How to solve castling effect?

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Tuidjy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

And I've said that what you have said is not true, and mad castling with AllFather or BlueDragon is much more "brittle", as you put it, than with VQ. Are you disputing it?

I do not know about Norfleet, but I am disputing
it. I will take Odin against a VQ anyday. VQ is
better against masses of crap, but against SC and
thugs, including a VQ, Odin is significantly
better.

And both ARE brittle against a squad designed and
scripted to take them out.

---

I think you are missing the point Tuidjy. We are not talking about single battles. We are talking about the war. The war in which the player is defending completely castled dominion. Sure, you are correct, the Odin maybe as strong or even stronger than VQ in single battle against certain opponents. But the thing is every time you are using him you are risking to lose him, or even if you win you are risking to get nasty battle afflictions. Few affliction can easely cripple AllFather. A single death will hurt him a lot, since to be a strong SC he have to rely on several magaic pathes, which he will lose with death.


None of this matter at all to VQ. So she can just keep attacking armies who are trying to storm her fully castled dominion indeffiently, wearing them down or just wiping them out straight away, without any risk to herself.

When/if AllFather dies, his castled dominion defense is shattered. When VQ dies it doesn't mean anything to her. That's why the first case is "brittle", unlike the second case. Do you see what I mean?

[ May 27, 2004, 00:31: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[HotNifeThruButr]

So if I'm hearing things correctly, and I might not be, the problem comes in immortal Supercombatants and/or Ermor, where castles that you take over have no use.

Does any problem NOT spawn from SCs and Ermor?

[Maltrease]

The easiest way to solve the castlting problem (if it is indeed a problem) would be to charge a maintence fee for the castle.

One of the main reasons I build a castle now is in the increased income. You plop a wizards tower down on a province generating 100 coins and it has paid for itself in 20 turns. Plus you get a recruiting center and protection from raids.

If I had to pay 15 gold a turn instead of receiving it, I would build far fewer fortresses.

I don't actually support this change but it would solve the problem. I like investing in infrastrucute that pays dividends down the road.

[Cohen]

I believe raising the gem cost and path level required of all SCs summoning spell, and nerfing some pretenders should be nice too ...

Added to the issue about the Ghost Rider.

I'd improve the effect of scales too ...
Rabe idea is good too.

[ May 26, 2004, 12:20: Message edited by: Cohen ]

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by HotNifeThruButr:
So if I'm hearing things correctly, and I might not be, the problem comes in immortal Supercombatants and/or Ermor, where castles that you take over have no use.

Does any problem NOT spawn from SCs and Ermor?

Whining?

[Gandalf Parker]

This is someone who builds a castle in every province AND boosts the defence over 20 AND builds units in that province? If not then I would think that Pangaea, and maybe Man, would be the response.

[LintMan]

Originally posted by Anglachel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglachel:
Or simply not have temples auto-destroy upon conquering of a province. Require a commander to take out a turn to dismantle it much like someone dismantling thier own buildings in thier own province. Make the timing of the dismantling of said building take place after movement and combat giving time for trying to retake the province and protect the temple. Of course this wouldn't really solve castling but would remove the need to use castles to protect temples somewhat anyways.

Just a thought.

Hrmmmmm, I think I just just saw the problem with the above "fix" thanks to Lintman mentioning the ghost rider spell. If casting the spell on a castle-less province with a temple in it that has to be dismantled by a commander then what would happen to the province when the temple doesn't go away and the province goes to independant status? Oh well, was a nice thought while it Lasted.

---

I don't think that's a big problem... Two reasonable ways to deal with this situation are:
1) A temple in an independent province (or an enemy-held province) is marked as "abandoned" (or as someone else suggested: "damaged", and does not generate dominion checks until the temple owner restores control, or it is destroyed by the new province owner.
2) The temple works as normal in an independent province (and maybe even in an enemy-held one).

I don't think either of these options is unreasonable (though I prefer #1). Of course, either of these would require a bit of coding on Illwinter's part (with #2 likely a bit easier), but nothing that seems to me (as a programmer myself) that it would be particularly hard/complex to do.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And I've said that what you have said is not true, and mad castling with AllFather or BlueDragon is much more "brittle", as you put it, than with VQ. Are you disputing it?

Every time you crash a VQ, you lose a rather expensive suit of equipment. If you're just kamikazing a naked VQ into your opponent over and over, you're going to get smacked down over and over: A naked VQ is not really that tough, and can be easily killed: I've done it.

I have no way of knowing what happened in these games that you are refering to, no do I know the level of your oppoennts that you are talking about.

Given your history of lies and distortions you surely don't expect me to take your word on it.

I'm not protecting a cover identity here, so I have no reason to lie. Besides, reliable sources can corroborate the results.

The only possible and logical way for you to prove your point is to stop using the only tactic that you are constantly using to win your games, which is VQ + mad castling + clam hoarding.

I return in victory from a reported ladder match with a W9 Blue Dragon. The mad castling stays, however.

If you will win such games against experienced opponents than it'll be clear proof for everybody that you are indeed winning because of your skills and not because of the fact that you are using cheesy and exploitive strategy, that requres little skills to impliment. Since you never done that, prefering to use the same lame strategy in all your games, the rest of your "personal" examples is meaningless for the purpose of this discussion.

See above. Currently involved in another ongoing match with stock Pan and a Carrion Dragon instead.

Personally I've been in 4 games with you so far, and it was always the same - mad castling, massive clamhoarding(unless prohibited), and uber-VQs. Must be purely coincidence of course...

Given that you admittedly avoid games with me, this is hardly surprising. I have non-VQ pretenders when more applicable.

Death can happen. To VQ as well to any other pretender. Nobody is invincible. But some are immortal.

Death is the bride of the warrior, Stormbind. Your mother was a trout.

[ May 27, 2004, 04:32: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Death is the bride of the warrior, Stormbind. Your mother was a trout.

It's impossible to have logical discussion with you Norfleet. You are clearly sick and need a professional help.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
It's impossible to have logical discussion with you Norfleet. You are clearly sick and need a professional help.

Don't be silly. I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it. Why would I want help?