Can I get some cheese with that... [Archive]

Tuidjy

May 26th, 2004, 10:28 PM

Frankly I do not understand what the problem with
castle spamming is. I play Vans. If you go to
war with me, you will lose every single
unfortified temple in, oh, about five turns.

There are some people on this thread who are
familiar with the experience. At least one
of them has taken up castling religiously, so
now instead of burninating his empire, I
am besieging three castles, and gambling on his
Vampire Queen not being called up from the dead
too quickly.

Do you honestly propose that we start using rules
that _enforce_ leaving your provinces
vulnerable? Or do you accuse people building a
castle in each province of playing a cheap game?

Personally I do not build castles extensively.
Not because I am ashamed of it, or because I do
not think it is a good idea. Mostly, it is
because I cannot afford it, or because I am
hoping that I can get away with it unless I am
facing Vanheim, Man, Ulm, Pangea, Caelum, ...
you know, what, nevermind! :-)

Once the game gets going, and supercombatants
raise their ugly heads, having provinces without
a castle is a waste of your 200 gold coins, and
of most of the income you can get from the
province.

So lets see. Why do people whine about castling?
1. Because they do not like micromanaging, and
want to deny others the benefits of doing it?
2. Because they like their administration bonus,
and do not want to give it up?
3. Because they have trouble to keep supply
adequate without a fortified city?
4. Because their strategy is not able to support
the expense of castling?
5. Because they like being able to raid
indiscriminately?
6. Because they need something to whine about?

Guys, castling is not only the one in-game answer
to raiding, it is also perfectly realistic. I am
from Europe. In most places, it is enough to
look at the highest place in sight, and you will
see a castle. This is certainly the case in
France, Germany and Spain. Why? Because building
a castle that allows you to protect your villagers
and lifestock, and strike at the invaders, should
they separate for pillaging, WORKS!

Now, people are proposing solutions to alleviate
the need of castling. I'm all for that! Make
temples take a turn to demolish. Make it
impossible to bump taxes unless you have held the
province for a whole turn. Make it a bit easy to
intercept a moving army. Fine! Thank you very
much! I do not want to pay 500 coins for my
temple. I could use some ressources. But the
problem is not castling. The problem is the
wack-a-mole approach to handling an army moving
in your lands.

My way of handling this? Introduce loyalty in
provinces. Make those who move between loyal
provinces move first, as opposed to those moving
between occupied provinces. This simulates the
army supported by the population having access to
better logistics, better recon, and not being
harrassed by loyalists. Hell, introduce a new
command 'move while intercepting' that will
deflect the path of the army to coincide with the
targeted invader's destination.

Of course this is complex, and will not happen in
a patch. But do NOT cripple castling without
coming up with an answer to raiding first, or the
next whine fest will be:

So his IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE Vans slaughtered my 400
coins strong PD, burned my 200 coins temple,
jacked the taxes to net 200 coins, and then left
me with 50% unrest. Oh, they hid on the next
turn, so there WAS NOTHING I COULD DO!

WHAAAAAAH!'

HotNifeThruButr

May 27th, 2004, 01:23 AM

I think I've just had a revelation.

If labs were more expensive, requiring you to plan out which of your provinces will become magical centers, you can effectively stop Norfleet's mage-dependant strategy, right?

Or, there could be different types of labs. Smaller and cheaper ones reduce your ability to research, or multiplies mage cost, either handicapping your ability to field the best summons before everyone else with your mage army or making it more expensive to pump mages. It does, however, have an advantage of expensive labs which divides mage cost and improves research because in the better labs, you're keeping all of your eggs in a couple baskets and you can't pump mages as well. Cheap labs also allow you to blood hunt in virtually every province but one.

What do you think?

Cheezeninja

May 27th, 2004, 02:26 AM

I personally still believe the problem lies in the supercombatant instead of castling. If your opponent could not teleport in a force capable of defeating your besiegers in 1 turn then castling would no longer work. His castles that he made in all his provinces would subsiquently become YOUR castles because he would not be able to afford a large army since all his money has been going into hi..YOUR castles. I think the ability to intercept raiding armies better would be a definite plus, but if you think about it, if you actually had to move an army around to defend your castles, suddenly castling everywhere is alot less effective. I think commanders should be capable of inflicting massive losses on the enemy, but should not be so good at becoming completely invulnerable to endless hordes of anything that isnt elite.

Yes, castling is a problem, but its only made possible because of Supercombatants that can defeat your besieging army by their lonesome.

Cainehill

May 27th, 2004, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
Well, the current whine du jour seems to have moved off somewhat from VQs and clam hoarding to "castle spamming."I thought the whine du jour was whining, and the fact that the forums don't support killfiles? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Whether or not any of these activities may be broken, why does it seem that the first reaction of people unhappy with these is to propose nerfs, rather than strategies to deal with the tactics in question?Norfleeting, er, mad castling, has always struck me as a beatable strategy. As someone (NTJedi?) also posted here, Machaka could have a -bunch- of its best troops for the cost of 10 cheap castles.

From what Norfleet in particular has said, mad castling relies on not building troops. (In order to afford the castles.)

So, my theory is that if you haven't been castling, you should be able to build, say, three armies each capable of taking a castle. (Or at least a watchtower http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) Striking multiple provinces, preferably each too far apart for a VQ or other flyer to get from one to another inside of a single turn means that a lone SC can only respond to a single attack; in the meantime, you've acquired two provinces and two castles without having to build the castles yourself.

And the troops aren't there to respond to the other two attacks, in theory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Where I think this breaks down is with summoned troops and commanders, which the mad castler can often manage if sie's concentrating on mages, research, and finding magic sites.

The other thing is that the castles typically used are pretty worthless for the other player - watchtowers, or worse, Ermor's 0 admin keeps.

So, my theoretical counterstrategy requires work. Probably it'd be best to attempt to strike the Mad Castler early in the game, before a preponderance of summonings are brought to bear. Obviously, this can be unfeasible with huge maps.

The other tweak would be to rely heavily on flying troops yourself, for mobility and the ability to quickly reduce enemy forts. Again - difficult to do save for a very few nations / themes.

Cainehill

May 27th, 2004, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Tuidjy:

Now, people are proposing solutions to alleviate
the need of castling. I'm all for that! Make
temples take a turn to demolish. Make it
impossible to bump taxes unless you have held the
province for a whole turn.
In addition to a good description of Europe, where castles, forts, and towers large and small can be found almost every square mile in some parts, for good reason, Tuidjy has a really good point about the temples.

Why does it take a nation a full month of a commander's time to destroy their _OWN_ temple, but an invader, even an attack and immediately go poof spell invader, destroy it immediately?

Really seems to make more sense that it would require one month of a commander's time to destroy it. Otherwise - the original temple is still there.

Maybe it still benefits the original deity. Maybe it doesn't, since the priests and temple-tenders are presumably at least in hiding. But having to devote a commander to destroying the temple only makes sense. And it means that a commander is there, visible, for that turn, and thus vulnerable to Magic Arrows, Ghost Riders, Call of the Wild, teleporting / air trapezing mages, etc.

Destroying the temple would thus be risky, but important - you can't build your own temple while that temple is there, and you also don't want to leave the enemy's temple there for them to recover by retaking the province.

Kel

May 27th, 2004, 05:35 AM

I think the initial post is a bit inflammatory and unneccessarily one sided. Normally, I wouldn't post in response to one person's point of view but your post was a good example of one extreme 'side' of every balance argument that goes on so I wanted to post my thoughts. This isn't aimed at you so much as the statements that are represented here (which you happened to make in this case).

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
Well, the current whine du jour seems to have moved off somewhat from VQs and clam hoarding to "castle spamming."People said what they had to say. Is it a whine du jour because they didn't keep beating it into the ground for a month ? Those people still feel that way so calling it a whine du jour lacks foundation and is inflammatory (as opposed to if it was inflammatory but had a valid point behind it). Would it be better if they said something about it EVERY day of every week of every month so it would no longer be a whine of the day ?

Whether or not any of these activities may be broken, why does it seem that the first reaction of people unhappy with these is to propose nerfs, rather than strategies to deal with the tactics in question?Why does it seem that the first reaction of people that use the strategies is to call everyone else a whiner or a newbie rather than make a point about the actual subject ?

Or has everyone proposing nerfs done extensive testing of the various strategies and proven that they can't be beaten?
Representing extremes is fine lawyering and good drama but it isn't really fair. Don't you think it is likely that the truth is in the middle ? That *most* people probably have tried several different things but it was neither their 'first reaction' nor have they done 'extensive testing and proven they can't be beaten' ? Honestly, don't you think the truth is in the middle here ? Do you really think that every complaint comes from a single game experience ?

And if it can be beaten, why would people equate that with it being balanced, other than that they have run out of logic ? I mean, if you want to use that argument, every single unit in the game is exactly as good as every other unit because there are open ended dice rolls and anyone could win any combat at any specific time.

Or are some players just wishing that the game was designed differently--to suit the fact that they don't like playing against a given strategy? I think it is inappropriately disrespectful to assume that everyone who brings up a balance discussion is wrong, not because of specific points but rather to dismiss them and assume negative character traits about their personalities. Why do they all have to have ulterior motives, based on being weak willed, rash and whiny ? I mean, that is basically the answer that some people use for every balance discussion.

Tthis is probably true in some cases, don't get me wrong, just as there are people on the OTHER side who don't want changes in their game for the *exact* same reasons. 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.

- Kel

Thank you for enduring my brief rant.

JJ_Colorado

May 27th, 2004, 06:14 AM

Kel - nice post.

I agree. The constant superior attitude, arrogance, and cynicism of some posters gets old. Sure there is some whining but I think some of the points raised about DOM2 play balance are valid and they get grouped immediately into the "whining" Category. Whatever.

--John

<rant>
P.S. What is this "we don't suffer fools" cr*p? Get off your high horses. Sheesh.
</rant>

[ May 27, 2004, 06:00: Message edited by: JJ_Colorado ]

Yossar

May 27th, 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by HotNifeThruButr:
I think I've just had a revelation.

If labs were more expensive, requiring you to plan out which of your provinces will become magical centers, you can effectively stop Norfleet's mage-dependant strategy, right?
Not especially. You only need one lab to summon and forge and you don't need that many to hire mages. Although, maybe Norfleet is hiring more mages than I expect. It would hinder teleporting SCs but most of them can fly which is almost as good. Expensive labs would also break any nation that depended on lots of cheap mages - R'lyeh, Abysia Blood of Humans, etc.

Norfleet

May 27th, 2004, 09:11 AM

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. If it was an actual, serious issue, it would have been apparent for a long time, but because it only appears shortly after somebody dishes out a merciless beating to the aforementioned whining party, it's a "whine du jour": There aren't even people who can reproduce the results.

For instance, consider the current whine-du-jour: castle-spamming: how many people do it and are actually SUCCESSFUL? Of the people who complain about it, how many of them were introduced to it by being my victim....and if it's so great and wonderful, why are more people not doing it with better success?

Stormbinder

May 27th, 2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
and if it's so great and wonderful, why are more people not doing it with better success? [/QB]The answer to this is actually quite simple, but it may be difficult for you to uderstand Norfleet. (no insult intended here, but I think you just don't think in the same way as most of the other people who play Dom2. )

You see, lot of people (fortunately) don't want to use your strategy. You are obviously under impression that all people play this game just like you Norfleet - to win at all cost, using every exploit allowed by game mechanics. No tactic is too cheesy, abusive or boring for you as long as it allows you to win the game.

The truth however, is that a lot of people don't want to use your lame strategy, no matter how efficient it is. They are playing this game to have fun first, and the wining is secondary.

I don't think you can understand this idea though, since for you using same exploits in every game seem _to be_ fun. But for other people it is not. That's why they are creating houserules to prevent known abuses and preserve interesting and differnt gameplay, instead of having 16 VQs playing mad castling and clam hoarding just like you do.

I think you can be considered to be beneficial to the community, from certain point of view, since you seem to be pretty good in finding exploits and pushing them to the limit. Maybe developers will notice it and do something about it in next patches. If not, there are always houserules, which are being used more and more every week. The harder and more often you and your copycats will use your strategy, the stronger the rejection reaction will become, and the more often games will be created to prevent the abusive strategy that you are using.

Obvioulsy you may flatter yourself thinking that this houserules are created to prevent _you_ in game, since you are so good. But you are clearly wrong, and you can easely see it for yourslef, if you want proof for it - I'll tell you how. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Asking "why I can beat people who are using the same exploits as I do " is meaningless. Instead try for once beat competent opponents _not_ using your only strategy, but trying anything else. If you win, that it'll be the best and only proof that you are wining not because of you standard exploitive strategy but because you are actually strong player on your own, and I'll publicly admit it myslef. But frankly I don't think you will, based upon what what I saw in our Last game.

I do not deny that you have knowledge of the game, but so are many other people on this forum. 95% of your success though comes from your only exploitive strategy, that you perfected. Of course you don't want to admit it, since it would deflate your huge ego. Frankly if I would be in your shoes I would find it extremely boring and mindboggling, but you seem to be geting thrill from just wining the games no matter how, and that overweigh everything else.

*shrug*

[ May 27, 2004, 09:16: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Norfleet

May 27th, 2004, 10:11 AM

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

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.

Stormbinder

May 27th, 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
You see, lot of people (fortunately) don't want to use your strategy.Perhaps you believe that,<hr /></blockquote>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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

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

May 27th, 2004, 10:39 AM

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

May 27th, 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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<hr /></blockquote>http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

May 27th, 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.<hr /></blockquote>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

May 27th, 2004, 02:50 PM

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

May 27th, 2004, 03:07 PM

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

May 27th, 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
I thought the whine du jour was whining, and the fact that the forums don't support killfiles? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Yes, the other whine du jour is whining about whining. Or perhaps we should call it meta-whining? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Vynd

May 27th, 2004, 03:23 PM

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

May 27th, 2004, 03:48 PM

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

May 27th, 2004, 04:02 PM

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.

NTJedi

May 27th, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by 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.
I agree... it sounds like people are playing these games with very little diplomacy. Players should be sending Messages(from within the game) to other players for trading, setting up alliances and secret attacks... same as we've seen in history. Perhaps Norfleet is the only one using diplomacy to influence gamers.

