TRUE effectiveness of VQ/castling/clam-hoarding

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

Tales of losses using using the title strategies are perhaps even more welcome than tales of victory.

Hopefully the Tales of losses will provide more information then the previous post.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

Tales of losses using using the title strategies are perhaps even more welcome than tales of victory.

Hmm, I wonder why?

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

I am not a nice person. Otherwise, I wouldn't have anything worth quoting.
-Norfleet

[ May 26, 2004, 22:24: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by NTJedi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

Tales of losses using using the title strategies are perhaps even more welcome than tales of victory.

Hopefully the Tales of losses will provide more information then the previous post.

---

[Cheezeninja]

Doing very simple arithmetic, you can easily come to the conclusion that no matter how leet your strategy is, if its widly popular there will be far more losses than successes. In order to really gauge the effectiveness of a strategy you would need to eliminate so many variables as to make it extremely difficult if not almost impossible in practice. If you ask Cohen how effective the strategy is, he would tell you not very (as he said earlier in this thread). But if you were to ask Norfleet you would get an entirely different result. But how much of this is dependant on the strategy, and how much on simple skill with the game? Norfleet might be able to completely ignore the conjuration branch of magic and still win more than 50% of his games... does this then make ignoring conjuration a valid strategy? If i could find a strategy where i was guaranteed to be one of the Last 2 people left in the game i would consider that a very effective strategy even if i lost every time.

Not sure if i really have a point... but this game has so many variables that i think the only real way to know if a strategy works is to try it for yourself and see if you have fun, if you do, then it worked! hooray for you.

[ May 27, 2004, 01:08: Message edited by: Cheezeninja ]

[Cohen]

I'll tell you instead it's very effective.

I played many times against Vanheim ... he raided all my provinces with his glamouring troops, except those castled. And my abysyan infantry was too slow, to resource cost, to keep the pace with Vans!

But at least my castles saved my temples.
And provinces too.
The fact is even with fiends of darkness patrolling you can catch Vans! And they can get rid of PD quite easily.

Every time I castled, I found myself better, til Norfleet come to knok to my castles gate.

The fact castling is long and requires time and efforts ... since I'm not a skilled player in having quickly some SCs I get bashed.
Get some SCs that can avoid you to buy troops, so you've more money for temples and labs, and the bigger job is done.

However to prove the effectiveness, you should hear Norfleet who's skilled not a noob like me.
Best thing to evaluate how is effective? Play against Norfleet.

[ May 27, 2004, 01:44: Message edited by: Cohen ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Cohen:
Every time I castled, I found myself better, til Norfleet come to knok to my castles gate.

That's because having done enough castling of my own, and played against fellow castlers that I trained, I'm familiar with the techniques for kicking in the doors and taking over the castle. Castles are not impregnable....but they *DO* impede anything other than serious attack: No more raiding.

It can greatly slow the advance of an enemy army, giving you time to regroup. However, if you have nothing to regroup WITH, then what's the point?

[Norfleet]

dp

[ May 27, 2004, 06:09: Message edited by: Norfleet ]