I have refrained from participating in a "2vs1" attack because it is still not considered ethical to do so;
but I feel so strongly that a player with two castles has such an overwelming advantage over a player with only one castle;
and that he, with two castles, is still not over-matched against even two players with only one castle each, that I can no longer blame players with only one castle each for "double-teaming" against players with more than one castle.

However, IMO there are two major problems associated with gaining multiple castles that should be solved in the following manner:

a) a conquered castle along with all the resource buildings of that captured territory of that player should fall into a state of "1/3 depressed production" that becomes 2/3's after 5 turns and then full production after 10 turns. Realisticly that reduced production would reflect a state of apathy of conquered peoples.

b) initially catapults and ballista should be rated as "light" and then upgrades should be available for "medium and heavy" with the ranges adjusted accordingly because although I like the "super-weapon", I think they come to soon.

PS:
A side effect of gaining a second castle is that a wide lead in tech research is openned and "long range catapults" become available too soon. Ballista are really okay as is and may cause a defensive imbalance if changed.

TR

Last Edited : Monday, 21 February 2005 - 21:12

By your comments, TR, I would think that you haven't been 'that guy' that's fought an early battle and managed to conquer his 2nd castle very often, thus IMO, you wouldn't make a couple of the comments you just made.

You seem to be overlooking the 'cost of war' associated with obtaining that 2nd castle and area. I believe most experienced players would agree with my following comments...to explain my position.

Game starts, player A starts fighting with B at turn 10....able to defeat and take the castle by say...turn 25...then player C attacks him at turn 26...who's going to win?..in the majority of cases, probably player C due to the 'costs' incurred by A to win the war. Research and improvement is slowed since troops in the field are the priority. And time is needed not only for the capture of the castle but also the capture of the resource bldgs...and then more time/turns must pass before that player A recovers and is able to 'catch up' to C's balanced growth of military AND research.

This is just my opinion formed by my experience.

This IS a war game and the goal IS to defeat other players, gaining additional territory and wealth. I couldn't approve of any suggestion that deminishes the rewards for fighting another player or penalizes that player for victory.

The problem that you address with your solutions....really isn't a problem at all....it's simply a situation created by choice...one player is aggressive and starts a battle to gain wealth and territory...the only player doesn't...then endorses suggestions or game changes to give him what the other player won by fighting.

As a matter of fact on a few occassions I got lucky and did gain an early extra castle (i.e. at least twice without all the toil and trouble mentioned but rather because the guy had gone inactive) and I'm sure I'm not alone with that kind of luck.
On a couple of occassions I did use the "slam bang rush" approach and did catch the player without castle protection and just with a stack of spearmem on guard.

My early conquests have not been with major losses to myself to be honest and also I was into use of catapults when everyone else was passing on them. They were very useful to reach inaccessible piles, to cut off resources and to take out a barracks or two if a diversion could be created but they were used in a few of my more "earned victories" as opposed to "gift victories".
***No I didn't ever go so totally basic troop production to amass a horde of scouts for an early rush that I sacrificed "tech research" as is the impression I get of some folks and then have to negotiate for time to recouperate.***

At least half of my campaigns I have been the victim of a combination of an "early rush" and a "gang attack" that my attacker/s probably had wished he/they had gone elsewhere after spending as many as 80 turns to unsuccessfully defeat me. A few campaigns I did make some major blunders associated with a change of tactics because I was always getting jumped early and I wanted to get on the offensive rather than always the defensive and so I was beaten fairly, but in a few other campaigns I make no comment.

In any event I have summarized my entire campaign career because IMO my personal campaign record was called into question. I do believe that in most circumstances a player who gains a second castle in the present scenarios is coming up within a few turns well able to hold them and already getting ahead in technology;
and the use of catapults in later rounds by players who do get out in front is allowing them to make clean victories from afar by eliminating the ability to produce;
***So again NO I don't think that the NORM is to forego "tech research" in favor of "massed troop production" to use the "early rush" tactic and then be unable to hold onto the bone without negotiating for time.***
That is a mistake I won't make again (i.e. to give a guy with two castles in today's scenarios with extra barracks production and long range catapults extra time).

