Attacking a temple?

[ams16]

If there are enemy units on a temple, what terrain is it? It is city? Or open? How can you tell, other than just knowing? (The text just describes the temple.)

Same question for ruins.

(Sometimes I have this problem with roads, too, but at least there is some visual indication of what terrain it is supposed to be. Though I can't tell the roads through forests and the roads through hills and the roads through mountains apart at all.)

[KGB]

Ams16,

Ruins and Temples are both city terrain and provided a +5 wall bonus which is better than many cities!

Personally I think ruins should be a special terrain for undead (Ghosts now but maybe future undead units). Searched ruins especially should not provide a +5 wall bonus.

KGB

[ams16]

Thanks. I kind of remembered that.

It is very unfortunate that there is kind of hidden information here. Many people will not know or remember these facts. (I feel the same way about the indistinguishable roads.)

[Finite]

It is not actually hidden information, wiki page on terrains lists battle terrains as well: http://www.warbarons.com/wiki/terrain
I think the only thing missing is that a bridge is actually both open and water...

I like ruins and temples giving city bonus and +5, it makes sense that they are more easily defended than open terrain.

[KGB]

I like ruins and temples giving city bonus and +5, it makes sense that they are more easily defended than open terrain.

The problem with this is that many maps tend to have ruins/temples near cities. So that enemy stacks can VERY often move from temple-ruin-temple so that they continually get the +5 bonus. It's even worse when those units are spiders/gryphons getting the +20 terrain bonus on top of it. On many maps I have used Gryphons in this manner to move off a ruin, raze a city, move back on a ruin and then rinse and repeat the next turn. It's basically just cheese tactics.

In the real world NO ONE would ever permit such structures (they are essentially indestructible towers) to exist to allow enemies to freely advance through their lands (picture US forces in Iraq just leaving an enemy bunker lying around fully intact for terrorist to continually use). We already have towers for those that want a +5/10/15 defense bonus when moving out of cities.

It would add some further strategy to have searched ruins provide NOTHING bonus wise (no +5, not city terrain) and unsearched ruins provide those bonus's. That way you need to search ruins to prevent them from being used in that manner. In the same regard, Temples should be able to be razed like cities (and rebuilt) with razed ones providing no bonus.

KGB

[Omen]

It would add some further strategy to have searched ruins provide NOTHING bonus wise (no +5, not city terrain) and unsearched ruins provide those bonus's. That way you need to search ruins to prevent them from being used in that manner. In the same regard, Temples should be able to be razed like cities (and rebuilt) with razed ones providing no bonus.KGB

I would propose the exact opposite. SEARCHED ruins should give a wall bonus, not the unsearched. The "logic" behind this is of fantasy-rpg fashion: One cannot fortify himself in a ruin that is haunted, because he'll be in trouble But a ruin with its secrets revealed is ideal for shelter. Plus, I think that both searched and unsearched ruins should retain their city terrain status.

As for temples, I completely agree that they should be "razeable". (Although this could initiate a debate on whether ports should be razeable too)

[smursh]

I agree that ruins/temples should not give city bonus. It might be interesting if creatures(but not heroes) with undead lore got a +5 bonus for each point of undead lore in ruins, but certainly ruined walls should't provide good defense. As for temples, many ancient temples were fortified. In addition they are a defendable resource often more valuable than a city. I don't see the problem with them getting a defense bonus or being considered city terrain.

[KGB]

I would propose the exact opposite. SEARCHED ruins should give a wall bonus, not the unsearched. The "logic" behind this is of fantasy-rpg fashion: One cannot fortify himself in a ruin that is haunted, because he'll be in trouble

What if you have Ghosts with you? Then maybe the they can become friendly with the undead units living there

The reality is that NO military force ever leaves something for their opponent to use against them. As I mentioned it would be the equivalent of the US military invading some some enemy bunker and killing all the men there but leaving it completely intact so that as soon as they leave another group of enemies could immediately take up residence so that they'd have to conquer it again. That's insane. What really happens is such bunkers are leveled to the ground so that they can't be used again.

Temples and ruins function better than cities because they always give a +5 defense bonus and they can never be razed. That needs to change. In fact rebuilding temples could be something that *only* heroes could do and provide some minor XP bonus (maybe 100-150) for their efforts.

KGB

[smursh]

OK, but:
If the god whose temple is being destroyed has the power to bless units and make them stronger what will he do to those units that destroy his temples? Mythology is full of vengeful gods, there should be some consequence to razing a temple.

[KGB]

Smursh,

Agreed. I definitely don't want players racing around the map using crows to raze all the temples (which is what happens in DLR). Maybe it requires a hero to raze a temple. At the very least it should cost some gold (maybe 100-200 as a sacrifice) to raze a temple.

KGB