Tuidjy

May 27th, 2004, 04:44 PM

Exactly how much are you going to lower the cost
of PD defense? I take capitals with my
standard raiding party (herse + 8 Vans) and no
losses. That without a high blessing (a6w4s4d4b4)
Except for Ulm and Jorunheim, PD is useless. And
frankly if PD, costing less than a castle, were
able to stop one of my late game raiding parties
(Drott + 5 Herse), PD would be a problem.

BTW, I have taken down 51 points of Jotunheim PD
with (High Seraph + 5 Seraphs + Couatl)

And frankly, what is the problem with castling
and VQs? In one of my games right now, I am
rolling up my opponent's castles. Maybe I should
write a journal about what is happenening (he has
a VQ, I do not) And no, it is not boring to play
catch with the queen. It is actually quite
entertaining.

Especially in flux-dominion.

Kel

May 27th, 2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.) <hr /></blockquote>That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel

May 27th, 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel No, you have yet to prove it. Lets see some hard #'s, that don't rely on any combination of events and strategies that any one single aspect of whatever evidence you are bringing.

Long ago I did a breakdown of Clam's and later Peter (may he rest in peace with many women and large tracts of land) gave another breakdown. With the #'s presented it was shown that you can abuse it, but only in specific circumstances with a specific gameset and only really viable for a very slim selection of circumstance.

I have seen no instance of this for castling and the only time for VQ's in beta testing. Apparently the proof is 'sounds like to me' or 'what I've seen' or 'from the games I've played with 1 person' not conclusive facts. Fear a Justice system where proof and evidence is presented by gamers who either don't have the time or willing to back up their arguments with any sort of reasonable statements.

[ May 27, 2004, 16:45: Message edited by: Zen ]

Master Shake

May 27th, 2004, 05:49 PM

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 CAN intercept raiders as the game is now. If a raiding army is moving to another one of your provinces, you move in before he moves out if you army is faster or smaller. In addition, you can cast distant summons (ghost riders, call of the winds, etc.) that attack before movement.

I take capitals with my standard raiding party (herse + 8 Vans)...... my late game raiding parties (Drott + 5 Herse) I think people are referring to raiding parties costing 800 - 1500 gold (if I can calculate the above listed rading parties based soley on memory). Of course an army costing that much should wipe out PD. Imagine a rading party costing 1200 gold attacking your empire. They wipe out 5 temples, but on the seventh try you catch them with a large army and kill them. Then it's a wash. You lost 1000 gold in temples, plus some province income each turn for 5 turns, they lost a 1200 gold army.

I find that building too many castles is often a stupid idea for any living race. There is no way to defend so many castles, so you are guaranteed to give up some to your enemy. Then, your enemy has a new supply center, a fortified position, and a place to recruit and summon new units inside your empire. If someone wants to spend 300 gold on a castle in every province, that's fine. I'd rather spend that money on armies to seige and claim those castles for my own.

Reverend Zombie

May 27th, 2004, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
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.
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel <hr /></blockquote>How are these tactics illegitimate, and what is the evidence?

It's hard to refute opinions, and other than reports of "I hate playing against a castlespamming VQ clam-hoarder" I have not seen much evidence put forth that any of these are in any way illegitmate.

I will grant that VQs appear to be underpriced compared to some other Pretenders, or rather, some of the 125 pt. Pretenders are probably overpriced.

But...how can buidling castles be illegitimate? Where does that particular line of thinking stop? Should we limit the number of temples a player can build? Number of labs? Number of uber summons? Number of mages? Number of provinces to take a turn? Why not, and how is it different for the reasons given for outlawing castlespamming?

Vynd

May 27th, 2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Master Shake:
You CAN intercept raiders as the game is now. If a raiding army is moving to another one of your provinces, you move in before he moves out if you army is faster or smaller. In addition, you can cast distant summons (ghost riders, call of the winds, etc.) that attack before movement.
Heh, is that so? You know, I think I've heard so many complaints about how impossible it is to catch raiders before they move on, that I never actually tried this. Or if I did, it didn't work under those particular circumstances.

Scott Hebert

May 27th, 2004, 06:15 PM

An interesting discussion, as always.

First, a suggestion for improvement based on reducing micromanagement, to help Mosehansen.

Is it possible to enable a switch, on a commander-level, to stop the pooling of gems from them? The 'large-scale' issue is one of blood sacrifices, but it would also help to avoid the pooling of gems from someone you don't want, which might increase the possibility that gem-requiring battle magic is used (I don't use it in my games primarily for this reason.)

I envision something of a toggle on the Commander orders box, or a toggle box on the Commander's information screen. I don't know how hard this would be to implement, but I just wanted to make a suggestion.

To reduce castling is actually very simple: increase the cost of all castles. I would think that doubling the cost would be about the right amount. With that, I doubt anyone could put a Castle in every province and hope to defend them.

Now, how to avoid the raiding issue? Well, I think the fair way would be to have Move orders processed based on the relative Supply values for each player in the Province being moved to. That is, the closer you are to your supply base, the earlier you would move. Therefore, the deeper you raid into Enemy Territory, the easier you are to catch (theoretically). As a side effect, that would encourage two other historically accurate points. First, castles would be built on borders, both to reduce the enemy's ability to raid and enhance yours. Second, expansion would involve more 'circular' motion. That is, it would be better, from a defense standpoint, to expand in all directions, rather than in a line fashion. This is already strengthened by other game factors, so it shouldn't be a problem.

If this were to happen, raiding would be, essentially, in-and-out. You would raid 'borders', basically. Those nations that are built to raid (e.g., Caelum) don't lose those advantages under this system.

Another minor point is that this would strengthen those castles with better Supply values that have other trade-offs (Fortified City and Wizard's Tower), as they would support more in-depth raiding. It would also boost the Growth scale, which currently is not nearly as useful as certain other scales.

OTOH, Nature magic would _not_ benefit raiding, as Supply bonuses from Nature Magic/items subtract from Supply Used, not add to Supply. Thus, this idea makes the most use of already in-place mechanics.

Anyway, feel free to comment. I'm sure I missed a lot of problems with this idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Scott Hebert
Newbie

Vynd

May 27th, 2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by 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 [...]

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 hadn't really thought about it from this second angle, Tris, but it seems to me that you're right. One could call raiding the "solution" to the "problem" of too many temples, and thus see castling as a "problem" because it allows people to maintain too many temples too easily, despite raiding. However, I still think that raiding is a big part of what makes castling attractive, so if castling is a problem then raiding is part of it.

Also, it is a mistake to fixate on how raiding makes temples vulnerable, as if all raiders did was destroy 200 gold temples. For one thing, temples represent more than 200 gold, they also represent the time and effort involved in getting a priest over there and having him spend a turn building the temple. This, as Cainehill pointed out, is in contrast to the free, no action required, destruction of the temple. Furthermore, raiders do a lot more than destroy temples. They deprive you of income and gems, gain them for their owners, spread unrest in "your" territory, wipe out PD and/or isolated units, and require you to track them down with superior forces and destroy them if you want them to stop.

May 27th, 2004, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Bayushi Tasogare:
Now, how to avoid the raiding issue? Well, I think the fair way would be to have Move orders processed based on the relative Supply values for each player in the Province being moved to. That is, the closer you are to your supply base, the earlier you would move. Therefore, the deeper you raid into Enemy Territory, the easier you are to catch (theoretically). As a side effect, that would encourage two other historically accurate points. First, castles would be built on borders, both to reduce the enemy's ability to raid and enhance yours. Second, expansion would involve more 'circular' motion. That is, it would be better, from a defense standpoint, to expand in all directions, rather than in a line fashion. This is already strengthened by other game factors, so it shouldn't be a problem.

If this were to happen, raiding would be, essentially, in-and-out. You would raid 'borders', basically. Those nations that are built to raid (e.g., Caelum) don't lose those advantages under this system.

Another minor point is that this would strengthen those castles with better Supply values that have other trade-offs (Fortified City and Wizard's Tower), as they would support more in-depth raiding. It would also boost the Growth scale, which currently is not nearly as useful as certain other scales.

OTOH, Nature magic would _not_ benefit raiding, as Supply bonuses from Nature Magic/items subtract from Supply Used, not add to Supply. Thus, this idea makes the most use of already in-place mechanics.

Anyway, feel free to comment. I'm sure I missed a lot of problems with this idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Scott Hebert
Newbie See, this is an excellent suggestion that addresses a number of issues. It is also historically and thematically pertinant and visible.

It not only makes protecting territory less of a hassle, but adds another element of randomness (especially if you blank out the Supply factor from other players visibity (except maybe spies) and add in a random roll to it).

Now I don't know how easy it would be to code, or if it's even viable with code constraints. But a very good suggestion and well thought out.

Kudos to Scott.

Edit: This will still not affect the CT/Teleport/flying raiding SC's, but for the amount of gems that are used to create them for that purpose, they should have an advantage of mobility.

[ May 27, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Zen ]

Taqwus

May 27th, 2004, 06:54 PM

If the move order were tweaked with, I wouldn't mind seeing an army's strategic move factored in, probably affected by survival skills vs terrain.
In the extreme case, for instance, it should be fairly hard for an army of move-1 Abysian Lava Warriors to leave a province to attack another they just overran before a Vastness or Doom Horror arrives from next door. Less extreme, Machakan spider knights in a forest should have an easier time of keeping the initiative than would their Ulm heavy infantry pursuers.

Kel

May 27th, 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel No, you have yet to prove it.<hr /></blockquote>I have yet to prove what ? I haven't said anything about castling and it wasn't the main topic of the original post, nor do I have an opinion on it, either way.

What I was saying is that the original post represents commonly used poor, inflammatory and illogical arguments.

- Kel

Reverend Zombie

May 27th, 2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence
- Kel I think we were arguing past each other back there.

I was taking issue in one post with the above claim of yours; now I realize most of what you have been saying pertains to what you see as inflammatory rhetoric used against "whiners."

However, I am curious to know what evidence you think has been provided, other than the sort I mention a few Posts ago, or the type that Zen discusses.

Kel

May 27th, 2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kel:
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence
- Kel I was taking issue in one post with the above claim of yours; now I realize most of what you have been saying pertains to what you see as inflammatory rhetoric used against "whiners."
<hr /></blockquote>Exactly so. I have no arguments for or against castling, none at all. I don't currently see it as a problem but I will listen. I didn't think that was your main point. If it was, then I should have started a new thread or held my tongue.

However, I am curious to know what evidence you think has been provided, other than the sort I mention a few Posts ago, or the type that Zen discusses. I haven't kept up with the evidence on castling, to be honest. There may or may not be any at all. I think both sides of most balance discussions have extremists who write off each others points and thus, some Posts on balance problems will be reactionary and *won't* have evidence.

However...some subjects, such as clamming and VQs, had a great deal of salient points and yet you still see poor, arrogant, dismissive behavior (in addition to some good counter-points, to be fair). Evidence might be a bad word because it implies that it is sufficient and swaying. 'Arguments' or 'points' might be a better word. I hate to see arguments dismissed based on anything other than the logic of the argument. That's all.

- Kel

Reverend Zombie

May 27th, 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
However...some subjects, such as clamming and VQs, had a great deal of salient points and yet you still see poor, arrogant, dismissive behavior (in addition to some good counter-points, to be fair). Evidence might be a bad word because it implies that it is sufficient and swaying. 'Arguments' or 'points' might be a better word. I hate to see arguments dismissed based on anything other than the logic of the argument. That's all.

- Kel Well, that is a difference between us. I would dismiss arguments based on anything other than real evidence, no matter how logical the argument itself is.

Arguments based on anything other than real evidence are just people expressing their preference for how they wish the game was different.

Although people may have made good points pro and con the various changes advocated, I don't think we have seen much hard evidence on any of them.

What kind of evidence, you might ask? The kind of stuff Zen talked about:

Long ago I did a breakdown of Clam's and later Peter (may he rest in peace with many women and large tracts of land) gave another breakdown. With the #'s presented it was shown that you can abuse it, but only in specific circumstances with a specific gameset and only really viable for a very slim selection of circumstance.
If you advocate a change without taking the time to gather evidence like that, you are basing your arguments on preferences and opinions, whose relationship to reality is questionable.

Advocating change without the type of evidence above is what's been called whining.

Stormbinder

May 28th, 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
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.
That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel <hr /></blockquote>How are these tactics illegitimate, and what is the evidence?

It's hard to refute opinions, and other than reports of "I hate playing against a castlespamming VQ clam-hoarder" I have not seen much evidence put forth that any of these are in any way illegitmate.

I will grant that VQs appear to be underpriced compared to some other Pretenders, or rather, some of the 125 pt. Pretenders are probably overpriced.

But...how can buidling castles be illegitimate? Where does that particular line of thinking stop? Should we limit the number of temples a player can build? Number of labs? Number of uber summons? Number of mages? Number of provinces to take a turn? Why not, and how is it different for the reasons given for outlawing castlespamming? <hr /></blockquote>Easy. The best suggestion I've heard so far is to make temples destructable only by the order of commander (the same as with labs). This way you can protect your temples against raiders without having castels in every province, which is the main reason of "mad castling".

I don't think it'll elimiate mad castling alltogether, but it'll go very long way toward making it less promiment, without actually nerfing anything or adding some artificial limits. With such sustem you can still build as many temples as you want and protect them against raiders using your network of castles as strongholds and nodes in your defense system.

[ May 28, 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Stormbinder

May 28th, 2004, 12:52 AM

Kel - very intelligent and well argued Posts.

With recent local emotional level raising, it's a rare sign to see these days, especially when discussing controversial and provocative topics such as this one.

PvK

May 28th, 2004, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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. <hr /></blockquote>Apparently, that's a "no, he didn't do without castle-spamming"!

Sometimes Norfleet makes a lot of sense to me, and sometimes, like above, he makes very little sense to me:

"Everything in Dom2 boils down to those temples, after all..."

It does? Temples do several things, but I don't think any of my games have "boiled down" to temples. Then, I haven't used many immortals, nor relied on blessed national units.

"Besides, what ELSE would you build in a province?"

What kind of question is that? How about, nothing, building things in production centers instead? How about, an occasional good indy unit that is worth buying? How about, a lab? Or, PD?