TR

TR, you stated: "In any event I have summarized my entire campaign career because IMO my personal campaign record was called into question."

So you're know, I'm not criticizing your style of play or your success.

Another comment you made: "My early conquests have not been with major losses to myself to be honest...."

That strengthens the point I was attempting to make in my previous comments. My experience, with 'early' fights has been that both the loser (of course) AND the winner suffer a substanial number of troop losses (unless of course, there's a case of one player being far superior in skill or inactivity).

If you had some of those same experiences, as I have, then perhaps that would affect your point of reference in putting forth your suggestions in this thread....(nothing more intended that than, man).

IMO, I think a player taking another's castle and area should incurr NO restrictions on any of the resource income.

Well now I feel a need to justify my choice of opponents but I'll reiterate that I got lucky a couple of times in about my first 5 campaigns and happened upon a castle where the player had quit;
and also a couple of times in about my first 7 campaigns I got lucky where I managed to sneak up on a castle that had been left weakly defended and without castle protection (i.e. although one of those occassions was where I sneaked along the coast and around the swamp to get the guy in the grass). In ALL events I tended to go after the player MOST ACCESSIBLE to my territory and most often IF POSSIBLE the player who was AHEAD on points So no I'm not a "newbie basher" either.

Finally half way into my campaign career I managed to perfect a strategy where I had descent sized scout armies backed up with a couple squires, a few pikemen, and a few 50 size stacks of ballista followed by at least one 40 to 60 size stack of macemen with catapults in production. I would get even just 6 cats in the field to bust inaccessible piles that had been left by players but I would try to get at least one size 30 stack to make a good hit on a barracks and then finish it with melee.

Way back when I started using the cats, I didn't see anyone else using them. I was able to use them to cut off resources and then I was usually able to take out at least one barracks so that I was able to chop down my opponent's ability to resist and that's how my losses were not so great when I did succeed a few times with that strategy.
However, in the second half of my campaign career I was plagued with being constantly targeted by someone using the "early rush" who was later even joined by a second and even a couple of times by a third attacker against me.

In spite of the "gang attacks" I was able to resist and even finish in the money (i.e. getting 2nd and 3rd positions) but I was getting bored always being forced into the defensive and that's when I made a few blunders attempting to change my strategy and met early defeat because of it but there have been fouls against me also that IMO have cost me a good finish.
Anyway ... I meant by some of my early victories being relatively light in casualties, that I had in about the middle of my campaign career perfected a fairly good ranged offence with both ballista and catapults and in about 5 campaigns, I was able to make a good offensive by about turn 20 or so.

PS:
My experience shows that if a player is able to get catapults in todays scenarios several turns before anyone else, which I still say he can do more easily with the assets of two territories;
if there is enough time left, IMO he will probably roll over the rest of the players.

TR

Last Edited : Thursday, 24 February 2005 - 05:33

As a one time heavy defender myself (and still am, when the need arises) I can tell you now that it's troop quantity in the right place at the right time that threatens me, not cats a few turns early. In fact, I still don't really use cats as I can rarely afford then, too busy keeping numbers up in the field.

Granted, early catapults combined with a charge on a castle catching the defender off-guard could be fatal. But my current experience is that the days of the tower wars are not over. Barracks rarely seem to be exposed enough to blast at a safe distance. And if you can shoot at tower-war distance, you can probably push/bash any cats back too.

Perhaps it's just the way me and my opponents played the game. But my wins/losses seem to be largely based on troop numbers/quality, not the presence of cats. Walls just hold up the war until cats show, and then the steady push back is probably inevitable.

Whenever I've pinched extra castles, it never seems to be enough. With the extra techs, it CERTAINLY won't be enough.