Attacking a temple?

[Chazar]

Wow, reflect the whole thread: since some map makers were oblivious that temples and ruins provide +5 wall and city terrain, one should be able to raze temples?

I think that is way too much of a n unnecessary change. Map makers should just fix their maps, or maybe just change the battle terrain from city to something else, maybe the surrounding terrain and done. Plain and simple.

[KGB]

Chazar,

Actually I've wanted to be able to raze temples for a *long* time. It's one more resource to deny to an enemy or force a player to protect. All the other structures can be razed/rebuilt (cities, towers)or searched/respawned (ruins) so why not temples too?

KGB

[Chazar]

All the other structures can be razed/rebuilt (cities, towers)or searched/respawned (ruins) so why not temples too?KGB

All other structures? Temples are more like the money income sites (villages, mines, etc.) and those cannot be razed either (which I think is a good thing).

Of course, if all those could be razed and rebuilt the game would be more realistic, but I doubt this would work with the turn-based nature of the game and point-based movement. Fast-moving units would just raze everything and withdraw to some tower on favourable terrain, being essentially uncatchable. The game would then need some option for units to guard an area or something, but I am not sure how this should work at all.

[KGB]

Chazar,

If you want to guard a temple/gold site you just place 1+ units on it. That guards it quite nicely from crows/scouts. Gold sites by default come with 1 defender that already prevents them easily being razed. Temples could get 1 defender as well or only be able to be razed by heroes (perfect for future quest concept).

DLR worked just fine with all sites/temples being able to be razed/rebuilt. Players guarded those that were important to them and players targeted those that were the most benefit to their opponent.

KGB