Can I get some cheese with that...

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
You see, lot of people (fortunately) don't want to use your strategy.

Perhaps you believe that,

---

It doesn't matter that much what I believe, it's what more and more people believe. As you can see a lot of people are creating games with houserules to specifically prevent the very same exploits you are using. (not to mention specifically baring you for cheating and dishonest behaviour, but that's completely different matter )


Literally speaking you are diging your own grave by making your exploits more and more prominent, and I think that it's a good thing for Dom2 community.

but the truth is, I've seen people attempting to adopt it...and getting nowhere with it. I am not the only VQ player. I am not the only castle-builder....but I'm the only one who does well with it. Why is that?

*shrug* Because you are more experienced with your exploits than other exploiters who are copycating it from you? Is this something to be proud of?

I told you already, it doesn't prove anything. YOU have to beat other competent players by NOT using some combination of your standard madcastling+VQ+clamshoarding. That will be the strong and the only proof that you are wining not because of your lame exploits. Nothing else can archieve such results. It's simple logic, I don't know why are you not geting it.

Instead try for once beat competent opponents _not_ using your only strategy, but trying anything else.

You mean, like, say, a water-9 Vanheim bless strategy? Just won a game with that. No VQ involved.

You forgot to mention mad castling. Did you play without it as well?

[ May 27, 2004, 09:41: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
You forgot to mention mad castling. Did you play without it as well?

The castles were built to keep out pesky enemy VQs, since everyone knows vampires can't come inside unless they're invited. Besides, what ELSE would you build in a province? Temples would explode constantly. Plus that annoying sacred troop limit requires castles to enable their churn-out, temples to increase the rate at which they can be churned out...and castles again to protect said temples.

Everything in Dom2 boils down to those temples, after all, and when your production bandwidth depends on those temples, even losing control of one temporarily as suggested in a proposed solution would be unacceptable.

[ May 27, 2004, 09:41: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
[qb]You forgot to mention mad castling. Did you play without it as well?

The castles were built to keep out pesky enemy VQs

---

So much for playing differently and proving the point. Whom do you think you are fooling?

[ May 27, 2004, 09:54: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Kel]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kel:
Is it a whine du jour because they didn't keep beating it into the ground for a month ?

The reason it's a "whine du jour" is because it only recently appeared.

---

That really isn't evidence to dismiss something without giving it any more thought than that. Everything that occurs...occurs for a first time at some point.

New strategies can reveal new problems. They should be given consideration on their merits or lack thereof.

- Kel

So if suddenly everyone starts playing games with House Rules that you can't play with Undead then suddenly Undead are overpowered?

Norfleet's 'strategies' get the incredible whine factor because they take the fun out of the game in as much it becomes a grind to play. That can happen with any game, many of which are balanced. Certain extremes will always be boring and more effort than is fun to play.

That doesn't mean it's inbalanced, only that it creates a situation of frustration to the point of not playing because it's more aggrivating than fun.

That is not a balance issue that is just someone using their advantage of playing a mind-numbingly boring style in order to eventually frustrate and have people quit instead of actually fighting.

Edit: For a very visible Example: Imagine playing D&D and you're the type of player who plays less about the rules and more about the roleplaying and other aspects and on the other end of the table you are playing with 4-5 Rules Lawyers with Books Strapped to their hands and a sour disposition to the way their character is going. Every minute is an instant bickerfest about any and every interpretation.

[ May 27, 2004, 13:59: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Gandalf Parker]

It used to be a standard statement that everyone gangs up on Ermor first because they are so hard to beat later. Now I guess it will be standard game to gang up on Norfleet first, then play.

Of course that leads to new strategys where you manuever to end up in the best provinces while investing the least amount of troops into the "wipe Norfleet" project.

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
I thought the whine du jour was whining, and the fact that the forums don't support killfiles?

Yes, the other whine du jour is whining about whining. Or perhaps we should call it meta-whining?

[Vynd]

I like what Tuidjy and Cainehill are saying, which I sum up as "the problem isn't castles, the problem is raiding." For that matter, this is one of the main reasons Norfleet gives for pursuing a castling strategy, although I don't know that he considers castling or raiding to be "problems."

Anyway, if it wasn't so easy for enemy armies to get into your territory and wander around, avoiding battle with your armies, while burning down your temples, ramping up your unrest, and forcing you to devote disproportionate forces to pinning them down and destroying them, then castling would cease to be such an attractive strategy. It would still have its uses, but as folks have pointed out, it has its drawbacks as well. However, so long as it is the best (almost only) way to stop raiders, trying to do anything to limit the strategy would be a mistake, I think.

I like Cainehill's suggestion that it actually require effort of some sort to destroy an enemy temple. Although I'm not sure if the game can handle the idea of a temple and the land it is built on belonging to different people. Tuidjy's suggestion about loyalty is also a good one.

My own sugestion us that the movement rules be tweaked such that it is possible to intercept an enemy army in the space that it starts the turn in, even if it has orders to move somewhere else. In other words, make it possible to catch raiders. You could start with some sort of base chance of getting to the province before the enemy leaves it (33%?), and then modify it by comparing the strategic movement speeds of the armies involved. Alas, I have no idea if Illwinter is interested in making changes like these at this point...

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Kel:
For either side to dismiss arguments based on anything other than actual, valid points, on the subject itself, demonstrates both a lack of respect and a losing argument, imo.

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.

(And, by the way, I have never used any of these tactics myself.)

[Tris]

That's a really good point Vynd. You could argue that the unbalanced strategy is raiding, and castling is just the best way to defeat that.

There are actually two ways to see this:

Raiding is the problem, it won't let you build temples (because they get destroyed really easily) and you need those temples to defeat other peoples dominion. Castling just helps you defeat raiding. People should be able to build temples in every province and guard them. It's frustrating having someone just turn up and trash 200gp worth of temple.

Castling is the problem, because it does let you build lots of temples. This means the only way to fight the dominion of a castler is to have lots of temples yourself (because you can't destroy his easily). Raiding is needed when people build temples too close to borders, or too many temples. People shouldn't be able to build temples in every province and guard them. It's part of the game to intelligently choose where to invest in your 200gp worth of temple.

I suspect these aren't "right" and "wrong". But (assuming one of these needs solving, which may not be true) the one to solve is the one which solving will make the game more fun. I'd 'solve' the castling, as I think I prefer the style of game this would lead to.

Of course, there may also be other problems associated with each strategy on top. In fact I'm sure there are. I suspect some people will still castle everywhere even if it is reasonably possible to intercept raiders anywat. Don't you love how even the bits that might need fixing in Dominions 2 are so complex :-)

Addendum: Solution to raiding strategy without castling: Lower the cost of PD. Bigger armies are now needed to overcome reasonable cost PD, and so raiding costs more.