theory, I don't need dominion as much if I'm building forts far outside my territory - I can take drain 3, misfortune 3, if I start building strongholds in the territory that Last of Tuatha has _so_ nicely made Growth, Magic, and Luck for me. (I may not get the benefit of the Luck or Magic - but 0-magic is _so_ much better than drain 3, don't you think?)

Dominions is deep enough (and one of the _few_ games deep enough - chess isn't as deep in comparison, albeit more focused (and yes - I could dredge up awards that might indicate that I have a clue about chess, at least ) ) that different strategies have a real chance. For instance, in Chess, no one wins by claiming the outside ranks. It's all about the center, unless perhaps you play a Reti-based opening, or one of a couple of gambits.

On a more solid tangent - I've got several games in which I'm rolling along, having taken a _lot_ of castles from someone else (literally castles) where all I had was watchtowers or mausoleums.

I got their labs for free, their forts for free (minus my cost in taking them) and simply built my temples - 36 at Last count in one.

If someone spends all their money on mages, on forts, on temples - they're vulnerable. If others are too pacifiscist to take advantage of that - may there be more pacifists.