Can I get some cheese with that...

[Stormbinder]

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...

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?

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.

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]

I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this thread, I've been ill.

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

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?

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. 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 ]

Originally posted by rabelais:
I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this thread, I've been ill.

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]

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" 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?

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 ]

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" 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?

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]

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" 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?


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 ]