Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion

[HotNifeThruButr]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
These are, incidentally, the same people likely to complain that the game is taking too long, or complain that their turns in a large-map game are now too much work because it takes them 2 hours to complete. This is because they have the attention spans of 6-year old hyperactive children and can't be bothered to concentrate on any task that takes longer than 30 seconds to complete.

Too long, didn't read

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I place the blame firmly on the fact that they were not beaten frequently enough as small children and did not suffer sufficient hardship and deprivation while growing up.

It's nice to know that you approve of child abuse along with all your other psychological problems.

[Boron]

but i think norfleet is correct .
i can't see any point why castling should be forbidden .
it gives you 1 turn time to react normally . a watchtower has no other advantages than this .
as norfleet said it gives you instead an early disadvantage . unless playing ermor ( there you have other castles which are worse ) you have
-reduced income in your capitol compared to the 40 admin castle
-much worse troop production capacity
if you have good capitol only troops you have a serious disadvantage in building them with a watchtower .

since a watchtower has no walls storming it is easy . it has very little defense so normally after 1 ! turn it can be stormed .

so in general the only thing a watchtower gives you is delaying the enemy attack 1!! turn and choosing if you want to react .
compared to the disadvantages i really don't see why most people here on the forums are whining about mad castling .

ihmo you have only 2 choices :
- cheap watchtower for castling every province .
- the 80 point 40 admin castle .
all other castles are suboptimal choices ihmo .

and another small argument for the watchtower :
some races like mictlan , machaka ... have quite resourcecheap national troops but crappy militia .
you need normally a 2-3 times bigger force to defeat an ulmish pd than to defeat an mackaka pd of equal size .

so any rules limiting use of castles are in favour of e.g. ulm which normally is better building only a few castles for troop production than castling everything . but they have better pd to compensate .

so forbidding mad castling as a mpgamerule is unfair and not the other way round .
norfleet is totally right

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Boron:

"so forbidding mad castling as a mpgamerule is unfair and not the other way round .
norfleet is totally right "

It is only unfair if you are FORCED to play one of the penalised races.

OTOH I agree with your analysis but then I am totally nooblacious.


Pickles

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
It's nice to know that you approve of child abuse along with all your other psychological problems.

I do not call being smacked with a ruler for failure to pay attention in class child abuse. I do not call being spanked for failure to follow the rules child abuse. But I doubt you're old enough to understand. You weren't around then. You don't remember what it was like.

[Boron]

Originally posted by Pickles:
Originally posted by Boron:

"so forbidding mad castling as a mpgamerule is unfair and not the other way round .
norfleet is totally right "

It is only unfair if you are FORCED to play one of the penalised races.

OTOH I agree with your analysis but then I am totally nooblacious.


Pickles

thnx for agreeing

just in a hopefully more understandable way some more explanation of my point of view :

if you take watchtowers with this nations they aren't penalised that much because this is their way to cope for their weak defense
if you play mictlan and protect your provinces with watchtowers ( the ones with your bloodhunters first ) it is okay .
but if you are forced by the rule to build only 1 castle per e.g. 3 provinces it is a big disadvantage for e.g. mictlan while it is a big advantage for e.g. ulm .

so a no castling rule forces you to not take some nations because it is unwise .
while with castling these races are much more competetive .
mictlans blood hunters e.g. are protected for 1 turn this way and you can send in a rescue force of demons e.g.
as norfleet said otherwise e.g. a ulmish pd will much easier defeat a ghost riders force than a machaka/mictlan one .
if you didn't have a castle you couldn't afford to protect the province without a standing army which is too expensive mostly . while with the castle you don't loose your temple / lab immediately and the ghost riders spell in particular is totally useless against you while it would be almost "unbalanced" if you may only recruit pd .

[ June 30, 2004, 17:10: Message edited by: Boron ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I do not call being smacked with a ruler for failure to pay attention in class child abuse. I do not call being spanked for failure to follow the rules child abuse. But I doubt you're old enough to understand. You weren't around then. You don't remember what it was like.

How old I am is irrelevant, as are both of your examples above, since neither qualifies for the "beating" descriptor. When you say that children aren't beaten enough, you are stating that children aren't physically injured enough through repetitive blows, since that's basically what the term means.