PvK

[ May 28, 2004, 00:58: Message edited by: PvK ]

Norfleet

May 28th, 2004, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
"Everything in Dom2 boils down to those temples, after all..."

It does? Temples do several things, but I don't think any of my games have "boiled down" to temples. Then, I haven't used many immortals, nor relied on blessed national units.If you don't build temples, enemy dominion gets into your land. I've tried building temples in every single province, and it STILL wouldn't stay out. Clearly, what the game is trying to tell me is that I don't build enough temples.

"Besides, what ELSE would you build in a province?"

What kind of question is that? How about, nothing, building things in production centers instead? How about, an occasional good indy unit that is worth buying?An occasional indy mage doesn't really consume that much of you funding that you can't build a temple. Besides, see above problem with dominion maintenance.

More importantly, while this is certainly an alternate approach to spending your gold, it does not address the problem of what you do with the empty province! Yes, you could buy a ton of troops, and conquer a ton of empty provinces. When you do that, I'm going to go, "Hey, thanks for the provinces", and start taking them from you - which will be easy because there's nothing stopping me from doing it, now that you have so generously removed the pesky indies for me!

As I've stated in the past, if you're not able to hold what you conquer, you're just conquering it for someone else's sake.

How about, a lab?Well, yes, duh. Building labs goes alongside building temples, particularly if you have mage-priests to churn out. Of course, you can't crank out your mages anyway without building a fort, and once you have a fort, you may as well situate a temple there.

Or, PD?You're joking, right? Besides, 3 PD costs all of $6. That hardly represents a major expenditure.

Huzurdaddi

May 28th, 2004, 03:24 AM

IF castle spamming is a problem then a simple linear increase depending upon how many currently exist sounds like a decent solution.

But I don't know how much of a problem they are. I do know that I like building them though! They are great!

Vynd

May 28th, 2004, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
Although people may have made good points pro and con the various changes advocated, I don't think we have seen much hard evidence on any of them.

What kind of evidence, you might ask? The kind of stuff Zen talked about:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Long ago I did a breakdown of Clam's and later Peter (may he rest in peace with many women and large tracts of land) gave another breakdown. With the #'s presented it was shown that you can abuse it, but only in specific circumstances with a specific gameset and only really viable for a very slim selection of circumstance.
If you advocate a change without taking the time to gather evidence like that, you are basing your arguments on preferences and opinions, whose relationship to reality is questionable.

Advocating change without the type of evidence above is what's been called whining. <hr /></blockquote>I think you're being unreasonable. I saw Peter's clam evidence, and while I'm sure it took some time to put together it was still relatively straightforward to develop. As I recall, it was essentially a mathematical formula that calculated how many astral gems you would get if you started making clams from water gems, and then more clams from alchemized astral gems, etc., etc. Forgive me if I've oversimplified it a little. But the point is, it required absolutely no in-game testing. It was just a matter of determining what the proper formulas were and then crunching some numbers.

There's no way I can see to do this sort of abstract number crunching for the issues of castling, or VQ, or raiding, or other things that people have "whined" about lately. There are no numbers to crunch here. No forumla to extrapolate from. The only way to gauge the impact of these various strategies and issues is to see them in action, in a game setting. Which takes a heck of a lot longer than running a few formulas.

Even if you could somehow run a big set of games in which to test your argument about, say, castling, there's no way to control for the variable you are interested in. The endless possible choices that each player can take means that you'll never know if a particular person won because they built lots of castles. Maybe they won because their opponents were just generally incompetent. Maybe they won because they found some nice indie provinces early. Maybe they won because they hoarded clams. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Most likely they won, or lost, based on an interaction of a lot of factors, many of them not readily apparent.

So it is impossible to provide the sort of rigorous evidence you are looking for. And I don't think it is at all fair to tell people that their arguments carry no weight because they can't meet an impossible standard. Besides, it won't work. People will keep making their arguments, based on whatever logic and annecdoatal evidence they can muster. (And I say more power to them!) I suggest that you learn to live with this fact, rather than, um... whining about it.

Norfleet

May 28th, 2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
IF castle spamming is a problem then a simple linear increase depending upon how many currently exist sounds like a decent solution.

But I don't know how much of a problem they are. I do know that I like building them though! They are great! That's the thing: Castle spamming isn't the problem, castle spamming is the solution: Raiding is the problem: Without castles, anyone can simply raid your provinces at whim: PD is utterly impotent and cannot stop anything raiding force more serious than a single cast of Call of the Winds or Wild. Thus, a response to contain the damage caused by raiding had to be devised, and, as in real life, that answer has turned out to be castles. Lots of castles.

Now, of course, people are upset that they can't simply raid at whim, and that their attacks run into these stumbling blocks placed in their paths....ironically for exactly that reason.

Boo frickety hoo. Since when was the defender supposed to be accomodating of the attacker's wishes?

Cainehill

May 28th, 2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
[QUOTE]
(...)
"Everything in Dom2 boils down to those temples, after all..."

It does? Temples do several things, but I don't think any of my games have "boiled down" to temples. Then, I haven't used many immortals, nor relied on blessed national units.
(...)
I don't use a lot of immortals either, and still find temples extremely appealing. (This may be influenced by my having played a lot of CW Pan, admittedly.) Having enemy dominion creep into my provinces is no good, naturally.

And more importantly when using a CP (Combatant Pretender / Prophet), the temples help raise your dominion, which means that your CP has better health, strength, etc.

Immortals (both pretenders and commanders (albeit how many nations, other than T'ien C'hi and Ermor get non-pretender immortals?)) just make lots of temples even more compelling.

May 28th, 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Vynd:
I think you're being unreasonable. I saw Peter's clam evidence, and while I'm sure it took some time to put together it was still relatively straightforward to develop. As I recall, it was essentially a mathematical formula that calculated how many astral gems you would get if you started making clams from water gems, and then more clams from alchemized astral gems, etc., etc. Forgive me if I've oversimplified it a little. But the point is, it required absolutely no in-game testing. It was just a matter of determining what the proper formulas were and then crunching some numbers.

There's no way I can see to do this sort of abstract number crunching for the issues of castling, or VQ, or raiding, or other things that people have "whined" about lately. There are no numbers to crunch here. No forumla to extrapolate from. The only way to gauge the impact of these various strategies and issues is to see them in action, in a game setting. Which takes a heck of a lot longer than running a few formulas.

Even if you could somehow run a big set of games in which to test your argument about, say, castling, there's no way to control for the variable you are interested in. The endless possible choices that each player can take means that you'll never know if a particular person won because they built lots of castles. Maybe they won because their opponents were just generally incompetent. Maybe they won because they found some nice indie provinces early. Maybe they won because they hoarded clams. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Most likely they won, or lost, based on an interaction of a lot of factors, many of them not readily apparent.

So it is impossible to provide the sort of rigorous evidence you are looking for. And I don't think it is at all fair to tell people that their arguments carry no weight because they can't meet an impossible standard. Besides, it won't work. People will keep making their arguments, based on whatever logic and annecdoatal evidence they can muster. (And I say more power to them!) I suggest that you learn to live with this fact, rather than, um... whining about it. Well your opinion certainly supports your style of logic and reasoning. I certainly hope that IW will disregard any and every suggestion that is made with as much effort and thought in it as you have so lazily defended.

Saber Cherry is no longer here to do analysis for you, so in order to express points counter to the status quo you'll actually have to put some effort into your arguements but by all means, don't. Because uninformed decisions on balance is a good way to go.

Reverend Zombie

May 28th, 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Vynd:
The only way to gauge the impact of these various strategies and issues is to see them in action, in a game setting. Which takes a heck of a lot longer than running a few formulas.

Even if you could somehow run a big set of games in which to test your argument about, say, castling, there's no way to control for the variable you are interested in.So how can we ever know it is a problem, rather than just something certain players don't like playing against?

Vynd

May 28th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Illwinter is of course free to decide for themselves what is, or isn't, a good idea. I totally agree with Zen (and everyone else I would hope) there. Which is why I disagree with the way Reverened Zombie and others are blowing off people's arguments and opinions as "whining" unless it is backed up unreasonable amounts of "evidence." Because, as I have said, I don't see how it is possible to provide evidence of the sort that some people seem to be demanding. And demanding people do the impossible before voicing their thoughts amounts to telling them to shut up and go away. That's not right, and it's not going to work anyway, so why do it?

Besides, if the arguments that people are making are so baseless and wrong, then surely Illwinter will see that and not act upon them. I mean, that's more or less what you were saying, right Zen? So why try to surpress them? Better, I think, to let people argue about these issues, blow off steam, and maybe figure out some in-game solutions that way. Or maybe, just maybe, point out some things that Illwinter actually decides could use improvement.

Reverend Zombie

May 28th, 2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Vynd:
Which is why I disagree with the way Reverened Zombie and others are blowing off people's arguments and opinions as "whining" unless it is backed up unreasonable amounts of "evidence."By "unreasonable amounts of," you mean "any," correct?

And I would not say I am "blowing off" people's arguments as "whining", but "characterizing" them as "whining." There's a difference.

[ May 28, 2004, 16:45: Message edited by: Reverend Zombie ]

May 28th, 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Vynd:
Illwinter is of course free to decide for themselves what is, or isn't, a good idea. I totally agree with Zen (and everyone else I would hope) there. Which is why I disagree with the way Reverened Zombie and others are blowing off people's arguments and opinions as "whining" unless it is backed up unreasonable amounts of "evidence." Because, as I have said, I don't see how it is possible to provide evidence of the sort that some people seem to be demanding. And demanding people do the impossible before voicing their thoughts amounts to telling them to shut up and go away. That's not right, and it's not going to work anyway, so why do it?

Besides, if the arguments that people are making are so baseless and wrong, then surely Illwinter will see that and not act upon them. I mean, that's more or less what you were saying, right Zen? So why try to surpress them? Better, I think, to let people argue about these issues, blow off steam, and maybe figure out some in-game solutions that way. Or maybe, just maybe, point out some things that Illwinter actually decides could use improvement. Maybe you have a different understanding of what this board is for. In my mind it's not a place to "blow off steam", or "demand IW change something". Just because you have the rare instance of actually having developers who care enough to take consideration to suggestions on this board does not mean it's the breeding ground for "What I feel is right" Posts.

And under no circumstance is this a field to argue and go to the lowest depths of personal attacks for people defending pro or con any debate/playstyle/feature/bug etc.

However, that is exactly what people recently have done. For whatever reasoning, be it human nature or merely the trend of games/gamers in general. Suddenly people feel it's their god given right to have developers change something based on their input (which is by and large inadequate) and if others disagree with that input or the thoughts around it, suddenly they are attacked for 'not knowing' what they intimately know.

Counter to public opinion this is not a Rant forum about Dom2. This is a forum that serves as both feedback (in an appropriate manner) and aid for new players as well as old.

So my suggestion is, if you happen to feel something needs to be changed. Bring your game face and some effort and thought into it. If you are just bandwagoning or have the inescapable need to jump onto a side for whatever reasoning. Don't be suprised when the status quo is asking for reasonable proof or evidence of something suddenly needing changing.

A good example of this is: Stormbinder's Mirror Image issue. He brought a bit of information that he felt was wrong, enough to spark interest for others to see if it was or was not working as he said it. It doesn't have to be huge mathmatical analysis but it has to be reasoned and tested against more than one or even a few circumstance/stimulus.

Take it what it's worth. But if you think this is a board for 'blowing off steam' you'll find your Posts and threads with that intention will not be tolerated.

Reverend Zombie

May 28th, 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
Maybe you have a different understanding of what this board is for. In my mind it's not a place to "blow off steam", or "demand IW change something".

Counter to public opinion this is not a Rant forum about Dom2. This is a forum that serves as both feedback (in an appropriate manner) and aid for new players as well as old.
There's the general Shrapnel forum faq, but I have not found a "rules of THIS forum" faq like I have seen on other sites.

Does it exist?

May 28th, 2004, 08:01 PM

Not as far as I know. It has never needed them to my understanding. In the past most posters at Shrapnel's Boards have understood that general politeness and rules that are standard on other Boards are applicable here.

Also I feel the caliber of people who play Dom2, in general, do not fall prey to the very base of things that most if not all forums prohibit.

Perhaps when Gandalf upgrades the Forum Software it will have an easy to read FAQ about what is and is not appropriate here as well as allowing you to choose your sort method.

Edit: Just for clarification. This is not a Rant forum in the fact that it's for people to come and ***** and moan about things in an inappropriate manner. Obviously everyone has the right to be angry at any number of things, but within reason. Such as if you are angry that Utgard was broken in a new patch and there was no support or answer for that particular instance, you are totally justified. However, if you got beat by someone using a Archmage with Staff of Elemental Mastery and posted that it was "total bull**** and the Archmage is unbalanced" and then flaming the player of the Archmage, would be innappropriate.

[ May 28, 2004, 19:07: Message edited by: Zen ]

Norfleet

May 28th, 2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
However, if you got beat by someone using a Archmage with Staff of Elemental Mastery and posted that it was "total bull**** and the Archmage is unbalanced" and then flaming the player of the Archmage, would be innappropriate. Inappropriate, yes.....but I'd pay to see that. That's just too funny to be true.

Vynd

May 28th, 2004, 09:18 PM

I'd like to see the Archmage kick some butt too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am in total agreement with Zen that no one should be coming on here and demanding that Illwinter do anything. I don't think I said that in my Posts.

I also am opposed to ranting and the use of personal attacks. That sort of thing isn't what I had in mind when I said blowing off steam, but I can see how it could be interepreted as such. Sorry about that.

I'm basically just in favor of as free a flow of ideas as possible, so as to make it easier to identify where the problems are and aren't. I didn't think that Reverened Zombie's categorizing some people's opinons as whining (not a particularly civil word, in my opinion) encouraged this sort of exchange, so I spoke up about it. But I absolutely agree that this exchange of ideas needs to be friendly and respectful. If I gave any other impression be assured it was not my intent.

Scott Hebert

May 28th, 2004, 11:31 PM

Well, for me, things CAN be tested. It all depends on how much work you're willing to do for it.

Take, for example, the Vampire Queen. You think she should cost more? Go right ahead. You don't have to spend all the points you get to make your Pretender. The formulae used to figure out costs for things like Paths are well-established, and so you can tweak the numbers to what you think she SHOULD be. Then you play her.

