Yet another Clamhoarding, Castling Discussion

[littlemute]

I think there's a right way to beat kids (the way I was beaten) and many wrong ways.

When we would beg for candy at the store we were told to stop, then told to stop with a warning that we would be spanked right there in the store (add the pain to the shame), then, of course, it would actually happen if we continued.

The second way was the worst. I'd do something wrong, like steal or lie or start a forest fire or shoot at people with a bb gun, something fairly bad. Then I was scolded and told to go to my room and come down for 'punishment.' The nature of which was never revealed until the moment of impact. What this does is takes the anger out of it and gives the parent a chance to cool down before laying on hands or the switch.

The whole "go out to the woodshed and find a switch to be beaten with and if it's too small, I'll pick it" gives the parent time to relax and strike the kid without any rage or feelings, simply execution of the logical conclusion to the child's poor actions.

As the kid gets older, you will really have to do damage to have them do anything but laugh at your spankings, so I'd say past 11 or so, no beatings. So what you do is 1) take **** away from them such as telling them when their 13 that when they get their driver's license you will take it away from them for 4 months...the span of time they'll never remember, but you will! ha ha! 2)Make them stand in front of a clock for hours 3)Wake them up VERY early to spread gravel on the driveway or dig a ditch on a saturday morning and keep them working the whole day, not even mentioning that it's punishment, but they'll know.

[Esben Mose Hansen]

Originally posted by spirokeat:
I've been mulling this over and I'm not sure that there is an overwhelming advantage at all to castling.
[...]
Now without going into minute. The various outcomes would seem to be, wait and knack his temple, remaining defenders, fast response army

Move to avoid his fast reponse army, which regardless of their being a castle there will effectively revert back to defender ownership.

The defender can fast response army directly to seiged prov or second guess your next move as hes obviously prepared to face your invading force otherwise this wouldn't be even in his mind.

So, castle or not, your either cat and mousing or planning to nail his force. All thats saved is the temple and any squishies.

You're going about it the wrong way. You want to squish the attacking army using ritual magic: teleport, gateway, the C9 4Death spell with the riders etc. There is no escape from these spells; the only way to dodge these attacks requires a lab... which you can't have as long as the castle remains in the province. The C9 Death spell is especially cool, since it is cheap&effective, and leaves you without an unwanted magic army and a liberated province. You can even use it to defend an ally, which makes the spell bloody unique

Stack the spells as neccessary.

To defend aginst this you need a large army --- enough to stand against anything the defender will throw against you. And since you will be attacked before you can move, you might as well siege the castle and destroy the temples & mages + gain a free castle.

This is an excellent strategy, which is attributed to Norfleet.

[spirokeat]

Verra late for me and much wine has oiled this evening..

Query. Should you choose to attack a province, then leave the next turn will a summoned spell army such as horde from hell or ghost riders etc attack you prior to your army moving ?

and is there any difference between being able to ghost riders/hordeetc on someone who is castled and someone who is not ? It would seem like that situation might well be a matter of intent, which again leads me to think, make an army big enough to stab up, 25 imps and one devil or 33 undead horse.

But this evenings reply is speculative. Im too wasted to cogitate what I want to say.

Spiro.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Query. Should you choose to attack a province, then leave the next turn will a summoned spell army such as horde from hell or ghost riders etc attack you prior to your army moving ?

Yup: A magically created attack will strike before you can leave the province on foot.

and is there any difference between being able to ghost riders/hordeetc on someone who is castled and someone who is not ?

Hordes wouldn't work because they'd sit in the castle and drink beer, but if the enemy army is slaughtered by Ghost Riders and you are castled, you do not need to send anyone to mop-up: Instead of becoming an independent province that you must send a guy to reclaim, who might then get killed, and then rebuild your temple, the enemy army simply dies and the province instantly reverts back to you.

There's also the benefit that you can build a lab in the province, which the enemy cannot make use of immediately upon seizing the province, and thus he cannot gateway large numbers of reinforcing troops in, nor teleport out.

[Blitz]

First, you might want to learn how to spell my name

You learn to spell it... WTF kinda screwed up spelling is that anyway?

[spirokeat]

So in essence, having a castle would mean you sent ghost riders and not having one a horde (meaning the diffrence). Were you to be only sending a summoned army that is.

And the lab, well if there wasn't a lab there anyway he would have to take a turn to build one so thats the same as seiging and taking the castled one. All under the same threat of retributive strike from the original defender.

It would seem to be a tactic of assest protection. If im going to build a lab that usually means I have a reason to, gem focal centre, summoned army producer, bloodhunters....Which if an enemy attacked I would be trying to retake in as hostile a manner as possible.

If its an empty province as it were, low pop, low gold, no sites or low production one etc. I probably wouldnt build a lab.

The reason Im going through these thought lines is because Im trying to understand why people would get 'overly' angry at it as a tactic....You attack an enemy and you know that the enemy is going to come for you with what hes got. Summoned, teleported, flying or on foot.

Its a chance you take to use a castle storming army behind your main strike/wall destruction army as to if you face a summoned force of riders or a main attack response.

Spiro

[Esben Mose Hansen]

There aren't many of us that get angry We just think it is a somewhat tedious strategy. I think it is all about the micromangement level you prefer.

Personally I would like to be able to mod castle income to the negative, so that maintaining a castle will cost you. That would mean fewer castles=>less micromangement=>happier Esben But Norfleet's tactic is fair and square, and I respect him for not only coming up with it but freely sharing it with the rest of us.