Can I get some cheese with that...

[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 ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Zen:
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.

Actually, castling does not really serve as a very effective speed bump JUST to enable you to manuever a hammer into place: It actually slightly impedes this, as you can't perform a trapeze-attack anymore, since the trapezers sit in the castle and drink beer.

What castling *DOES* do, however, is protect your temple, and your magic site income, which is the lifeblood of a successful empire. Of course, if temples did not immediately explode when prodded, it would not be necessary to castle provinces merely for the temple: I would, in fact, start favoring a buffer zone of naked countryside next to opposing empires, so that when attacked, I could immediately drop a teleport/trapeze squad on them, making it impossible to escape.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zen:
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.

Actually, castling does not really serve as a very effective speed bump JUST to enable you to manuever a hammer into place: It actually slightly impedes this, as you can't perform a trapeze-attack anymore, since the trapezers sit in the castle and drink beer.

What castling *DOES* do, however, is protect your temple, and your magic site income, which is the lifeblood of a successful empire. Of course, if temples did not immediately explode when prodded, it would not be necessary to castle provinces merely for the temple: I would, in fact, start favoring a buffer zone of naked countryside next to opposing empires, so that when attacked, I could immediately drop a teleport/trapeze squad on them, making it impossible to escape.

---

See, Norfleet is already backing down from "mad castling.

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


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.

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


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

[ May 29, 2004, 09:00: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Scott Hebert]

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. Meanwhile, the game devolves from 'endless castle sieges' to 'endless cat-and-mouse antics'.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The first logical fallacy you're using is that of the 'bandwagon philosophy', or 'if it's popular, it's good'. Popularity is not without merit, but it cannot be the basis for a discussion on whether something is quality, not quality, etc. etc. One of the arguments used for VQs (especially) and castling and clams (to a lesser extent) is 'everyone uses them, so it has to be broken'. It is a fact that people tend towards the most powerful/abusive parts of a game, because the object of the game is to win. However, that by itself is not enough to prove that a strategy is broken. In fact, actual anecdotal evidence shows clearly that it's not a strategy easy to use, and that few can implement it properly.

The second logical fallacy you're falling under is that of the self-evident statement. You are _assuming_ that castling is a problem, and using that as the starting point to suggest solutions to it. You quite nicely are sidestepping a crucial point in the problem analysis procedure, namely determining whether the point under consideration truly is a problem.

This is where your argument is falling down, and Zen is quite right in showing this over and over again. You haven't given us any real information showing how castling everywhere is a problem. Zen has even suggested ways for you to do this. Since you seem unwilling to do so, I'll do it for you.

Let's say you have a 300g Fortification (which is at the heart of this strategy... it's also the 'best' situation for the defender, so we're talking a 'best case' scenario in favor of the defender). Let's say you've built X of them in your kingdom. The amount of gold you've spent on them would then be 300x. That's all the analysis we'll do for now. We won't go into temples/labs involved, or anything else that might be harder to quantify.

Now, the question is, can the attacker build an army with 300x gold (where x is the number of defending castles) that can take out the defender's castles? Now, a specific answer would require assigning a number to x, which as you point out varies on a case-by-case basis. However, something that you CAN see, just by the numbers, is that as the number of castles the defender has increases, the relative size of the attacker's army increases. This leads to easier and easier capture of castles. Therefore, putting a castle in every province is not a very good strategy, per se, as it is something that gives more and more advantage to the attacker.

"But wait!" you say. "That isn't the castling strategy! It requires rapid-response units to prevent the castles from ever falling!" And that is correct. But before you can propose a solution to a problem, you have to know where the problem lies. By the above _simple_ analysis, simply building castles everywhere is a losing proposition, all else being equal. Therefore, if there is a problem, it doesn't exist with the way castles are built.

You must then analyze if the fault lies in 'raiding', or in the ease of moving SCs around (to prevent breaches in lines), or something else entirely. But the thing here is, you're not defining your problem clearly enough.

Would your suggestion of requiring an action to burn down temples solve the castling question? Perhaps. It removes what some claim is the incentive for castling. But is that fixing the problem, or only the symptoms of the problem?

Personally, I feel the issue stems down to SCs being too easy to build and too mobile by far. But I can't prove that either. This also isn't much of an issue for me as a player since I can't play MP very much.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Scott