Come to think of it, aren't Pretenders able to be modded/created now? You could simply create what you think an appropriate VQ would be, and test to see if she is, IYO, more balanced.

Another thing. Clams. What's the appropriate cost for them? This is, actually, something you can verify in-game. If you think that they should cost 10W and 10S, for example, simply remember that you need 10 Astral gems in your lab for each Clam you own. Alternatively, you could take the 10 Astral cost, convert it into ANYTHING else (giving 5 gems), convert those BACK to Pearls (giving 2 Pearls and 1 Gem), and convert those Pearls back into a gem (giving 2 Gems), and converting back to a single Pearl. Poof, you just had 9 Pearls disappear. Also, make sure you only Forge with capable mages.

Is it work? Yes. Before you reflexively ask, "You expect me to do THIS MUCH just to prove something that already exists?", I'll answer you. Yes. I do. Supposition and 'because everyone does it' is not evidence. It won't get anything changed. The more you can do to identify the problem AND work on a viable solution AND show that that solution is better for the game, the better your chances are for getting the change made.

Mostly, I see people working on only the first problem. Gandalf constantly says it; give us solutions, not problems. And don't just give solutions, give us evidence that show the solutions do what they're supposed to. Only then is IW likely to implement the change.

Scott

Stormbinder

May 28th, 2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Zen:

A good example of this is: Stormbinder's Mirror Image issue. He brought a bit of information that he felt was wrong, enough to spark interest for others to see if it was or was not working as he said it. It doesn't have to be huge mathmatical analysis but it has to be reasoned and tested against more than one or even a few circumstance/stimulus.

Thank you Zen. I am just doing what I can since I love this game a lot and would like to do whatever little I can do to help it become even better. I generally agree with what you have said in your post about purpose of the board, rants, etc.

But I would like to point out one thing though - you have to keep in mind that the Mirror Image issue that I've posted about was a bug, pure and simple. Anybody can do (and did) a quick testing to confirm or deny it.

With "mad castling" it's much more complicated since the issue here is not a bug. Proponents of this "strategy" can (correctly) agrue that they are not using any bugs and therefore have every right to do it. The thing is, however, that the large majority of people (even some of those who defend the right of "mad castling" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) agree that cheap castles/temples in every province makes game extremely boring and mindbogling for everybody involved(except mad castler of course). It also give mad castler (if he knows what he is doing and designed and play to the strength of his tactic) large advantage over not-madcastler.

Therefore it forces everybody, if he doesn't want to be in strong disadvantage in competitive MP with madcastler(s) present, to adopt the same tactic, which is in addition to being cheezy and mindbogling for most people, significantly deminish the diversity of this game (and this is one of the worst thing here in my opinion, since this game is all about different tactics and choices. Where to build castles (as well as which castle type to choose) is supposed to be very importent choice in this game, where you are choosing location based upon the local resourses, magic sites, indep troops available in the province, the resourses of neigborhood provinces, current political situation, your nation overall strategy, other neigboring castles that can provide assistance to new one in case of war, et cetera....

With "mad castling" all these choices are completely irrelevent since you are building castles everywhere, and choose only one of 2(sometimes 3) cheap 300gp castles in the begining.

Now returning to the question of proof. I agree that it is always good to have strong and mathematical evidence to back any claims such as this one. But what kind of evidence you could reasonable expect to have to prove that "mad castling" is cheesy, boring and unbalancing?

We have one notorious madcastler who is infamous for his use of this tactic - Norfleet. He uses the same cheesy and abusive tactic (where "mad castling is the main part of his strategy) it in each and every game of his and because of this win most of them.

You may argue that he wins not because of "madcastling" and other exploits but because he is very good player. Fine. But the only way to prove or reject it is for him to play a game against competent opponents and win without using any of his standard exploits. He, however, strongly refuses to do it, claiming that he don't know how to play without mad castling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif (such game was offered to him only yesterday by his friend Haterider). Depsite my personal feeling toward Norfleet for his lying and cheating in my Last game, I agreed to play the game against him just to settle this question and clear the issue of "madcastling". Norfleet, however, chickened out. He understand very well that once (if) he would be beaten in his first and only game, where he would _not_ be using his standarts exploits, the truth about his "strategies" would become crystal clear fo everybody. He just can't risk it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

There is another, although less strict way to get mathematical evidence that you are asking for. If I understand it correctly, yours, as well as Gendalf's positions is that any tactic, including Norfleet's "mad castling + VQ + clam hoarding" can be beaten with good counter tactic. Ideally, I would agree with you, that's exactly what I love about this game. In reality however ad in case with "mad castling", I strongly doubt it, and this was never proven. AhhhFresh sugested excactly the same game to Norfleet and yourslef some time ago. Norfleet indicated that he is not really interested in it. But even if he would play it and win, he could still claim that he won because of his skills, not because of his cheesy strategy. And you could always say (i am not saying that *you* will, I am speaking strictly not-personally here) that he had strong element of luck on his side, or weak neigbors who he could gobble quickly before meeting his stronger oppoentns, or dozens of other possible reasons.

Finally you may argue that this is not about 1 player, but about the strategy. Again, normally I would agree, but Norfleet, as we all know, is special case. He hangs on dom2 Boards and channels 24hours per day (literally), and my guess is that he participate in at least 50% of all MP games going around here. He even went as low as to sneak into other people game under an alias. Therefore unfortunately he can not be ingored, and more and more games are created with house rules to prohibit partly or wholy his standard exploits.

So here you have it - you have a situation which deals with arguably valid (meaning it doesn't exploit bugs) strategy. At the same time it is very hard to gather strict mathematical evidence that you are looking for, in line with "Mirror Image" issue that you mentioned, since the infamous godfather of this lame strategy is certanly not cooperating, and in fact doing everything he can that would obscure the public opinion on this matter. For example he claims that his "mad castling" strategy is "beatable", since according to him he won a game or two(using his standard mad castling of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )against people who tried to copycat his strategy from him! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif What kind of evidence is that?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

**********************************
People asked here for the solution, not a problem. All right, here is the solution part for you:

Personally I think that an excellent solution to this whole mad castling issue is to make temples burnable just like labs - meaning special "build/destroy" order would need to be issued by enemy commanders, next turn after the province conquered.

Norfleet and his copycats constantly claim that they have no choice but to build castles everywhere, since this is the only thing that can defend their temples against raiders. (and for some reason they assume that you have to build temples in EVERY province in orde to play this game). Than they moan that PD is inadecuate, temples are so expensive, etc...

Fine. With temples requiring an order for the commander to be destroid, it ives you excellent protection against enemy raiders looking to destroy your temples. It's exactly the same the same as with paper castles in this regard - it gives you 1 additinal turn to counterattack.

The best of all is that such solution does not nerf anything, and is in line with already existing mechanism for labs. You want to have crappy castles and build them in every province? Fine, you can do it! You don't want to mad castle but want to use some other strategy? Fine, now you have the opportunity to do it and still protect your teritory against raiders, at least as far as temples concern. IMHO this change would not eliminate mad castling completely, but it would go very long way to resolve this issue.

P.S. BTW historically speaking a lot of medieval monasteries were VERY impressive fortresses, sometimes much better than the surrounding barons castles. So the reqiurement to spend 1 more turn to burn it to the ground for enemy commander makes a good sense from this perspective. Also as a totally separate and optional idea - instead on destroying enemy temple your prist can spend 1 turn "converting" rival's god temple into your own, puryfying it, etc. The price could be the same as building new temple - 200 gp, or a little bit more than that. That little tweak would give priests another little usefull role in the game.

[ May 28, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

May 29th, 2004, 12:06 AM

There is a simple way to mathmatically define Castling if you so desire.

Take the Total cost of X amount of castles of whatever type.

Take the total time to create X amount of castles.

Take the total time saved by creating a castle.

Take the total gold protected by creating a castle.

Take the total gold gained by creating a castle.

Take those #'s and plug them into an offensive force (alternate ones) and take into account that any castle defeated adds the variables you have just defined to your side.

Now show a clear imbalance between the cost and effect of such. Taking into consideration you can't move a Castle and Castles cannot take provinces.

All your arguments are based on only 1 person playing them. So test them not only against each other but opponents of equal skill and even gem income, capabilities. Also take into consideration the time frame involved.

I personally think 'mad castling' is a load of steaming bull. The effectiveness of a castle is only if you allow it to remain and if the castle can be defended. Unfortunately for the castler, even the cheapest castle with the shortest survival time costs 300 gold. And 300 gold for each castle defensively gives 300 gold to offensive forces.

300 gold goes a long way if you know how to protect the troops made with it and you are on the offensive instead of remaining on the defensive and playing into a take and hold strategy.

Stormbinder, unfortunately none of your arguements are really very applicable. And as I've said, Clams are the same way. If you let them be a problem they can be, but that can be said for any aspect of this game.

The reason I know personally that one, two, or even all three of your favorite topics for discussion are not overpowered is that I used to do them at one stage of my playtime. I even wrote a guide on how to abuse 2 of the 3 (castles and clams). While it was very effective for a while; and has many virtues. It is far from overpowered. If you were to try to use such tactics against a competent player who knows they are coming, understands the weakenesses for the entire game, and can act against that strategy (which can be a problem in large games, which is likely why it is so effective as your "New Player" to "Veteran Player" ratio is obviously high). It is no more viable than the "ID's on turn 14" strategy or any other number of seemingly overpowered playstyles.

Edit: Just because I personally think it's this way does not mean anyone else does (though I know a few that do, and that have tried and failed with it). And you can express your point if you'd like, but I have just rebutted it and an entire portion of those that play this game are represented by that statement. So in order for you to present a fully rational and conclusive illustration of your point you will have to revert to specifics which means mathmatical analysis or even saved games if you prefer.

[ May 28, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Zen ]

Scott Hebert

May 29th, 2004, 12:23 AM

Well, here's the thing about castling. As you said, it's a legitimate strategy. Hence, your labeling of it as 'abusive' is purely of your own belief. It's not abusing anything except perhaps the balance of the game. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the game. For me, it's rather the same as being mad at the fact that a Queen can move better than a Rook or a Bishop in Chess.

Luckily, unlike Chess, we can try to see it changed. However, a few things need to happen before any change is implemented.

1) Verification that this is indeed not how the game was meant to be. IOW, if the Designers felt that the desired end-result of a game was to have castles everywhere, they're not going to change it, and you're really just wasting your time.

2) Verification that the strategy is, indeed, 'abusive', as you put it. Is the strategy unfair? Is it inherently superior to any strategy that can be feasibly used against it? Does one person using the strategy force others to use the same strategy, or fail?

If 1) and 2) are verified, then you have identified something as a problem. And, BTW, you need to have more than one person able to reproduce the results of a strategy before it can be termed abusive. The best way is NOT to have that person win without the strategy. If he plays, and wins, you've lost your argument. If he plays, and loses, you can't chalk up the loss to the absence of the strategy. A better way is to have that person explain his strategy in minutest detail to others, so that they understand at the best level how to duplicate it. Then, see if THOSE people can win with the strategy. If they can, and they come to dominate the environment, THEN (and only then) do you have an abusive strategy. If a person with a 'potentially abusive strategy' has explained their strategy to others, and those people have tried to use that strategy against others, and failed, there are a few reasons why that might be.

1) Lack of familiarity with the strategy. They may need more experience.
2) The original player did not explain themselves well enough. This can be accidental or intentional.
3) The original player is winning on skill, rather than an abusive strategy, and therefore his strategy is not abusive.

Now, assuming that you can duplicate this abusive strategy, then you have the task of determining the root cause of the problem. Is the strategy too easy? Is it too hard to disrupt? What element of the strategy is making it abusive? For castling, some possible questions are: Is it the cost of the castles? Is it the way that the turn order is processed? Is it the ease of building SCs?

Once you have identified the core of the problem, you need to propose solutions to the problem that target the core problem, and address its problems. Solutions to the above questions could be: Double the cost of the castles, make sieging happen before Magic (which means you can't Teleport/move a SC in to protect the Castle), or drastically change the way SCs operate.

Finally, you need to test the solution, to make sure that that it does, in fact, deal with the problem. Once you have tested the theory, and found it suitable, then you can present a complete package to IW, from start to finish, and see if they'll implement it. Presuming that 1) was passed, they should.

This is the amount of work that should go into any perceived problem in the game, and the less work you do, the less incentive you give IW to give your arguments credence.

Hope everyone's liked Problem-Solving 101.

Scott

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 01:09 AM

I disagree Zen. This issue is not really possible to clearly and accuratly define in purely mathematical way, as you suggested, unlike clams for example. The problem is that you are indirectly assuming that any complex strategy in this game have a mathematical "value" that can be calculated and than used to compare it with other alternative strategies. Granted, it can be true with some simple "spreadsheet" types of strategic games, but fortunately Dom2 is way too complex for that.

Here is the example from your own "blueprint" for gathering "proof", step by step:

Originally posted by Zen:
There is a simple way to mathmatically define Castling if you so desire.

Take the Total cost of X amount of castles of whatever type.

Take the total time to create X amount of castles.

All right, these are obviously a piece of cake to calculate.

Take the total time saved by creating a castle.
Not sure what exactly do you mean here (time saved on reseach? Time saved on bringing troops to frontlines? And how do you "add" this to gold saved? By inventing some additional arbitrary multyplier between gold/reseach or gold/time? It's the same as adding apples and oranges (unless you intend to keep these in separate colums for the calculating of your "evidence" ).

However it doesn't really matter, since it'll get "better" later on... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Take the total gold protected by creating a castle.
Even this simple fact in the middle of your list is absolutely impossible to calculate. How do you calculate how much gold did you really protect with your castle? The province's income? (plus half/admin value). If so, you are making two wrong assumptions here at the same time:

First you assume that if you would not build the castle, the province would have to be raided by enemy, resulting in money loss. Which does not nessesarly be the case, since not every unprotected province have to be always raided by enemy, for example if it is located far away from your frontlines and you are waging an offensive war on your enemies. Secondary you assume that once you build the castle your investment is totally safe, which is not the case either, since your castle can still be conquered, especially if it is the "paper one" type as with "mad castling" strategy.

