Can I get some cheese with that...

Originally posted by Bayushi Tasogare:
Now, how to avoid the raiding issue? Well, I think the fair way would be to have Move orders processed based on the relative Supply values for each player in the Province being moved to. That is, the closer you are to your supply base, the earlier you would move. Therefore, the deeper you raid into Enemy Territory, the easier you are to catch (theoretically). As a side effect, that would encourage two other historically accurate points. First, castles would be built on borders, both to reduce the enemy's ability to raid and enhance yours. Second, expansion would involve more 'circular' motion. That is, it would be better, from a defense standpoint, to expand in all directions, rather than in a line fashion. This is already strengthened by other game factors, so it shouldn't be a problem.

If this were to happen, raiding would be, essentially, in-and-out. You would raid 'borders', basically. Those nations that are built to raid (e.g., Caelum) don't lose those advantages under this system.

Another minor point is that this would strengthen those castles with better Supply values that have other trade-offs (Fortified City and Wizard's Tower), as they would support more in-depth raiding. It would also boost the Growth scale, which currently is not nearly as useful as certain other scales.

OTOH, Nature magic would _not_ benefit raiding, as Supply bonuses from Nature Magic/items subtract from Supply Used, not add to Supply. Thus, this idea makes the most use of already in-place mechanics.

Anyway, feel free to comment. I'm sure I missed a lot of problems with this idea.

Scott Hebert
Newbie

See, this is an excellent suggestion that addresses a number of issues. It is also historically and thematically pertinant and visible.

It not only makes protecting territory less of a hassle, but adds another element of randomness (especially if you blank out the Supply factor from other players visibity (except maybe spies) and add in a random roll to it).

Now I don't know how easy it would be to code, or if it's even viable with code constraints. But a very good suggestion and well thought out.

Kudos to Scott.

Edit: This will still not affect the CT/Teleport/flying raiding SC's, but for the amount of gems that are used to create them for that purpose, they should have an advantage of mobility.

[ May 27, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Taqwus]

If the move order were tweaked with, I wouldn't mind seeing an army's strategic move factored in, probably affected by survival skills vs terrain.
In the extreme case, for instance, it should be fairly hard for an army of move-1 Abysian Lava Warriors to leave a province to attack another they just overran before a Vastness or Doom Horror arrives from next door. Less extreme, Machakan spider knights in a forest should have an easier time of keeping the initiative than would their Ulm heavy infantry pursuers.

[Kel]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel

No, you have yet to prove it.

---

I have yet to prove what ? I haven't said anything about castling and it wasn't the main topic of the original post, nor do I have an opinion on it, either way.

What I was saying is that the original post represents commonly used poor, inflammatory and illogical arguments.

- Kel

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence
- Kel

I think we were arguing past each other back there.

I was taking issue in one post with the above claim of yours; now I realize most of what you have been saying pertains to what you see as inflammatory rhetoric used against "whiners."

However, I am curious to know what evidence you think has been provided, other than the sort I mention a few Posts ago, or the type that Zen discusses.

[Kel]

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence
- Kel

I was taking issue in one post with the above claim of yours; now I realize most of what you have been saying pertains to what you see as inflammatory rhetoric used against "whiners."

---

Exactly so. I have no arguments for or against castling, none at all. I don't currently see it as a problem but I will listen. I didn't think that was your main point. If it was, then I should have started a new thread or held my tongue.

However, I am curious to know what evidence you think has been provided, other than the sort I mention a few Posts ago, or the type that Zen discusses.

I haven't kept up with the evidence on castling, to be honest. There may or may not be any at all. I think both sides of most balance discussions have extremists who write off each others points and thus, some Posts on balance problems will be reactionary and *won't* have evidence.

However...some subjects, such as clamming and VQs, had a great deal of salient points and yet you still see poor, arrogant, dismissive behavior (in addition to some good counter-points, to be fair). Evidence might be a bad word because it implies that it is sufficient and swaying. 'Arguments' or 'points' might be a better word. I hate to see arguments dismissed based on anything other than the logic of the argument. That's all.

- Kel

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Kel:
However...some subjects, such as clamming and VQs, had a great deal of salient points and yet you still see poor, arrogant, dismissive behavior (in addition to some good counter-points, to be fair). Evidence might be a bad word because it implies that it is sufficient and swaying. 'Arguments' or 'points' might be a better word. I hate to see arguments dismissed based on anything other than the logic of the argument. That's all.

- Kel

Well, that is a difference between us. I would dismiss arguments based on anything other than real evidence, no matter how logical the argument itself is.

Arguments based on anything other than real evidence are just people expressing their preference for how they wish the game was different.

Although people may have made good points pro and con the various changes advocated, I don't think we have seen much hard evidence on any of them.

What kind of evidence, you might ask? The kind of stuff Zen talked about:

Long ago I did a breakdown of Clam's and later Peter (may he rest in peace with many women and large tracts of land) gave another breakdown. With the #'s presented it was shown that you can abuse it, but only in specific circumstances with a specific gameset and only really viable for a very slim selection of circumstance.

If you advocate a change without taking the time to gather evidence like that, you are basing your arguments on preferences and opinions, whose relationship to reality is questionable.

Advocating change without the type of evidence above is what's been called whining.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
I believe that there is a burden to provide evidence if you are proposing changes, and that burden should fall on the "whiners" and not on those who are more or less happy with the game as it is.

That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel

---

How are these tactics illegitimate, and what is the evidence?

It's hard to refute opinions, and other than reports of "I hate playing against a castlespamming VQ clam-hoarder" I have not seen much evidence put forth that any of these are in any way illegitmate.

I will grant that VQs appear to be underpriced compared to some other Pretenders, or rather, some of the 125 pt. Pretenders are probably overpriced.

But...how can buidling castles be illegitimate? Where does that particular line of thinking stop? Should we limit the number of temples a player can build? Number of labs? Number of uber summons? Number of mages? Number of provinces to take a turn? Why not, and how is it different for the reasons given for outlawing castlespamming?

---

Easy. The best suggestion I've heard so far is to make temples destructable only by the order of commander (the same as with labs). This way you can protect your temples against raiders without having castels in every province, which is the main reason of "mad castling".

I don't think it'll elimiate mad castling alltogether, but it'll go very long way toward making it less promiment, without actually nerfing anything or adding some artificial limits. With such sustem you can still build as many temples as you want and protect them against raiders using your network of castles as strongholds and nodes in your defense system.

[ May 28, 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]