Can I get some cheese with that...

[Vynd]

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

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

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

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

[Reverend Zombie]

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

I believe that there is a burden to provide evidence if you are proposing changes, and that burden should fall on the "whiners" and not on those who are more or less happy with the game as it is.

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

[Tris]

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

There are actually two ways to see this:

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

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

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

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

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

[NTJedi]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

quote:

---

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.)

---

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

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 ]