And finally even if you didn't protect the province and it was raided by enemy as the result, how do you propose to calculate how much money will you lose? Do you assume that tghe province in question would be raided once during the game? 2 times? 5 times? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Take those #'s and plug them into an offensive force (alternate ones) and take into account that any castle defeated adds the variables you have just defined to your side.

Now show a clear imbalance between the cost and effect of such. Taking into consideration you can't move a Castle and Castles cannot take provinces.

Ha! This is the best part. How do you propose to express in mathematical terms the uber VQ defending "completely castled" dominion, against "the alternative" strategy? You can't even calculate how much money did you realy save with your "madcastling". And even "madcastling" is only a part of your overall strategy, after all you don't have a single VQ with no troops defending your dominion by herself.

And even if me or somebody else did that impossible thing, and even somehow to manage to calculate the "value/benefits" of some totally different alternative strategy, it would still be meaningless to our purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Why? Because it is logically impossible to prove that one tactic more powerfull than others tactic in this matter. In any scince filed you CAN'T prove ANY theory by examples. You can only REJECT the theory is by using any numbers of examples.

Related to our problem, even if me, or Vvyn, or any other people who share our opinion on madcastling would take your advice to heart and try to calculate mathematically that "madcastling" is "better" than some other alternative strategy (which is impossible to do as I have said and explained above), all we would prove is the fact that the "madcastling" strategy is superior to this particular "alternative" strategy. That's all.

*YOU* can (theoretically, but not practicaly) prove that madcastling is not the best strategy by calculating it's "value/benefits" and comparing it the *your* own particular strategy, which you calim to be superiour to madcastling. Your opponents in this argument though, can not prove the opposite by using any number of examples. Do you understand what I mean?

The bottom line is Zen - this game have way too many varibles to calculate in the way that you suggested. Much more that would allow you to build any meaningfull AND accurate mathematical model to generate that kind of evidence that you are looking for in case with madcastling. It is not nearly as simple as you imply with your "blueprint". I agree with you, you can (and should) apply mathematics and models to certain simple aspects of the game, such as clams, Mirror Image, etc. But "madcastling" strategy is certanly not one of them.

[ May 29, 2004, 00:34: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

rabelais

May 29th, 2004, 01:24 AM

I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this thread, I've been ill. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

But, judging from the very latest Posts... I have a comment.

I think the value analysis of the mad castling phenomenon for living races is very different for living nations than for undead autospawning themes.

The disconnect between gold and "productive" capacity is at issue here.

This ties in with the difficulty, (and differing desirability given nation status above) of replacing population, in a way that is contextually pernicious.

I hope there is an in-game technique refinement that allows ermorian castle spamming to be defeated, even with the nekkid-immortal-SC icing.

I don't know of one, but my ignorance is commodious.

Rabe the Overt Optimist

May 29th, 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Not sure what exactly do you mean here (time saved on reseach? Time saved on bringing troops to frontlines? And how do you "add" this to gold saved? By inventing some additional arbitrary multyplier between gold/reseach or gold/time? It's the same as adding apples and oranges (unless you intend to keep these in separate colums for the calculating of your "evidence" ). Time saved could be ment to equate to the stopping force of any given castle. Meaning that for say, a Watch Tower, you have 1 additional turn at the very least of stopping power for claiming any amount of gold over 1/2 of the province. This is a key factor if you are trying to say Castling is overpowered, because it's primary issue is the time it provides to you respond to any given attack on a province.

Even this simple fact in the middle of your list is absolutely impossible to calculate. How do you calculate how much gold did you really protect with your castle? The province's income? (plus half/admin value). If so, you are making two wrong assumptions here at the same time:

No, a Castle "Protects" Temples, which equate to 200 Gold. It could also concievably protect a Lab from opponent use, though it is not a 'build as many as you can' asset. Also include the Half income of the Province.

Snip

Raiding only lets you lose a province if you choose not to retake it with any sort of force. That means you are choosing not to retake it and the assumption is that the province taker is something you cannot defeat or will move the next turn.

And finally even if you didn't protect the province and it was raided by enemy as the result, how do you propose to calculate how much money will you lose? Do you assume that tghe province in question would be raided once during the game? 2 times? 5 times? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

You can either assume it will always be raided, or raided half the time you play. Halving it's income. You are the one that seems to have an issue with Raiding and it's monumental impact so that you "Must Castle" in order to protect it.

Ha! This is the best part. How do you propose to express in mathematical terms the uber VQ defending "completely castled" dominion, against "the alternative" strategy? You can't even calculate how much money did you realy save with your "madcastling". And even "madcastling" is only a part of your overall strategy, after all you don't have a single VQ with no troops defending your dominion by herself. The issue has nothing to do with "Uber VQ's". It is a seperate issue in and of itself. If you can't seperate it from any of your other issues, you are blinded by the complete issues instead of any single aspect and your logic is flawed, thus being illogical discredited.

And even if me or somebody else did that impossible thing, and even somehow to manage to calculate the "value/benefits" of some totally different alternative strategy, it would still be meaningless to our purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif No it would prove that Castling is more economical than buying armies thus it is an overpowered strategy because it protects and holds assets that are more applicable than other things built with gold (Mages and/or Armies).

Why? Because it is logically impossible to prove that one tactic more powerfull than others tactic in this matter. In any scince filed you CAN'T prove ANY theory by examples. You can only REJECT the theory is by using any numbers of examples. Then, you have already lost your argument. You cannot prove that Castling is 'abusive' on any level and so it is not.

Related to our problem, even if me, or Vvyn, or any other people who share our opinion on madcastling would take your advice to heart and try to calculate mathematically that "madcastling" is "better" than some other alternative strategy (which is impossible to do as I have said and explained above), all we would prove is the fact that the "madcastling" strategy is superior to this particular "alternative" strategy. That's all. That's all you need to do in order to have a leg to stand on to prove that the strategy is overpowered at all, let alone with enough consistancy and without enough drawbacks in order to warrant a change.

*YOU* can (theoretically, but not practicaly) prove that madcastling is not the best theory by calculating it's "vlue/bnefits" and comparing it the your own particular strategy, which you claim to be superior than madcastling. Your opponents though can not prove the opposite by using any number of examples. Do you understand what I mean? Then you understand that Castling is not overpowered, only one alternative out of many.

The bottom line is Zen - this game have way too many varibles to calculate in the way that you suggested. Much more that would allow you to build any meaningfull AND accurate mathematical model to generate that kind of evidence that you are looking for as in case with madcastling. It is not nearly as simple as you imply with your "blueprint". You can (and should) apply mathematics and models to certain simple aspects of the game, such as clams, Mirror Image, etc. But "madcastling" strategy is certanly not one of them.

Actually you could, but the simple fact that you want to argue even trying means to me that you have no intention of trying and thus it means so little have no intention of making any valid suggestions based on facts and only opinion. Opinion is not grounds for balance changes. Pure and simple.

[ May 29, 2004, 00:30: Message edited by: Zen ]

May 29th, 2004, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by rabelais:
I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this thread, I've been ill. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

But, judging from the very latest Posts... I have a comment.

I think the value analysis of the mad castling phenomenon for living races is very different for living nations than for undead autospawning themes.

The disconnect between gold and "productive" capacity is at issue here.

This ties in with the difficulty, (and differing desirability given nation status above) of replacing population, in a way that is contextually pernicious.

I hope there is an in-game technique refinement that allows ermorian castle spamming to be defeated, even with the nekkid-immortal-SC icing.

I don't know of one, but my ignorance is commodious.

Rabe the Overt Optimist Now see, there is yet another aspect that has to be addressed if you modify any castling. Not only this, but Underwater Nations as well.

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Zen:

Actually you could, but the simple fact that you want to argue even trying means to me that you have no intention of trying and thus it means so little have no intention of making any valid suggestions based on facts and only opinion. Not so. I am only arguing against the particular *simple method* that you propose, since I don't think it is possible to do it , that's all. (and I explained in detailes why I think so)

If you think you can do it and if it is as simple as you said it is - go ahead, I would be very interested to see how you will try to do it. Remember, *you* are the one who claim that he knows the strategy that is superior to "mad caslting" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You can't really expect me to calculate the strategy that I am not aware about, using the "blueprint" that I think is impossible to follow, do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for my suggestions - I've said it several times, but you seem to ignore it. It is making temples "burnable" in the same line with labs - meaning to burn it your commander need to issue an order.

The best thing is it is not a "nerf" by any means - you can still do "mad castling" as much as you want. But it would make other strategies a chance to really compete with "mad castling" strategy, increasing the diversity of the game.

I see it as clear win-win situation. And it should be very simple to implement, since exactly the same mechanism is already in place for labs.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:15: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

May 29th, 2004, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Not true. I am only arguing against the particular *simple method* that you propose, since I don't think it is possible to do it , that's all. (and I explained in detailes why I think so)That's fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

If you think you can do it and if it is as simple as you said it is - go ahead, I would be very interested to see how you will try to do it. Remember, *you* are the one who claim that he knows the strategy that is superior to "mad caslting" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You can't really expect me to calculate the strategy that I am not aware about, using the "blueprint" that I think is impossible to follow, do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif So you are saying you can't beat anyone who castles then? Hrm. You are less competent than I gave you credit for. There are about a hundred different strategies that can. But go ahead and set the parameters of a game and I will detail it as much as I can how you can beat it, you could even, if you so desired, make it so late in the game that you ignore almost any other aspect except for the point you are trying to prove.

As for my suggestions - I've said it several times, but you seem to ignore it. It is making temples "burnable" in the same line with labs - meaning to burn it your commander need to issue an order.I don't need to ignore it, because unless you can show that mad castling there is no need to change it. If you want to say that Raiding is the problem and not Castling, and that is the answer to it. Then prove that point (that Temples should not be burned when taken over by enemies) or any point really would be nice.

The best thing is it is not a "nerf" by any means - you can still do "mad castling" as much as you want. But it would make other strategies a chance to really compete with "mad castling" strategy, increasing the diversity of the game.Explain why and how. What other 'strategies' are you saying. The ... build alot of temples without losing them when an enemy takes over ... strategy? Which one is that?

I see it as clear win-win situation. And it should be very simple to implement, since exactly the same mechanism is already in place for labs. I don't see it as win-win. I see it as changing Temples because you want to, not for any valid reasoning EVEN if was only: it would make the game more fun and why (you choose not to explain why) if that is your only reason.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: Zen ]

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Zen:

Actually you could, but the simple fact that you want to argue even trying means to me that you have no intention of trying and thus it means so little have no intention of making any valid suggestions based on facts and only opinion. Not so. I am only arguing against the particular *simple method* that you propose, since I don't think it is possible to do it , that's all. (and I explained in detailes why I think so)

If you think you can do it and if it is as simple as you said it is - go ahead, I would be very interested to see how you will try to do it. Remember, *you* are the one who claim that he knows the strategy that is superior to "mad caslting" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You can't really expect me to calculate the strategy that I am not aware about, using the "blueprint" that I think is impossible to follow, do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for my suggestions - I've said it several times, but you seem to ignore it. It is making temples "burnable" in the same line with labs - meaning to burn it your commander need to issue an order. You can read my previous Posts for more details fo you like.

The best thing is it is not a "nerf" by any means - you can still do "mad castling" as much as you want. But it would make other strategies a chance to really compete with "mad castling" strategy, increasing the diversity of the game.

I see it as clear win-win situation. And it should be very simple to implement, since exactly the same mechanism is already in place for labs.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:29: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

May 29th, 2004, 02:29 AM

Also for reference as of Right now this is the "Poll" of Castling. You don't quite have the support of 'everyone'. But if you want to argue the validity of the poll or the timing you can. It is after all just a point in favor of Popular Opinion, which is not a reason to Balance anything.

Cut and Paste

Is there anything wrong with castling?
Choose 1
No, castles are fine the way they are. 83% (38)

Yes, the 'mad castling' strategy is a problem that needs to be dealt with. 17% (8)

What should our next step, as a community, be?
Choose 1
Insist that the developers change the game to address the problem. 11% (5)

Use house rules that limit the strategy. 17% (8)

Learn to deal with the strategy in game. 41% (19)

Enjoy a perfectly appropriate part of the game. 30% (14)

Select all statements that you agree with.
Choose 10
Mad castling is an abusive strategy that cannot be deal with. 2% (1)

Mad castling is not impossible to deal with, but it certainly reduces my enjoyment of the game. 35% (16)

Mad castling is a strategy like any other, and one needs to learn to defeat it. 61% (28)

Mad castling is a strategy I cannot implement well myself, so I want to prevent other people from using it. 0% (0)

Mad castling is the only strategy that stops me from raiding to my heart content, and I want it gone. 0% (0)

Mad castling is the only strategy that stops raids effectively, and should remain until raiding is balanced. 28% (13)

Mad castling is a strategy that works to my advantage when an oponent is using it poorly. 28% (13)

Mad castling has advantages and disadvantages, but the balance between them needs work. 17% (8)

Mad castling is a strategy that is only abusive when combined with some other unbalanced features, like Ermor, uber-VQ, etc... 24% (11)

Mad castling is a combination of words that I do not want to hear ever again.

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
Also for reference as of Right now this is the "Poll" of Castling. You don't quite have the support of 'everyone'. But if you want to argue the validity of the poll or the timing you can. Sure, but I've never claimed that that I have support of "everyone". Otherwise what would be the point of this discussion?

And yes, I could certanly question the timing or the validity of this poll if I wanted to, but I don't. Perhaps I will just do another poll with few simple not-biased questions later on, when the "soap opera" feeling will subdue furthur. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.

And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw, but I think it's simple and elegant solution) regarding burnable temples?

[ May 29, 2004, 01:52: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

May 29th, 2004, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.If you won't put the effort into answering my questions there is no reason for me to answer yours. It's common courtesy and the burden of proof is yours. If you want to admit that you in no way can prove that Castling is more economical/strategically feasible than a # of other strategies using the same resources and that Castling is not overpowered you just want to change it because it's no fun to have to storm 800 castles in order to beat certain unnamed people. I will answer your question.

And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw) about burnable temples? This is a bad change in my mind. Thematically it doesn't fit in my mind. If you find a temple of the heathen god who claims to be the one True God and I was vying for his place, I would burn anything created for him to the ground, then dance around on the ashes then feed the ashes to a blood slave and sacrifice her for no reason other than to kill it again.

