Who says castles and protective suck?

[BalbanesBeoulve]

So i'm playing Wang Kon of Mali. I get access to stone, so decide to put walls and castles in all my cities. It's only about 3 turns each, so why not?

Then I get this quest, build 7 castles. I immediately complete it as all the castles were built and the rewards were pretty sweet. Protective melee? That's nuts and was very tempting. But the other option was even better, considering everyone was one big hindu family, except for JC.

The result? Diplo victory in 1400, and my best score so far, on emperor, no less, after only a few games played this high. 110,000 points.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Ooooh, castles gave you a lot of help in a single game due to a random quest event that doesn't usually show up! Clearly all us castle detractors were wrong all along, those buildings are the key to winning. And of course we all need to pick protective leaders to correct our errant ways, because no other leaders can build castles, not even with the aid of stone.

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

Don't be a hater.

But yes, protective can be very very useful if you pair it with an archery based UU. My highest scoring games have consistently been with a protective mali leader. Skirmisher rushes are very effective.

Anyway, this thread was more of a "hey, look at this cool thing that happened to me" than a serious discussion on the merits of protective and castles. There are other threads about that. Chill out.



Oh, and the 3rd option, which is only avaiable if you build the great wall is castles give +25 espionage points. Pretty good if you're going for an espionage economy.

 

[Shirastro]

My momma says it so it true.

P.S. My momma and the other thread just like this on the first page of this forum.

 

[PibbZ]

I got this event myself, and i took the 25 espionage points / turn reward. HUGE bonus to me, as im playing a Non-Tech trading game, and mainly steal the lesser important techs from the Incas (which got a decent 2-3 tech lead on me, and 45% of a continent at their disposal).

I love castles myself, praying for the random event that gives a free millitary instructor. Wish they were better, as their lifespan is rather short. I tend to rush to the medieval era, and attempt to stay there for as long as its beneficial.

 

[Supr49er]

Ooooh, castles gave you a lot of help in a single game due to a random quest event that doesn't usually show up! Clearly all us castle detractors were wrong all along, those buildings are the key to winning. And of course we all need to pick protective leaders to correct our errant ways, because no other leaders can build castles, not even with the aid of stone.

sarcasm alert

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

No, actually I don't believe that was sarcasm. It was a genuine argument against the title of this thread, and I agree to some extend. However, when all the traits have their uses, some trait has to end up as weakest, and protective fits the bill (or maybe second-weakest. I vote for imperialistic as weakest unless you love razing cities in war to replace them in better places).

The thing is though that most strengths are situational anyway. But with protective, I still feel that if you have access to stone, definitely grab engineering and build castles everywhere. +1 trade route for 34 hammers is nothing to sneeze at (no, double with stone and double with protective doesn't make 100 into 25. It's +100% base hammers and then +100% again).

 

[Gypsy1220]

I pretty much agree with the OP. Protective is a pretty niche specific trait, but can be useful if you decide to go for almost any other victory type than domination/conquest (however even those can be accomplished with a PRO leader). I realize that warmongering is about the only way to win a MP game, and is very helpful at the higher difficulty levels, but it is nice to attempt to create a civilization that is "built" sometimes and to fight wars only when necessary. Castles are too short lived, but they can be interesting-especially when the quest pops for you. Just my humble opinion (currently undertaking a step up to Imortal difficulty and so far-fairing poorly, but getting better)...

 

[Monkeyfinger]

No, actually I don't believe that was sarcasm. It was a genuine argument against the title of this thread, and I agree to some extend. However, when all the traits have their uses, some trait has to end up as weakest, and protective fits the bill (or maybe second-weakest. I vote for imperialistic as weakest unless you love razing cities in war to replace them in better places).

 

[Minmaster]

wow i never seen that event. is it only for protective leaders?

 

[braindrain]

no i don't think it's prot only...

i'm pretty sure i had it with hammy and his babs