Balance wise, it will too suddenly switch the effect of Dominion and Dominion would be more mutable than I feel should. Dominion is represented in my mind by devotion to a god, this takes time and effort. Even though a good % of the popluation is very fickle in their beliefs, healthy % is not so fickle. Also I don't particularly want to devalue Temples importance.

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
[qb] And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.If you won't put the effort into answering my questions there is no reason for me to answer yours.

<hr /></blockquote>I did.

It's common courtesy and the burden of proof is yours. If you want to admit that you in no way can prove that Castling is more economical/strategically feasible than a # of other strategies using the same resources and that Castling is not overpowered
That's not what I've said. As for the burden of proof - I've explained below that you can not PROVE any theory such as this one by *examples* in the way you suggested. It is just logically impossible, as I hope you can see yourself. You can only PROVE that the theory is WRONG by showing the example where it is untrue. And since you are the one who offered this "simple method" and said that it MUST be applied, AND you are the one who claim that his strategy is better than Norfleet's "madcastling" strategy, the burden of proof here is clearly on *you*, if you are willing to do it. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't ask other people to do it, since it just wouldn't make sense.

you just want to change it because it's no fun to have to storm 800 castles in order to beat certain unnamed people.

I freely and readly admit that it is certanly not fun to have to storm 800 castles. However it is not the main or the only reason for my position.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw) about burnable temples? This is a bad change in my mind. Thematically it doesn't fit in my mind. If you find a temple of the heathen god who claims to be the one True God and I was vying for his place, I would burn anything created for him to the ground, then dance around on the ashes then feed the ashes to a blood slave and sacrifice her for no reason other than to kill it again.

Balance wise, it will too suddenly switch the effect of Dominion and Dominion would be more mutable than I feel should. Dominion is represented in my mind by devotion to a god, this takes time and effort. Even though a good % of the popluation is very fickle in their beliefs, healthy % is not so fickle. Also I don't particularly want to devalue Temples importance. <hr /></blockquote>http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.

[ May 29, 2004, 02:42: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

May 29th, 2004, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I did. No you said it couldn't be done, so you didn't answer it. You dodged it, which is a frequent habit of yours.

That's not what I've said. As for the burden of proof - I've explained below that you can not PROVE any theory such as this one by *examples* in the way you suggested. It is just logically impossible, as I hope you can see yourself. You can only PROVE that the theory is WRONG by showing the example where it is untrue. And since you are the one who offered this "simple method" and said that it MUST be applied, AND you are the one who claim that his strategy is better than Norfleet's "madcastling" strategy, the burden of proof here is clearly on *you*, if you are willing to do it. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't ask other people to do it, since it just wouldn't make sense.So you are saying you can't accrue the costs and apply it to the same cost to an Army and have the Castle's clearly be a more valuable choice? That is impossible then? I'm saying you can. You didn't even really understand any of the points that I tried to use to gauge Castle's strategic and economic usefulness so it is no surprise you wouldn't understand something as basic as "Castles cost X, you can make X Army with the X amount of Cost and X Army Advantage will reliably conquor X amount of castles"
I freely and readly admit that it is certanly not fun to have to storm 800 castles. However it is not the main or the only reason for my position.Yet that is the only reason you can prove.

I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position. It devalues them because noone would burn down a temple they would have a reasonable chance to reaqquire. Thus any temple built would stay built baring extraneous circumstances (akin to how Labs are only built down if you plan on losing a province and want to limit the use of an opponent resupplying gems/summons etc). So Temples would mean less because instead of requiring you to defend them, you could just go back and retake it when you felt the need/inclination to.

If you understand how Dominion works you might want to look at that. Temples provide instant Dominion pushing force. So when taking a province that has a temple in it, suddenly you are doing a dramatic shift in the Dominion struggle in that province, and you are allowing instant use of Blood Sacrifice.

No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.

Not to mention the thematic reasons.

[ May 29, 2004, 03:01: Message edited by: Zen ]

Norfleet

May 29th, 2004, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.I don't think that's quite what he meant: One of the proposed suggestions is simply that the temple remains an enemy temple, and either is nonfunctional and does nothing, or continues to spread enemy dominion, until you specifically delegate a scout or something to specifically burn it down.

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Zen:

So you are saying you can't accrue the costs and apply it to the same cost to an Army and have the Castle's clearly be a more valuable choice? >sigh< I don't think it would make sense to continue this line of discussion further - we are clearly arguing in circles here.

I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position. 
It devalues them because noone would burn down a temple they would have a reasonable chance to reaqquire. Thus any temple built would stay built baring extraneous circumstances (akin to how Labs are only built down if you plan on losing a province and want to limit the use of an opponent resupplying gems/summons etc). So Temples would mean less because instead of requiring you to defend them, you could just go back and retake it when you felt the need/inclination to.
This is bad logic. Unlike with labs, which indeed stay in place forever unless you are planing to lose province for good and decide burn it, you can bet your *** that the enemy will try to burn your temple down if he can, with scouts/raiders/whatever, as soon as it captures your province. Therefore you have to recapture it immideatly, not "sit back and recapture when you have need/inclination". And doing this may not be as simple as before, since now the enemy have strong motive to hold for your province for at least one more turn, to finish his "scorthed earth" tactic. And since unlike yourlelf he can bring the reinforcements from all neighborhood provinces by using "friendly province movement", and he can do it first (unless you try to counter it with remote summons/teleports), he may very well pull any number of nasty surprises on you - since now he have a motive to do it.

If you understand how Dominion works you might want to look at that. Temples provide instant Dominion pushing force. So when taking a province that has a temple in it, suddenly you are doing a dramatic shift in the Dominion struggle in that province,
Wrong. You are still not getting it - NOTHING changes dominion-wise, until the *next* turn, when you have opportunity to burn the enemy temple to the ground. So there is no "dramatic shift" or *any* shift in dominion when you take enemy province with the temple, it can only happen in a turn after that, when/if you'll succeed of burning it to the ground.

Thematically speaking, think of medieval priests and monks hiding behind strong walls of their monasteries while war would be raging all around them. Happened all the time historicaly during dark ages, that's why so many medieval monasteries and temples looks like fortresses. These were a brutal times of constant warfare, similar to the Ascension wars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

and you are allowing
instant use of Blood Sacrifice.

No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.

Not to mention the thematic reasons. You are asuming here that you are allowed to perform blood sucriface in enemy temples. But who said you should be allowed to do it? Thematically speaking , you should first convert the temple to your god (or burn it down and build new one) before you are allowed to have any benefits from it, be it "dominion push" or "blood sacriface".

If it is implemented this way that this argument of yours is also not valid.

[ May 29, 2004, 03:54: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

May 29th, 2004, 04:57 AM

I misunderstood what the suggestion was. You'll need to be more clear with the "suggestion". If it is as Norfleet says, then I have no real thought about it. I'd have to test it to see if it was enough of a stalling force. Not that I feel it would be, since Burning Things down happens before movement phase of the next turn (I believe) so they would still burn it, just with a scout every time they did it effectively increasing the Miromanagement.

Unless the turn sequence was changed to have things that are "Burned Down" affect after movement, then I could see a potential use.

Also there would be the element of having it retain ownership (if you want to have it pumping the owners dominion) and if that even happens. If they simply do not produce anything then it would turn into a factor of raid it, make it produce nothing then don't worry about it, since in order to reactivate it they would have to burn it down and rebuild it. Unless you also wanted to code in a 'reactivate Temple' command.

All in all, I still go back to the original, even if it was a good idea (undecided). Why do you need to change it to this? Is it Castling and it's unproven 'abuse' that causes this to change? Or is it 'lessen the effect of raiding'?

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Zen:
No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.I don't think that's quite what he meant: One of the proposed suggestions is simply that the temple remains an enemy temple, and either is nonfunctional and does nothing, or continues to spread enemy dominion, until you specifically delegate a scout or something to specifically burn it down. <hr /></blockquote>For once, Norfleet is right here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif That's what I've been telling all along, as I've benn trying to explain in my each of my previous Posts. Someone really have to read more carefuly before replying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

May 29th, 2004, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
For once, Norfleet is right here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif That's what I've been telling all along, as I've benn trying to explain in my each of my previous Posts. Someone really have to read more carefuly before replying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You failed to mention that the Temple would keep producing Dominion or would stop Producing Dominion and whose Dominion it would produce. A Lab becomes yours when you take it over. If you just leave it as a Temple when you take it over and suddenly it becomes yours, it is a much different arguement than if it is still considered an Enemies (Which I don't think this is how the game works. It labels a Province as yours and everything in it, with the exception of an Enemy Army and Tax Rate in the instance of a Siege)

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
I misunderstood what the suggestion was. You did indeed.

Anyway I am glad that you have finally seem to see some merits in this suggestion. I agree with you, obviously the "burn temple" command should be executed around the "building" stage, after the "movement" stage. (I also don't remeber for sure when exactly it is executed right now.)

As for your question "why it is such a interesting idea in my opinion" - the answer is simple. All "mad castlers", starting with Norfleet, say that they have no choice but to "mad castle" every province, in order to protect their temples. (they argue that PD is expensive and unadequite, keeping regular troops to defend uncastled temples is unrealistic, 2 burned temples cost more than the whole castle, etc.)

With this simple change it will give everybody , "mad castlers" and not "mad castlers", another valid option to defend your temples. Now you don't nessesrly *have to* madcaslte if you, like norfleet and comp, want to build temples everywhere (although you still can if you want). On the other hand, it doesn't force everybody to adobt the same tactic in order to compete (although I understand that you personally do not agree with this Last argument.

But in any case, it doesn't "nerf" anybody, and it can actually make game more interesting and diverce. Think about new choices for both attackers and defenders:

For defenders: "Should I counter attack with small force and try to save my temple, or should I expect enemy ambush there and counter attack in mass? Or should I just let it burn and wait until I get more forces, siting tight and holding to what I still own?"

For raiders: "Should I kill and plunder and ravage and move on to the next enemy province, and leting these cowardeous priest locked in their temple live? Should I stay here for one more turn, plundering for one more moneth while rasing these blashemious temple into the ground? Or should I set up an ambush for the attackers, while they will be hurring to save this ugly temple? Or perhaps I should move one, while living single commander with the order to infiltrate and burn down the temple, and hope that the intimidated enemy will not risk to attack the next turn? "

Simple change, no nerfs, almost no coding required, and so much additional excitement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Solution to "mad castling" and increasing diversity of the game at the same time. And less of "storming of 800 castles" syndrom, as you put it, which I think most people would agree is not fun. That's why I called it win-win situation.

[ May 29, 2004, 04:53: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
For once, Norfleet is right here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif That's what I've been telling all along, as I've benn trying to explain in my each of my previous Posts. Someone really have to read more carefuly before replying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You failed to mention that the Temple would keep producing Dominion or would stop Producing Dominion and whose Dominion it would produce. A Lab becomes yours when you take it over. If you just leave it as a Temple when you take it over and suddenly it becomes yours, it is a much different arguement than if it is still considered an Enemies <hr /></blockquote>True, I didn't specifically mention this, but I asumened it should be pretty obvious. Otherwise, the suggestion would have nothing to do with changes to commanders and orders but would be just "Do not make temples burn automatically". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And of course it would be much worse suggestion than what was proposed, I certanly agree with Zen on that one - making temples less valuble, sudden dominion-shifts, would not make much sense thematic-wise , et cetera.

May 29th, 2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
But shifting the blame for it on me is not fair, I think I've writen it very clearly: Nothing in that explaination says anything about whose Dominion is produced. If the Temple works exactly like a Lab then it comes under your control, pumping out your Dominion. But if it is effectively Nulled or still Produces Enemy Domininon (forcing you to deal with it) it changes the entire suggestion.

Like I said, you seem to think it's win-win. And aside from the point that if Dominion is produced or not and whose, would be a sticking point. Because if it doesn't produce any Dominion, then it does basically the same thing as just taking it, if you have to "Purify Temple" instead of rebuilding one, you would still run into the problem of having Temples everywhere. If you have to kill it or it produces Enemy Dominion, that becomes a much stickier problem and needs to be dealt with and could present the issues that you were saying (having Raiders stay behind or feel the need to destroy the Temple).

[ May 29, 2004, 04:54: Message edited by: Zen ]

May 29th, 2004, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
True, I didn't specifically mention this, but I asumened it should be pretty obvious. Otherwise, the suggestion would have nothing to do with changes to commanders and orders but would be just "Do not make temples burn automatically". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Not really. And I think it would be more of a coding issue than you seem to think. I don't know how Capital only Magic Sites are coded (that might be a place to start to see how in depth and what kind of assigned values have to be attributed) and the factors of nulling them once taken by a non-nation player.

Either way. I don't think honestly a Castler is castling because of protecting his temples. That is just a side excuse as Dominion is important. A castler is castling to provide a speed bump to encroaching forces in order to manuver a hammer in place to take out the encroacers. So this change would not change the willingness to Castle or not one bit, but would make taking and Holding even easier.

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
But shifting the blame for it on me is not fair, I think I've writen it very clearly: Nothing in that explaination says anything about whose Dominion is produced. If the Temple works exactly like a Lab then it comes under your control, pumping out your Dominion. But if it is effectively Nulled or still Produces Enemy Domininon (forcing you to deal with it) it changes the entire suggestion.

Like I said, you seem to think it's win-win. And aside from the point that if Dominion is produced or not and whose, would be a sticking point. Because if it doesn't produce any Dominion, then it does basically the same thing as just taking it, if you have to "Purify Temple" instead of rebuilding one, you would still run into the problem of having Temples everywhere. If you have to kill it or it produces Enemy Dominion, that becomes a much stickier problem and needs to be dealt with and could present the issues that you were saying (having Raiders stay behind or feel the need to destroy the Temple). <hr /></blockquote>Ok, I've removed "shifting blame" paragraph, since you do have some point here.

Anyway, as I said I certanly agree that these solutions are very different and one is signnificantly better than another, and I think now it is clear to you which one I am advocating. So in light of all that was said below, do you like this suggestion?

May 29th, 2004, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
So in light of all that was said below, do you like this suggestion? In light of that, I can't say. If you want a gut reaction, here it is. IF the Temple still produces the Owner's Dominion it would curb the rampant destrution of Temples by Raiders, thus nulling, in part some of the negative aspects of raiding (negative meaning, things that make you hurt). I don't know whether or not Raiding needs to be addressed in such a way as it is a natural and viable part of weakening an opponent in order to bring a force to bear. You also have to think of the implications that it would have on the nations that use Raiding most successfully (Stealth Nations, Caelum) and how much would it impact them.

IF it doesn't produce any Dominion, it doesn't do anything but add in the micromanagement of dragging a Scout everywhere you take enemy provinces on Retreat and if that provice is not attacked you raise it. If it is retaken, then is the game supposed to reactivate the temple or does it require more action?

That didn't really say much, it would be different, I don't know whether or not it would be good or bad or increase/decrease Micromanagement (something I do not like and would not advocate change for).

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
True, I didn't specifically mention this, but I asumened it should be pretty obvious. Otherwise, the suggestion would have nothing to do with changes to commanders and orders but would be just "Do not make temples burn automatically". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Not really. And I think it would be more of a coding issue than you seem to think. I don't know how Capital only Magic Sites are coded (that might be a place to start to see how in depth and what kind of assigned values have to be attributed) and the factors of nulling them once taken by a non-nation player.

Either way. I don't think honestly a Castler is castling because of protecting his temples. That is just a side excuse as Dominion is important. A castler is castling to provide a speed bump to encroaching forces in order to manuver a hammer in place to take out the encroacers. So this change would not change the willingness to Castle or not one bit, but would make taking and Holding even easier. <hr /></blockquote>I've said that it'll not eliminate madcastling completely, but the desire to protect temples is an important one, although not the only one.

With no exceptions all people who were advocating the "mad castling" strategy so far in each and every thread on this board have said that the number one reason they do it is to protect the temples. I have no reason to believe that they are all lying. I think it is an important reason, although I agree that it is not the only one.

But the most importent point why to have this rule is that it would give people alternative ways to protect their temples, without restoring to "mad castling" strategy if they choose not to.

And it would bring all these interesting additional choices/questions for raiders/defenders that I've mentioned in my previous post, increasing diversity even more. This chancge could bring something interesting into the game, without taking anything in return(except maybe making raiding a little bit less profitable, but in the same time more interesting, since now you are facing more choices than just "burn everything and move on"), and it may very well improve both fun and balance, while reducing prominence and frequency of mad castling strategy and giving other strategies better fighting chance.

Besides you can't really argue about whom it will benefit more Zen, think about it this way - one player's (yours for example http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) strategy calls for building casltes in 33% (or 50%, or 25%, whatever) provinces in your dominion. And other player is a "madcastler", who builds cheap castles and temples in every province.

Now you are in the full scale war. Then suddenly with this new "temples change" your attacks on mad castler do not change at all, since all his temples are protected anyway, while you have much better chance to protect your territory with the temples against his raiders, since it is harder now for him to burn your temples.

So who do you think will benefit from this suggested new rule more? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And even mad castler (unless he is really die-hard one, such as certain person) may be quite temped to invest a little more into troop/mages production, instead of burning tons of money on building castles everywhere.

[ May 29, 2004, 06:04: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Zen:

If it is retaken, then is the game supposed to reactivate the temple or does it require more action?
Nope, no actions required. Priests were safe and sound behind the strong walls of their temple, while the inviders were ravaging the countryside, asuming that the rescue army had arrived in time(next turn). No need to "reactivate" your temple, so no additional micromanagement here.

The priests (npc-priests http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) inside the temple could still pray (generate your dominion) for one Last turn, after their province was conquered, asking in vain their God for the miracle to save them, before/if their temple would be overrun and burned down by enemy, and the priests themselves were killed over the ruined altars of their God.

Or their drastic situation may prevent them from generating your dominion for this one turn while thier province is in enemy's hands. It doesn't really matter much, you can take the pick that you like more.

[ May 29, 2004, 05:57: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Norfleet

May 29th, 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
A castler is castling to provide a speed bump to encroaching forces in order to manuver a hammer in place to take out the encroacers. So this change would not change the willingness to Castle or not one bit, but would make taking and Holding even easier. Actually, castling does not really serve as a very effective speed bump JUST to enable you to manuever a hammer into place: It actually slightly impedes this, as you can't perform a trapeze-attack anymore, since the trapezers sit in the castle and drink beer.

What castling *DOES* do, however, is protect your temple, and your magic site income, which is the lifeblood of a successful empire. Of course, if temples did not immediately explode when prodded, it would not be necessary to castle provinces merely for the temple: I would, in fact, start favoring a buffer zone of naked countryside next to opposing empires, so that when attacked, I could immediately drop a teleport/trapeze squad on them, making it impossible to escape. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Zen:
A castler is castling to provide a speed bump to encroaching forces in order to manuver a hammer in place to take out the encroacers. So this change would not change the willingness to Castle or not one bit, but would make taking and Holding even easier. Actually, castling does not really serve as a very effective speed bump JUST to enable you to manuever a hammer into place: It actually slightly impedes this, as you can't perform a trapeze-attack anymore, since the trapezers sit in the castle and drink beer.

What castling *DOES* do, however, is protect your temple, and your magic site income, which is the lifeblood of a successful empire. Of course, if temples did not immediately explode when prodded, it would not be necessary to castle provinces merely for the temple: I would, in fact, start favoring a buffer zone of naked countryside next to opposing empires, so that when attacked, I could immediately drop a teleport/trapeze squad on them, making it impossible to escape. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>See, Norfleet is already backing down from "mad castling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

To do what you have said norf you need to have significant force not only to overwhelm the entire invading army with your teleporters, but you also need to overrun all friendly neigborhing provinces at the same turn, to block the invider's route to escape if the choose to, or you would just end up wasting your time and gems AND would pose yourself wide open for retaliation.

Keep in mind that once your drop you "cloudtrapezing/teleporting squad" you are open to the same present plus some extra from your enemy, since now *you* are the one siting in the open and the enemy knows your numbers and knows what to expect from you.

Also by having line of naked countryside near your neigbors you are risking of losing it all to one coordinated attack.

But anyway, it is certanly an improvement compared to "mad caslers" warfare, in terms of fun if nothing else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 29, 2004, 09:00: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Gandalf Parker

May 29th, 2004, 03:17 PM

If "mad castling" is a thing which the natural benefits of Man, Vanheim, and Pangaea (less bit Caelum) seem made to combat, then doesnt that put the whole subject into a Category where its not going to get touched? Any change which would improve the ability of Ulm or Marignon or Pythium against mad castling would lessen the benefits of playing or allying with the nations less affected by mad castling.

Pirateiam

May 29th, 2004, 06:20 PM

Well at first I wrote this long-winded statement about balance issues and play styles and then I realized something...
These debates and polls are worthless. How do you prove strategies are unbalanced based on games that you have won or lost, on a game that includes so many random variables (oh look my capital is neighboring the Crystal Citadel and the Council of sages!) and human diplomacy.
I think we have lost site on how and why to give feedback to the developers. This is a game and most of us play it to have fun. So lets give them ideas that can make the game more fun. I then trust in them to decide what is balanced and what adds to the flavor of the game. What they want to add to the game is up to them; it is after all their baby. After thinking about this I wonder whether I really want this game even more addictive?????? lol Heck yeah!

Hot topics:
1.) VQ - Well I use to be of the opinion that she was unbeatable, but after further review I think the problem lies in the overall balance of other Gods.

Fun solution: I love playing the obscure human Gods like the Alchemists and Druids, make them more of a viable choice - Higher dominion or specialty items that they already have that only they posses - Staff of Summoning: Druid, Alchemist Beaker: Alchemist (transforms all gems to gold)

2.) Castle Mania (really a raiding issue) - While I like the idea of making the temples burnable after one turn we must ask ourselves what would be more Fun!

Fun solution: Province defense should be based off of money (like normal) but also population and dominion. For instance would not you defend your home from invaders? It would be cool to see waves of militia and devout priests defending their homes from the undead waves. Those single SC's might think twice when they raid those 20,000 population provinces if they had to face 800+ high moral militia. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

3.) Clam Hording - Simple solution I think is having the developers compare a similar item and decide if it is balanced accordingly. Example -
Fever Fetish - 5 Fire, 5 Nature, gives disease to owner, Clams - 10 water

Fun solution: Make water gems more precious aka a better use for them. If you look at the item list there are far fewer items that you can make using water gems.
Here are some of my crazy ideas - Staff of Rain - makes fire magic more difficult, Canteen of invigoration - +4 reinvigorate,

4.) Norfleet - (No personal attack meant whatsoever) Norfleet is simply one of the best Dominions II players. He simply plays for keeps using every advantage, ethical or unethical exploitive or not (all debatable) to win the game. If you have never faced this in your real lives you have lived a sheltered life. I for one think he brings a unique flavor to this community and have no problem playing against him. (since each time I learn something more after the loss http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Fun Solution: He should be made (forced by gun if need be) a beta tester. If there is anyone who has the time and insight to find problems within the game it would be him.

Question for Norfleet: What other strategy games have you played before Dom II. I am wondering if I have run into you on other Online strategy games - what was your alias on these games?

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Bayushi Tasogare:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
See, Norfleet is already backing down from "mad castling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif If that's what you got out of Norfleet's statement... hmm. Yes, he wouldn't build castles. OTOH, it makes attacking him even harder. <hr /></blockquote>Between you and me, First - I don't care at all about new tactic that Norfleet' will adopt or will not. It's not about 1 player. It's about strategy, which is called "madcastling". The fact that the most notorious madcastler said that he will abandon it, partly or fully, is an indicator that the changes would indeed be in effect.

Although personally I didn't really put much weight into it, intended it partly as a joke (noticed that "smile"?)

Second - you are plain wrong about "making him even harder to defeat". Read my example to Zen, about two players, one madcastling and one not, and tell me again how this proposed rule will benefit "mad castler" more than "not-madcastler". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Now Norfleet is perfectly free to adopt any other strategy, just like everybody else. Again, this is "anti-madcaslting" change, not "anti-Norfleet" change.

To do what you have said norf you need to have significant force not only to overwhelm the entire invading army with your teleporters, 
Unless your opponent is invading with SCs, this is not really an issue. If you're invading with SCs/mage assault squads... why aren't you doing this against the castles?
I don't know about your SP playstyle Bayushi, but in MP SCs are the primary raiding force of choice. Anybody with MP experience could tell you that much.

And SCs do not storm castles by themself.

but you also need to overrun all friendly neigborhing provinces at the same turn, to block the invider's route to escape if the choose to, or you would just end up wasting your time and gems AND would pose yourself wide open for retaliation. You might want to explain this some more. Spell movement happens before 'normal' movement. I don't see how they can 'escape'. It's not like squads made to destroy entire armies are made to let anyone escape. You _could_ place your army on 'retreat' orders, making it a true raid, but then your army gets dispersed, requiring time to reassemble it.You have answered your own question. Not only you could, but often you are, making your opponent wonder if it is deep strike or fient, and spend his resourses (lost reseach, gems, troops) in vain, while posing his own troops open to the enemy strike. The choices will be even more intriguing with new proposed rule, as I demonstrated in my previous post, since now raider have a strong motive to try to burn the temple if the can, and both players know it and will act accordingly.

Dispersing is not an issue when most of your raiding force consist of one or several SC raiders, as it very often does in MP. No that is an issue when there are only one or two friendly provinces to retreat.

Keep in mind that once your drop you "cloudtrapezing/teleporting squad" you are open to the same present plus some extra from your enemy, since now *you* are the one siting in the open and the enemy knows your numbers and knows what to expect from you. And the 'sitting duck' goes first. In a fight between squads of the same quality, advantage goes to the defender.Do you really think that I am not aware of this fact? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It's the same situation as when Norfleet attacking raiders, only as I said to make sure they are eliminated he would have to conquer not one, but all other surrounding friendly provinces at the same turn. Also FYI - as I said most of the raiders party are one or several flying SC. The first turn can indeed make some difference in this case, but if you are prepared for it (as you should, since now you know exactly what to expect), several simple solutions can negate 1-st turn advantage of flying SC. The most basic and well known is having a hidden scout with Staff of Storms in the province, ready to surface and stop banelords/wraithlords/VQ/Airqueens/whatever from reaching your quickly and start hacking away before you are ready.

I've eployed it personally against Norfleet (under disguise of Pakhar Njal) several times in our Last game, worked like magic every time, resulting in dead enemy SCs raiders/defenders and no losses. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Also by having line of naked countryside near your neigbors you are risking of losing it all to one coordinated attack. That all depends on the border involved. If that border is small, then the attacks of both attacker and defender are concentrated. If large, both have to devote larger resources for a smaller gain. This is a wash, IMO.

It is your opinion indeed, and generaly speaking it is a wrong one. In competitive MP any number of undefended provinces on the border with hostile dominion can easely fall at the same turn to the well planed or coordinated attack of SC raiders, regular armies, assasins, remote summons and remote damage spells. Again, I've did it number of times in MP against many differnt opponents, so trust me, I know what I am speaking about. PD is not an adequate, and if you are having small armies defending provinces without castles, you can be sure that each of them will be met by slightly stronger army, custom-made to deal with this particular enemy army. Assuming of course you are playing against competent enemy.

The only real way do defend line of naked border provinces against strong player is to use few neigboring castles as a rally and safe heaven points for you troops, as well as storngpoints for you counterattack on your "naked lands, after they would be overrun by your enemy. Either that, or teleporting/clodtrewezing units from elsewhere, again next turn after enemy attack.

But anyway, it is certanly an improvement compared to "mad caslers" warfare, in terms of fun if nothing else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[QUOTE]
This is nothing more or less than an opinion of yours, and hence not really useful for supporting an argument.

Stormbinder, you seem to be operating under 2 rather common logical fallacies, and it's really hurting any chance you have to get what you want changed.
And this is nothing more than opinion of yours. I am not going to respond to your future "arguments" below, since I find them to be completely without merit, while writen in pretty arrogant and hostile tone. Surface to say I've readen them carefully (unlike yourself when you were reading what I had to say), and I have found that you've connstantly attributed to me the statements and ideas that I've never expressed, just so you could "fight" them with your counterarguments. Since I happen to agree with Zen, in thinking that it is common curtesy to read your opponents post carefully before replying to it, much less accursing him of "logic fallacies" he never made, I don't see why I should spend my time and do for you what you clearly haven't done for me. Sorry.

This also isn't much of an issue for me as a player since I can't play MP very much.

That much become pretty obvious from your post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It's rather pecular how somebody dive head first into discussion of relatively advanced and purly MP concept of "madcastling", and start throwing arround accusations of multiply "logical fallacies" at his opponents, while admiting of not being expereinced MP player, or having experinece with "madcastling", which is a subject of the discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ignorance is not a crime. But ignorance + arrogance is not a very pretty picture either. Have you been more civil in your post, as well as more carefull with reading what your opponents really said before dismissing what they said as a "wash",as you nicely put it, I would point to you where exactly you were wrong, and would do it nicely. But as it is, I feel no obligation to bother doing it at all, as I am sure you can appreciate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 30, 2004, 00:14: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Stormbinder

May 29th, 2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
If "mad castling" is a thing which the natural benefits of Man, Vanheim, and Pangaea (less bit Caelum) seem made to combat, then doesnt that put the whole subject into a Category where its not going to get touched? Any change which would improve the ability of Ulm or Marignon or Pythium against mad castling would lessen the benefits of playing or allying with the nations less affected by mad castling. Could you elaborate on this please Gandalf? Not sure what you meant. Madcastling is a strategy that can be successfuly employed by any race. Although some races can benefit from it more than others (Miclan, Ermor, Caelum, R'lyeh, Vanheim, others), but anybody can benefit from it. (especaily considering the fact that you can have uber-VQ pretender with any race, which can multiply effect of madcastling). You can do it with several other pretenders as well, although with more risk to yourself.

The proposed change indirectly but surely will make "madcastling" less atractive (by helping *any* not-madcastling strategy). Therefore it will make madcastling less promiment, while at the same time helping any nation who will find itself dealing with die-hard madcastler.

I agree that it will probably help more nations who were the worst suited to deal with madcastling to begin with, giving them more of a fighting chance. But it'll benefit any race nevertheless as far as madcastling concern. So I don't really see here a serious problem.

Besides as I said it'll make the game more complicated (in a good way) by making raiding and counter-riding more intriguing (by adding additional choice of "burn temple" to the raiding commanders, and additional goal and things to consider when you are raiding, instead if just current "burn everything in sight and move on" tactic).

While I think that the first reason is more importent, I can appreciate how people who for some reason don't consider "madcastling" to be an serious issue in MP games, would still like this change for the additional choices it brings to the game.

[ May 30, 2004, 00:06: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Norfleet

May 30th, 2004, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
Fun Solution: He should be made (forced by gun if need be) a beta tester. If there is anyone who has the time and insight to find problems within the game it would be him.Heh. I don't think I have enough blackmail info on Illwinter or Shrapnel to get in there. Ain't gonna happen.

Question for Norfleet: What other strategy games have you played before Dom II. I am wondering if I have run into you on other Online strategy games - what was your alias on these games? You wouldn't have: I'm not a huge fan of most popular RTSes, and tend to dislike hanging around their multiplayer communities in general, and most TBS games are fundamentally unsuited for multiplayer play.

Scott Hebert

May 30th, 2004, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
See, Norfleet is already backing down from "mad castling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif If that's what you got out of Norfleet's statement... hmm. Yes, he wouldn't build castles. OTOH, it makes attacking him even harder. Meanwhile, the game devolves from 'endless castle sieges' to 'endless cat-and-mouse antics'.

To do what you have said norf you need to have significant force not only to overwhelm the entire invading army with your teleporters, Unless your opponent is invading with SCs, this is not really an issue. If you're invading with SCs/mage assault squads... why aren't you doing this against the castles?

but you also need to overrun all friendly neigborhing provinces at the same turn, to block the invider's route to escape if the choose to, or you would just end up wasting your time and gems AND would pose yourself wide open for retaliation.You might want to explain this some more. Spell movement happens before 'normal' movement. I don't see how they can 'escape'. It's not like squads made to destroy entire armies are made to let anyone escape. You _could_ place your army on 'retreat' orders, making it a true raid, but then your army gets dispersed, requiring time to reassemble it.

Keep in mind that once your drop you "cloudtrapezing/teleporting squad" you are open to the same present plus some extra from your enemy, since now *you* are the one siting in the open and the enemy knows your numbers and knows what to expect from you. And the 'sitting duck' goes first. In a fight between squads of the same quality, advantage goes to the defender.

Also by having line of naked countryside near your neigbors you are risking of losing it all to one coordinated attack. That all depends on the border involved. If that border is small, then the attacks of both attacker and defender are concentrated. If large, both have to devote larger resources for a smaller gain. This is a wash, IMO.

But anyway, it is certanly an improvement compared to "mad caslers" warfare, in terms of fun if nothing else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif This is nothing more or less than an opinion of yours, and hence not really useful for supporting an argument.

Stormbinder, you seem to be operating under 2 rather common logical fallacies, and it's really hurting any chance you have to get what you want changed.

The first logical fallacy you're using is that of the 'bandwagon philosophy', or 'if it's popular, it's good'. Popularity is not without merit, but it cannot be the basis for a discussion on whether something is quality, not quality, etc. etc. One of the arguments used for VQs (especially) and castling and clams (to a lesser extent) is 'everyone uses them, so it has to be broken'. It is a fact that people tend towards the most powerful/abusive parts of a game, because the object of the game is to win. However, that by itself is not enough to prove that a strategy is broken. In fact, actual anecdotal evidence shows clearly that it's not a strategy easy to use, and that few can implement it properly.

The second logical fallacy you're falling under is that of the self-evident statement. You are _assuming_ that castling is a problem, and using that as the starting point to suggest solutions to it. You quite nicely are sidestepping a crucial point in the problem analysis procedure, namely determining whether the point under consideration truly is a problem.

This is where your argument is falling down, and Zen is quite right in showing this over and over again. You haven't given us any real information showing how castling everywhere is a problem. Zen has even suggested ways for you to do this. Since you seem unwilling to do so, I'll do it for you.

Let's say you have a 300g Fortification (which is at the heart of this strategy... it's also the 'best' situation for the defender, so we're talking a 'best case' scenario in favor of the defender). Let's say you've built X of them in your kingdom. The amount of gold you've spent on them would then be 300x. That's all the analysis we'll do for now. We won't go into temples/labs involved, or anything else that might be harder to quantify.

Now, the question is, can the attacker build an army with 300x gold (where x is the number of defending castles) that can take out the defender's castles? Now, a specific answer would require assigning a number to x, which as you point out varies on a case-by-case basis. However, something that you CAN see, just by the numbers, is that as the number of castles the defender has increases, the relative size of the attacker's army increases. This leads to easier and easier capture of castles. Therefore, putting a castle in every province is not a very good strategy, per se, as it is something that gives more and more advantage to the attacker.

"But wait!" you say. "That isn't the castling strategy! It requires rapid-response units to prevent the castles from ever falling!" And that is correct. But before you can propose a solution to a problem, you have to know where the problem lies. By the above _simple_ analysis, simply building castles everywhere is a losing proposition, all else being equal. Therefore, if there is a problem, it doesn't exist with the way castles are built.

You must then analyze if the fault lies in 'raiding', or in the ease of moving SCs around (to prevent breaches in lines), or something else entirely. But the thing here is, you're not defining your problem clearly enough.

Would your suggestion of requiring an action to burn down temples solve the castling question? Perhaps. It removes what some claim is the incentive for castling. But is that fixing the problem, or only the symptoms of the problem?

Personally, I feel the issue stems down to SCs being too easy to build and too mobile by far. But I can't prove that either. This also isn't much of an issue for me as a player since I can't play MP very much.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Scott

Pirateiam

May 30th, 2004, 02:17 AM

You wouldn't have: I'm not a huge fan of most popular RTSes, and tend to dislike hanging around their multiplayer communities in general, and most TBS games are fundamentally unsuited for multiplayer play.
Actually I also do not care much for the typical RTS but there are a few with merit - Kohan, EU2, Hearts of Iron

Gandalf Parker

May 30th, 2004, 02:32 AM

Its not just testing. Its being able to explain it. I think we see how well that goes on here.

There are very few english speaking beta testers for this game. It simplifies things for developers for whom english is a second language. Not a big deal I think, just simpler.

Of course it does tend to increase the amount of typos and syntax that we get to report with each patch. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Norfleet

May 30th, 2004, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
Actually I also do not care much for the typical RTS but there are a few with merit - Kohan, EU2, Hearts of Iron HERETIC! BLASPHEMER! How could you forget to mention Total Annihilation?!?

Pirateiam

May 30th, 2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pirateiam:
Actually I also do not care much for the typical RTS but there are a few with merit - Kohan, EU2, Hearts of Iron HERETIC! BLASPHEMER! How could you forget to mention Total Annihilation?!? <hr /></blockquote>Yes if you know me I am definately a Heretic! I have never even tried Total Annihilation. Is it any good? What makes it different then the typical gather crap, build crap, rush attack mentality of the typical RTS?

Norfleet

May 31st, 2004, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
I have never even tried Total Annihilation. Is it any good? What makes it different then the typical gather crap, build crap, rush attack mentality of the typical RTS? Because it has the best unit AI and anti-micromanagement in any RTS so far? For instance, planes can automatically patrol a patrol route, where they'll attack anyone that comes near, and after killing the target, return their patrol. You don't have to do a thing. Repair units can be set to wander your base, helping out with any construction tasks, and repairing any structures or units they happen across.

Finally, you have a D-Gun. You have to experience it for yourself. Get the game.

Cheezeninja

May 31st, 2004, 02:41 AM

My favorite moments were when i launched a 15 missle strong nuclear missle salvo against the enemy, it was far from the most effective tactic im sure, but man was it fun watching those nukes fly towards the enemy base on radar. I believe the addition of the giant robot in the expansion (cant remember its name) somewhat unbalanced things. Stick a radar plane circling around their head and they could almost take out an entire base on their own. And i have NEVER seen a RTS do artillery as well as TA did it, before or since then.

Huzurdaddi

May 31st, 2004, 03:01 AM

Because it has the best unit AI and anti-micromanagement in any RTS so far?
The queueing is the greatest thing about TA. Infinite command queues ( of course not infinite but there is no practical limit ). This combined with the novel build charge method ( you are charged resources as you build not when you queue ) totally changes the game.

However I have found that all of this queueing actually INCREASES the amount one has to do at any one second during the game. It is truely amazing. A good game can take over an hour and you will hardly blink during the whole time.

(cant remember its name) somewhat unbalanced things
The mighty Krogoth! However at a cost of 35k metal it was not really overpowered. There were far better things to do with 35k of metal ( 350 Samsons!).

The really unbalanced unit was the Samson and the Slasher ( arm and core Versions ).

If you still play you should check out UberHack. It's quite good.

Karacan

May 31st, 2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
The queueing is the greatest thing about TA. Infinite command queues ( of course not infinite but there is no practical limit ). This combined with the novel build charge method ( you are charged resources as you build not when you queue ) totally changes the game.
*cough* Like Warlords Battlecry introduced a long, long time ago... Hah. Novel indeed, young whippersnapper.

Huzurdaddi

May 31st, 2004, 07:01 PM

*cough* Like Warlords Battlecry introduced a long, long time ago... Hah. Novel indeed, young whippersnapper.
Ah ha! While indeed Warlords Battlecry is old it is no where near as ancient as TA! TA was released in 1997!

When it was released Warlords Battlecry was but a glimmer in the eye of a stary eyed developer!

Also can you queue any order? And does the cost of a building come up front or as it is built?

Tris

June 1st, 2004, 01:56 AM

Can't remember who it was, but I just read all this debate, and someone said something like:

"You can't prove it exists, therefore is doesn't."

And I just wanted to say that this made me cross.

Right. That's done then.

Reverend Zombie

June 3rd, 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Tris:
Can't remember who it was, but I just read all this debate, and someone said something like:

"You can't prove it exists, therefore is doesn't."

And I just wanted to say that this made me cross.

Right. That's done then. Did someone really say something to that effect? I've been over the Posts here recently and could not find it (not to say it doesn't exist...)

incognito

July 21st, 2004, 05:42 PM

I've read a lot of the Posts on castling and felt compelled to chime in. No doubt I'm not saying anything new, but neither were the Last 100+ Posts I read...

I waffled a bit on the 'cheese' factor for castles, but finally concluded it's not cheesy. To the points made by many, stopping enemy raiders, fliers, summons, and everything else makes castling a smart strategy. It seems you could do without trying to castle every province (not sure if that is what anyone does) just to avoid the appearance of being cheesy, but if you bought the cheapest structure, it seems ridiculous not to play to your strengths.

Does this mean it's boring or lacks creativity? This is probably true for any strategy someone uses endlessly, but I think 'endlessly' should at least be given a couple of months. If someone is clever enough to come up with a good strategy, let them enjoy the returns for awhile.

While no expert, it seems there would be some good counters. First, castle yourself. I know some people hate playing their games this way, so no more on this. Second, use stealth troops to attack the 'deployment' province(s). What if - at the same time your forces show up at said castle, stealth troops or a single leader tie down the reinforcements (assuming they're not summons). Sure, this does not stop cloud trapeze so perhaps that is in vain, but it might stop anything else ala flying troops, etc. You can also use the multiple stealth troop Groups attacking several sites at once. How many indy woodsmen would this take? How well defended can every province be? Beats me (but I'd like feedback if anyone tried this and what the counter-counter was). Third, come with a force to beat the reinforcements - seems obvious, but for whatever reason people seem to be under the belief they cannot beat whatever Norfleet will send. Maybe that is the problem and not castling... Fourth, and Gandalf said it best, gang up on him. If you know he's a good player, seems like an easy pitch to get the other players to take him out early. Just email them with some of these castling threads and watch the fireworks begin. Funny thing about MP is you don't want to be too good - no one is above being drawn back to their humble beginnings if the other players band against them early enough.

My general 2 cents seems to be that there is far too much effort spent criticizing the castle strategy than coming up with counter-strategies. If nothing else, think of the glory when someone brings him down in a 1-1 game. Their would be endless Posts about the SC crone pretender with 1 magic in each school that dismantled castling and a VC SC in a legendary arm wrestling match to decide the fate of both kingdoms. The benefit, of course, if this does happen, is that no one is likely to complain about THAT strategy being unbalanced. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif