Some ideas: raiding, seiging, spell AI and more..

[baruk]

I hear much about about raiding and castles on this forum, there's probably no way that they'll be changed that will suit everyone, but I thought I'd punt out some ideas.

An initiative system for army movement

This sort of thing has been mentioned before, this is how I would figure it:
An army group consists of all the troops and commanders from one province moving to the same destination.
Each army group has an inertia value (rounded to the nearest whole number). An initiative roll of 1d6 (non-open ended) is made for each group, added to the inertia value to give that turn's initiative value.
The movement phase is split into 10 numbered segments, with an extra combat phase at the end of each segment. Each army group moves in the segment corresponding to its initiative value. If an army has initiative greater than 10, it moves in segment 10.
The inertia value (IV) equals log (army size) + (10/action points value of slowest unit in group). For armies consisting entirely of fliers, IV = log (army size).

How it works: initiative rolls are made, armies move in each segment, if opposing armies are in the same province at the end of a segment, a battle occurs. If an army fights a battle before it gets a chance to move, it will attempt to complete the movement order with the survivors later in the movement phase (initiative could be slowed by +1 for each pre-movement battle). Retreating armies resolve their movement after the end of the movement phase.

Removing the castle seige speedbump

Two new orders:
- Attack and storm castle. Becomes available when an army is ordered to move into a province with an enemy held castle.
- Seige and storm castle. Available to seiging armies.

How it works: with these orders, armies will storm the castle as soon as castle defence reaches zero, instead of waiting that extra turn.
Moving and taking castles the same turn may be a bit powerful, so I would suggest the seiging value of units that have moved (or gated in) the same turn be halved as a retooling cost.

Gateway and teleport balance

Commanders and units that have travelled using gateway, teleport or cloud trapeze will now suffer from planar sickness. If said troops fight a battle the same turn as their "jump", they start with a fatigue penalty: 20 fatigue times the size class of the unit.
Note that a size 6 sphinx would start with 120 fatigue were it to use teleport offensively. This change should be enough to allow sphinxes the use of teleport once again whilst being fairly balanced.
Faerie trod and wind ride are unaffected.

Spell AI and gem usage

At the moment, the spell AI will "means test" spell orders, and will refrain from casting listed spells (especially those with gem costs) if deemed unnecessary based on the strength of enemy forces. This was a change made when people complained about their mages' personal gem supply being wasted on enemy scouts and remote summonings.
There is nothing worse in the game than when the AI wrongly chooses to ignore my orders. I would rather it followed my orders, and suffer the consequences. I can always change my orders, but I can't easily compensate for what the AI might do.
My solution: mages start each battle in the same turn with the number of gems they started the turn with. For example, if I give my mage 3 gems, he will start each battle in the following turn with 3 gems. Gems will be taken off the mage at the end of the turn, the amount removed based on whichever battle the mage expended the most of that type of gem. Blood slaves, however, should be expended from battle to battle as normal.
With this set up, the AI can stop attempting to curtail gem use, and mages can go back to using gems with abandon.
The only exception should be the death match, where gems should be used from batle to battle.
My reasoning is that neither the order's available or the spell AI are sophisticated enough to deal with multiple battles in a turn, or a crafty human attacker, when it comes to gem usage. It seems reasonable to give gem using battle mages this kind of boost.

Gem generating items

Limit the total gem output from each type of item on a per province basis. Total gem output available (per type of item) equals friendly dominion strength in the province plus province magic rating (-3 to +3), with a minimum value of one. Additional items above the limit produce no gems. In zero/negative dominion provinces, only one item of each type can produce gems.
For example, if one of my provinces has 10 dominion and a +3 magic rating, then I can productively hoard 13 clam of pearls, 13 fever fetishes and 13 earth blood stones there.


What do you think, forum people? Sensible ideas or frivolous junk?

[Graeme Dice]

baruk said:
- Attack and storm castle. Becomes available when an army is ordered to move into a province with an enemy held castle.
- Seige and storm castle. Available to seiging armies.



If I've spent several hundred gold on a castle, why should I not be able to use it for defense?


Commanders and units that have travelled using gateway, teleport or cloud trapeze will now suffer from planar sickness. If said troops fight a battle the same turn as their "jump", they start with a fatigue penalty: 20 fatigue times the size class of the unit.



Again, what's the point of this change?


There is nothing worse in the game than when the AI wrongly chooses to ignore my orders. I would rather it followed my orders, and suffer the consequences. I can always change my orders, but I can't easily compensate for what the AI might do.



No, it's far worse to have all your gems wasted when a person sends a single casting of arouse hunger at your armies before they attack.


My solution: mages start each battle in the same turn with the number of gems they started the turn with. For example, if I give my mage 3 gems, he will start each battle in the following turn with 3 gems.



Do you have any idea how overpowered this is? You've just tripled the number of gems that any mage will have.


Limit the total gem output from each type of item on a per province basis.



I've got a better idea. People should stop whining about gem generating items and play on smaller maps. I'm starting to get really frustrated with the people who want to change the game to make it yet another fantasy strategy game where magic doesn't have any significant effects.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
I've got a better idea. People should stop whining about gem generating items and play on smaller maps. I'm starting to get really frustrated with the people who want to change the game to make it yet another fantasy strategy game where magic doesn't have any significant effects.


How would removing/nerfing gem generating diminish the effect of magic on the game? Seems to me it would make a broader range of magical strategies feasible because a) you will be more tempted to use your gems on something other than horading and b) the game will not be a wish-rush.

I am tired of people defending gem-generating items. They break large map games outright, turning them into a micro-endurance contest, and SEVERELY imit the range of possible successful strategies.

I like larger maps, but I dont like the way they devolve as they do under the current setup, where essentially you must hoard to survive, and failing to hoard is a death sentence.

So I won't "just play on smaller map", thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Zen]

If you want I'll take 2 seconds make up a banner and upload a Mod that totally takes out all the gem producers so that the large games can, not be dominated by non-site-producing magics. The best of both worlds, yeah?

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
How would removing/nerfing gem generating diminish the effect of magic on the game?



Fewer magical resources means that there will be less magic being used in the world.


Seems to me it would make a broader range of magical strategies feasible because a) you will be more tempted to use your gems on something other than horading and b) the game will not be a wish-rush.



The game isn't a wish-rush as it stands. Repeatedly wishing for anything is probably one of the worst possible uses for astral pearls. Doom horrors, despite the amount of hype that surrounds them, die easily to mages on the battlefield. It's impossible to make them immune to all the elements, so you'll always be able to kill them.


I like larger maps, but I dont like the way they devolve as they do under the current setup, where essentially you must hoard to survive, and failing to hoard is a death sentence.



There is no need to "horde" gem-producing items to survive, unless you happen to be playing a game where everybody is sitting around and staring at each other. They give you significant resources, but also leave a huge time-window during which you are extremely vulnerable to attack. Playing more aggressively is the cure for that.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
Fewer magical resources means that there will be less magic being used in the world.


Absolutely, however I hardly see how this could possibly result in a situation where "magic doesn't have any significant effects".

Gem producing items are not, in ANY WAY, essential to magic being important in the game.


Graeme Dice said:
The game isn't a wish-rush as it stands. Repeatedly wishing for anything is probably one of the worst possible uses for astral pearls..


And a better use for them would be... what?


Graeme Dice said:
There is no need to "horde" gem-producing items to survive, unless you happen to be playing a game where everybody is sitting around and staring at each other. They give you significant resources, but also leave a huge time-window during which you are extremely vulnerable to attack. Playing more aggressively is the cure for that.


This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter. In fact if I am super aggressive, then I am practically guaranteeing my own defeat since I will have to expend massive resources to maintain that aggression, whereas someone who is quietly turtling (and is aided by my aggression since I am drawing attention to myself) is not only not having to expend much to defend himself but is also growing his gem economy exponentially. Joy oh bliss.

Even on a "Small" crowded map, hording will become a central strategy for those who emerge form the dogfight. The map would have to be very small indeed for hording not to be of central importance in the late game.


Zen said:If you want I'll take 2 seconds make up a banner and upload a Mod that totally takes out all the gem producers so that the large games can, not be dominated by non-site-producing magics. The best of both worlds, yeah?


Well I do not think that it is neccessary to remove them completely. First, I think it is neccessary to make the required investment much more significant, as you have suggested in another thread. Second, the investment should have a limit... for example not being able to put these items on scouts or other cheap, hidden units would be a big step up.

In any case, obviously had these items never been in the game no one would be bemoaning their lack. In fact I suspect had they not been in the game orginally, and added in a later patch, the reactionaries (like Graeme) would be screaming from the other side of the table...

[Boron]

Soapyfrog said:

Graeme Dice said:
The game isn't a wish-rush as it stands. Repeatedly wishing for anything is probably one of the worst possible uses for astral pearls..


And a better use for them would be... what?




You can e.g. convert them to death and summon tartarians , bane lords etc. .
Graeme is probably right that clamhoarding + then wishing is not a too good strategy because someone else will attack you before your clamhoarding pays off because while you start clamhoarding you look a bit weak to the ones who haven't clamhoarded .

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
Gem producing items are not, in ANY WAY, essential to magic being important in the game.



No, but to remove them removes an entire class of strategies.


And a better use for them would be... what?



Forge astral based items or alchemize them into other types of gems and use those.


This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter.



Of course there's a counter. That counter is to use diplomacy and convince other people to attack the stronger player. If they are already at the point where they are too strong for the rest of the players combined to defeat, then they would have won anyways. All gem-producing items do is speed up the endgame so that it doesn't drag out for hundreds of turns on larger maps.


In fact if I am super aggressive, then I am practically guaranteeing my own defeat since I will have to expend massive resources to maintain that aggression, whereas someone who is quietly turtling (and is aided by my aggression since I am drawing attention to myself) is not only not having to expend much to defend himself but is also growing his gem economy exponentially.



If you see somebody that is quietly turtling, then attack them. If they are spending resources on gem-producers, then they won't be spending them on their military.


Even on a "Small" crowded map, hording will become a central strategy for those who emerge form the dogfight.



Not really, since the game is likely to be over by turn 30 or so on a typical small map.


In any case, obviously had these items never been in the game no one would be bemoaning their lack. In fact I suspect had they not been in the game orginally, and added in a later patch, the reactionaries (like Graeme) would be screaming from the other side of the table...



I suggest that you go back and read some of the threads that have already done this issue to death over hundreds of Posts. You'll find out that you've made an incorrect assumption. I used to believe that clams were too powerful, but that was months ago.

[Soapyfrog]

You are simply being glib at this point.

So far I every game I have been in has been essentially decided on the issue of hording (clams or soul contracts) save for one, where clamming was not allowed... although even in that one were it to continue, soul contracts and fetishes would become the deciding items.

On medium to large maps which are my preference (as I like a long game with lots of maneuver), when I horde I do well, when I dont I lose. That is as far as it goes.

Maybe you have a different experience. It's possible. More likely you just horde along with everyone else... or, as you say, play on VERY small maps which are over in 30 turns.

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
You are simply being glib at this point.



No, I'm simply reporting game experience.


So far I every game I have been in has been essentially decided on the issue of hording (clams or soul contracts) save for one, where clamming was not allowed...



You've misidentified the cause. The cause was not hording of those items. It was the diplomacy that allowed those players to sit there in absolute peace and grow with no interruptions.


On medium to large maps which are my preference (as I like a long game with lots of maneuver), when I horde I do well, when I dont I lose. That is as far as it goes.



Then, like I said, you must be playing games where everybody sits there and stares at each other for most of the game.


Maybe you have a different experience. It's possible. More likely you just horde along with everyone else...



How would that be relevant, even if it were true?

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
You've misidentified the cause. The cause was not hording of those items. It was the diplomacy that allowed those players to sit there in absolute peace and grow with no interruptions.


You must be in some interesting games.

[Huzurdaddi]

Forge astral based items or alchemize them into other types of gems and use those.




Alchemize HOHOHO. Saying that is a better use of gems is retarded. And honestly it only is since you are going to death gems and death has some curiously cost efficient spells.

Sorry that's a *relly* bad answer.

As I have said before and now if commonly being accepted: the utility of hoarding is entirely dependant upon map size.

On Faerun and maps like it hoarding is essential. On Aran it is less of a facor.

[Kel]

Soapyfrog said:
This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter.



Yes, if 17 players all started hoarding and hoping noone attacked them, then the ones who didn't get attacked would have a head start. Much like they would probably be more powerful if they were just researching or site searching or taking indies or any other part of the game. If you are left alone and noone messes with you, you will probably be stronger than people who engaged in early wars and it has nothing to do with clams.

Seriously, how many times have you been beaten by people who did nothing the whole game but build clams ? I don't mean they had a dozen clams because they didn't have anything to do with their water supply, I mean how many people did nothing but clam thae majority of the game ? How many times ? 10 ? 20 ? 30 ?

- Kel

[alexti]

baruk said:
What do you think, forum people? Sensible ideas or frivolous junk?


Well, it would help if you mentioned what you're trying to achieve by those changes. How the game would benefit from proposed changes?

I'm guessing you are trying to improve games on huge maps (400+ provinces), but in my opinion the major problem in those game is amount of micro-management.

[alexti]

Kel said:

Soapyfrog said:
This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter.



Yes, if 17 players all started hoarding and hoping noone attacked them, then the ones who didn't get attacked would have a head start. Much like they would probably be more powerful if they were just researching or site searching or taking indies or any other part of the game. If you are left alone and noone messes with you, you will probably be stronger than people who engaged in early wars and it has nothing to do with clams.


That's not always true. Quick and successful conquest is very beneficial in the early game (especially if the graphs are off). And good players often go to war with exactly that purpose if they see they can crush the neighbour quickly. Typically, because they've reached their target research or troop production before the neighbour has counter.

In all games I've played, the winner was somebody who has successfully (and quickly) conquered 1 or more neighbours in the early game.

[Graeme Dice]

Huzurdaddi said:
Alchemize HOHOHO. Saying that is a better use of gems is retarded. And honestly it only is since you are going to death gems and death has some curiously cost efficient spells.



The only spells that might be too cost-efficient for death would be Tartarian Gate, and that's assuming that you can keep Gift of Health active, or can keep wishing back the chalice every time someone steals it from you, and that you have a nature gem income that's high enough to cast gift of reason constantly. As for alchemizing, 10 casts of summon Lamias will would be a good use for 100 astral pearls, and would possibly be quite a bit more useful than a single doom horror that also requires 20 more nature gems. Or you could put those pearls into gift of health, or forge of the ancients, or haunted forest. All of which are more likely to have game altering effects than a doom horror.

[baruk]

Graeme Dice said:

baruk said:
- Attack and storm castle. Becomes available when an army is ordered to move into a province with an enemy held castle.
- Seige and storm castle. Available to seiging armies.



If I've spent several hundred gold on a castle, why should I not be able to use it for defense?




You still get the defence value of the castle. All that has changed is the attacker gets the option to storm in the same turn defences drop to zero. The storm castle part of the order is ignored if defences are not yet down to zero (probably need to mention this for more clarity).


baruk said:Commanders and units that have travelled using gateway, teleport or cloud trapeze will now suffer from planar sickness. If said troops fight a battle the same turn as their "jump", they start with a fatigue penalty: 20 fatigue times the size class of the unit.




Graeme Dice said:Again, what's the point of this change?




The teleport spell was taken away from the Sphinx, as it was considered unbalanced being able to port one's Sphinx onto an enemy capital in the early game. I wanted to find a way to give teleport back to the Sphinx, whilst making teleporting it onto a capital a more risky prospect.
The planar sickness idea is basically a paratrooper combat penalty transplanted from another game. It just seems to make sense to me to give teleported troops some kind of fatigue penalty.


baruk said: There is nothing worse in the game than when the AI wrongly chooses to ignore my orders. I would rather it followed my orders, and suffer the consequences. I can always change my orders, but I can't easily compensate for what the AI might do.




Graeme Dice said:No, it's far worse to have all your gems wasted when a person sends a single casting of arouse hunger at your armies before they attack.




Yep, thats annoying too, my change to gem usage takes care of that, however. The idea is to render gem depletion sorties a turn to turn concern, rather than a cheap disruption tactic.


baruk said:My solution: mages start each battle in the same turn with the number of gems they started the turn with. For example, if I give my mage 3 gems, he will start each battle in the following turn with 3 gems.




Graeme Dice said:Do you have any idea how overpowered this is? You've just tripled the number of gems that any mage will have.




It would only be tripled were the mage in that example to fight in 3 battles that turn, and use all his gems in each battle.
The gem usage boost would be the same for everybody, in the same way as gem producing items can be made by everyone. For a potential exploiter, the trick would be to have your gem carrying mage engage in multiple battles a turn (which is why I wouldn't have it apply to death matches). Arranging things so that your mage fights several battles in a turn may be tricky, even with potentially 11 battle rounds a turn.


baruk said:Limit the total gem output from each type of item on a per province basis.




Graeme Dice said:I've got a better idea. People should stop whining about gem generating items and play on smaller maps. I'm starting to get really frustrated with the people who want to change the game to make it yet another fantasy strategy game where magic doesn't have any significant effects.



I've never whined about gem producers, they are probably fine the way they are. A change is as good as a rest, they say. My suggestion is to make life for the hoarder a little more interesting, by having to spread his generators out a bit among his provinces, or push dominion a bit more. I like to try and think of ways to link important game mechanics to dominion strength, its nice for it to have a little more impact on the game.
With such a change to gem producers, I don't think that they would be rendered insignificant, many hoarders would barely notice any difference in gem output.


Good questions nonetheless, my original post could probably be somewhat clearer.

[Graeme Dice]

baruk said:
The planar sickness idea is basically a paratrooper combat penalty transplanted from another game. It just seems to make sense to me to give teleported troops some kind of fatigue penalty.



A turn represents an entire month. I'm not sure why stepping through a gateway would make you more tired than a month long march into enemy territory.


Arranging things so that your mage fights several battles in a turn may be tricky, even with potentially 11 battle rounds a turn.



You can expect to see at least two battles a turn on average for major armies. More if there are multiple opponents all attacking you at once.

[baruk]

alexti said:

baruk said:
What do you think, forum people? Sensible ideas or frivolous junk?


Well, it would help if you mentioned what you're trying to achieve by those changes. How the game would benefit from proposed changes?

I'm guessing you are trying to improve games on huge maps (400+ provinces), but in my opinion the major problem in those game is amount of micro-management.



I'm trying to slay a number of percieved game bugbears at a stroke (some are mine, others are ones raised on the forum I at least partly agree with or have some sympathy for). I think the game could be improved if these concerns are dealt with. The worst is probably micro-management, to which my changes would only add, or make no difference, however.


The bugbears:

- Defending unfortified provinces from raids is too hard.
Solution: Initiative system for movement.

- Defending from raids using castles is too easy.
Solution: Castle speedbump effect removed.

- The spell AI ignores my orders.
Solution: Change AI, and the way gems are used in battle.

- Gem generators, used every game, by everybody, yawn.
Solution: Add a dominion based per-province limit.

- Sphinx lost teleport. Effectiveness of magical movement over standard movement for defence and offence.
Solution: Planar sickness.

It is arguable whether these concerns are necessarily valid or important. Its likely the solutions would provoke as much outrage and gnashing of teeth as the problems they are supposed to fix.

[baruk]

Graeme Dice said:

baruk said:
The planar sickness idea is basically a paratrooper combat penalty transplanted from another game. It just seems to make sense to me to give teleported troops some kind of fatigue penalty.



A turn represents an entire month. I'm not sure why stepping through a gateway would make you more tired than a month long march into enemy territory.



<Thinks on feet> According to my dominions medical textbook of dimensional diseases, Planar Sickness Lasts exactly one month of game time. Fancy that!
Who knows what horrors lurk between worlds? It would give me the heebie-jeebies, at any rate.


baruk said:Arranging things so that your mage fights several battles in a turn may be tricky, even with potentially 11 battle rounds a turn.




Graeme Dice said:You can expect to see at least two battles a turn on average for major armies. More if there are multiple opponents all attacking you at once.



An army will still have to be cut off from its gem supply when on offensive maneuvers eg. when seiging castles, or taking unlabbed enemy provinces. This means there is some scope for turn to turn gem attrition.
I think my proposed change wouldn't be too unbalanced. The potential horror could be a pretender SC with many gems, using them to cast battlefield spells, annhilating a succession of small armies in the same turn. A willing or unwary set of opponents and some luck would still be required. I would guess that it'd be difficult for an attacker to actively arrange multiple battles. It doesn't worry me because people can and will adapt to the new tactical environment.

[Kel]

alexti said:
In all games I've played, the winner was somebody who has successfully (and quickly) conquered 1 or more neighbours in the early game.



I find it hard to believe that all your games were like that, no offense. I would certainly say that has not been my experience, though all of my games haven't been absolutely one way or the other.

- Kel

[Cainehill]

baruk said:
The bugbears:

- Defending unfortified provinces from raids is too hard.
Solution: Initiative system for movement.

- Defending from raids using castles is too easy.
Solution: Castle speedbump effect removed.




These two contradict one another. On the one hand, you imply raiding is too powerful, and on the other hand, you want to make it more powerful.

The first one I think could use some improvement - random movement sequence would fix this.

The second one is insane. Fortifications are _supposed_ to provide defense from raids, that's one reason they were built all over most of the world. The idea of an army being able to come zooming right in, and in less than a month travel, siege, and storm is .... Well, I already used the word insane. Albeit it might be acceptable for mausoleums / watchtowers, which really aren't proper fortifications.


- Sphinx lost teleport. Effectiveness of magical movement over standard movement for defence and offence.
Solution: Planar sickness.



Your "solution" simply makes combat teleportation unusable for many units, while once again allowing the Sphinx to plop right down on an enemy capital, easily surviving the couple of turns it takes to regain consciousness before casting fire shield, astral shield, etc, and winning. You also don't mention why cloud trapeze should have "planar sickness", since it doesn't involve plane shifting. Or why flying units shouldn't have "air sickness".

[alexti]

Kel said:

alexti said:
In all games I've played, the winner was somebody who has successfully (and quickly) conquered 1 or more neighbours in the early game.



I find it hard to believe that all your games were like that, no offense. I would certainly say that has not been my experience, though all of my games haven't been absolutely one way or the other.

- Kel


There were few blitzes on a small maps where things were different (usually because somebody was able to conquer enough VP's without totally conquering anybody) and there were few MP games that were never finished, because of uncurable game crashes (in 2 of them which were in later stages it was very likely, that one of early conquestor would won). I don't know the result of my first MP (because I was quickly eliminated). There was also game won by Norfleet (I'm not sure if he has conquered somebody in the early game or not, but all his games are under question now anyway). In all other games the game was won by somebody who had successful early conquest (plus a couple of still going games, where one of the early victors is very likely to win).
So it would be more correct to say that I'm yet to see the game won by somebody who have stayed out of wars and {something}-hoarded.

I've faced clam/fetish hoarders several time myself in the late game. In one case the real war Lasted about 5 turns before hoarder conceded. In another case the hoarder conceded the game even without trying to fight. Of course, I had much larger empires at that time. And if I didn't have a large empire in the late game, that was usually because my lands got added (contrary to my wishes) to somebody else's large empire, which wasn't making things any better for the hoarder.
Concerning the size of the maps, they ranged from Aran to Orania. Nothing super huge, though I've found even Orania to be too much micromanagement for my taste.

[alexti]

baruk said:
The bugbears:

- Defending unfortified provinces from raids is too hard.
Solution: Initiative system for movement.

- Defending from raids using castles is too easy.
Solution: Castle speedbump effect removed.



I'm not sure if making defending unfortified provinces from raids easier is a positive thing. Some strategies rely on raiding rather than taking on the clash of armies. And I'm on receiving end of such strategy in one of my MP games. I keep winning major battles with minimal losses and a good loot from the enemy, but I'm still losing the game, because of massive raids. That's an interesting experience, and one thing that makes Dominions 2 great is the variety of different strategies that can lead to success.

In any case, this kind of change would affect the game a lot and it wouldn't be easy to rebalance other things to keep everything in balance.


baruk said:
- The spell AI ignores my orders.
Solution: Change AI, and the way gems are used in battle.



Actually, it was changed in one of the patches (was it in 2.12?) Before, AI tended to waste gems without a reason. Now it is much smarter and uses the gems sensibly (in most cases). The one problem that I see is that sometimes the mages won't use extra gems to bring their fatigue lower. But this is one is not easy to resolve. Sometimes I'd give the mage extra gems, so that he can lower his fatigue and in another situation I'd give more gems because I expect to fight 2 battles in the same turn. Making it configurable would add even more micromanagement, but if AI would just use spare gems only in the castle battles (storming or defending vs storm), which are bound to be the Last I'd be glad.

Generally, spell-casting AI is not that bad if you brought right mages and gems. Several times I was surprised by AI switching to his own plan (better than mine) after running through my scripts.


baruk said:
- Gem generators, used every game, by everybody, yawn.
Solution: Add a dominion based per-province limit.



Is there actually a problem here? I highly doubt that there's a problem with bloodstones, fever fetishes is not likely to be a problem either, so only clams are candidates, but there's no agreement on that issue. Maybe the latest change (non-stacking gem generators) will be sufficient to close the whole issue.


baruk said:
- Sphinx lost teleport. Effectiveness of magical movement over standard movement for defence and offence.
Solution: Planar sickness.



Personally, I like Sphinx being non-teleportable, it makes him a unique pretender. Magical movement really helps in the late large games. Just imaging dragging that large army of yours across of 15 provinces just to get anywhere close to the enemy. And then the enemy can avoid you infinitively. So in the end it may become just a matter of filling all provinces with a large armies (sooner or later one will have enough gems to do it). But this will cause "army-size-inflataion". Those "large" army will be considered a small forces, while the real "now large" armies will have to be dragged across the map again. So the magic movement is needed at least to avoid horrible micromanagement. If there're too many penalties for teleporting (stands for any kind of magic movement) armies, nobody will use them to engage in a serious battle, which will result in all that extra micromanagement.

Suggested 20 fatigue per size is too much of a penalty, in my opinion. Though just 20 fatigue (or some similar number) can be an interesting option. Another option would be to make teleporting defenders lose initiative, meaning that in this case the turn sequence would be: defending garrison - attacking army - teleported defenders. Dom2 engine probably doesn't support such a sequence, but it can be emulated by making teleporting defenders skip their first round. Attackers (whether they move magically or not) are already at disadvantage, so I'm not sure that any extra penalties would be good.


baruk said:
It is arguable whether these concerns are necessarily valid or important. Its likely the solutions would provoke as much outrage and gnashing of teeth as the problems they are supposed to fix.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
The only spells that might be too cost-efficient for death would be Tartarian Gate, and that's assuming that you can keep Gift of Health active, or can keep wishing back the chalice every time someone steals it from you, and that you have a nature gem income that's high enough to cast gift of reason constantly. As for alchemizing, 10 casts of summon Lamias will would be a good use for 100 astral pearls, and would possibly be quite a bit more useful than a single doom horror that also requires 20 more nature gems. Or you could put those pearls into gift of health, or forge of the ancients, or haunted forest. All of which are more likely to have game altering effects than a doom horror.


Hooray for bloated gem incomes. Seriously you think this an interesting way to play?

In any case re: doom horrors I would love to hear how you would kill them so quickly and effectively. Frankly unless you get super lucky or have a serious mass of casters you are unlikely to be able to kill one, let alone two, or three, or four that you will quite likely encounter in a clam-hoarding game.

Since I have to fight doom horrors, I'd love to know what SPECIFIC counters you would propose to kill them.

[Alneyan]

My main concern on the matter of clams is the impact of their removal (or at least, their nerfing) on the nations for which clams are the saving grace. For example, while Arcoscephale or Pythium are likely good enough without clams, what about T'ien Ch'i? The Celestial Empire isn't exactly regarded as being the most powerful nation around, and reducing their access to clams will probably have a negative consequence on them.

It would be even worse for Spring and Autumn T'ien Ch'i, and possibly other nations/themes (R'lyeh? Atlantis? Pythium Serpent Cult? I am not a scholar on these). Magic sites remain a solution, but T'ien Ch'i is probably not among the nations with the means to lead the expansion race on its own, and its jack-of-all-trade mages are almost begging for these hefty items boosting their magic paths; since such items are quite expensive, clams are more than welcome here. And of course, Astral pearls provide these versatile mages with a more varied source of gems through alchemy; it isn't so good to have access to all the magic paths if you do not have a steady income to actually use all your nice spells.

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
In any case re: doom horrors I would love to hear how you would kill them so quickly and effectively.



If they don't have a lightning ring. Thunder strike and orb lightning. If they don't have a ring of fire, incinerate. If they don't have a ring of cold, frozen heart. Skeletons or lifeless troops will also work. Any semi-tough SC should also function quite well.

[Gandalf Parker]

Alneyan said:
My main concern on the matter of clams is the impact of their removal (or at least, their nerfing) on the nations for which clams are the saving grace. For example, while Arcoscephale or Pythium are likely good enough without clams, what about T'ien Ch'i? The Celestial Empire isn't exactly regarded as being the most powerful nation around, and reducing their access to clams will probably have a negative consequence on them.


The devs have specificaly mentioned Atlantis as a nation where clams are a basic part of the strategy. And that any clam-nerfing would have to be considered for what it would do to them. They dont have alot going for them now.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
If they don't have a lightning ring. Thunder strike and orb lightning. If they don't have a ring of fire, incinerate. If they don't have a ring of cold, frozen heart.


For frozen heart or incinerate to work, you would need several mages casting simultaneousl AND hope your opponent is foolish enough not to know what your mages can do and provide the correct elemental resistance.

Thunderstrike and Banefire tend to miss alot, at which point the doom horror(s) eat your lunch.

Orb lightning you better have amazing air mages who are also lucky, since orb lightning is also quite imprecise... and furthermore short ranged. Again nevermind the fact that the DH will PROBABLY have a ring of tamed lightning.


Skeletons or lifeless troops will also work. Any semi-tough SC should also function quite well.


Sure you could throw out some chaff to slow the doom horror down, maybe. Although when I have tried this tactic, the Doom Horrors ignored my massed skeletons and kept eating casters.

As for semi-tough SC... have you looked at a DHs stats/attacks? Good... freaking... luck... maybe say 15-20 bane lords armed with moon blades will do the trick.

Only time I killed a doom horror was when it foolishly stormed a castle, alone, with no AMA, and fell victim to 20 or so sauromancers mass-casting disintegrate with one sauromancer casting earth grip to hold him in place... only two sauromancers died. Of course, next up were TWO doom horrors, and they had no trouble eating everyone alive.

Feh.

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
For frozen heart or incinerate to work, you would need several mages casting simultaneousl AND hope your opponent is foolish enough not to know what your mages can do and provide the correct elemental resistance.



If you are at the stage in the game where your opponent is using doom horrors, then you will certainly have plenty of your national mages along with you in an armies.


Thunderstrike and Banefire tend to miss alot, at which point the doom horror(s) eat your lunch.



Thunderstrike doesn't miss that much, and you only need about three hits to kill it.


Orb lightning you better have amazing air mages who are also lucky, since orb lightning is also quite imprecise... and furthermore short ranged. Again nevermind the fact that the DH will PROBABLY have a ring of tamed lightning.



Which is why you use multiple types of elemental magic. It can't resist all three types at once.


Sure you could throw out some chaff to slow the doom horror down, maybe. Although when I have tried this tactic, the Doom Horrors ignored my massed skeletons and kept eating casters.



Skeletons should be able to kill it actually, since it won't regain any life from them.


As for semi-tough SC... have you looked at a DHs stats/attacks? Good... freaking... luck... maybe say 15-20 bane lords armed with moon blades will do the trick.



A bane lord with quickness will have attack/defense of 17/17. With a moon blade, that's 19/20, which isn't far off from the doom horror. Put a lucky pendant on them both to make it even. With a strangth of 19 and moon blade damage of 11, the bane lord will do 60 damage on a successful hit. Two such hits will be enough to kill the doom horror.

You could also give the bane lord a spirit helmet or a sculuta columnus and some other type of weapon if you want.


Of course, next up were TWO doom horrors, and they had no trouble eating everyone alive.



You'd have been far better off casting drain life.

[alexti]

Graeme Dice said:

Soapyfrog said:
Of course, next up were TWO doom horrors, and they had no trouble eating everyone alive.



You'd have been far better off casting drain life.


Or you could make 1 or 2 cast relief and some others - animate something. Those doom horrors would be doomed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
Which is why you use multiple types of elemental magic. It can't resist all three types at once.


So multiple elemental mages of each type casting multiple spells. Thats a lot of casters. Not to mention the fact that there is really no margin for error, and your mages better not decide to target something other than the doom horror.


Skeletons should be able to kill it actually, since it won't regain any life from them.


How the heck will the kill it? Fatigue?


A bane lord with quickness will have attack/defense of 17/17. With a moon blade, that's 19/20, which isn't far off from the doom horror.


Doom horror has attack 23 and defence 25. 19/20 is not great by comparison.


Put a lucky pendant on them both to make it even. With a strangth of 19 and moon blade damage of 11, the bane lord will do 60 damage on a successful hit. Two such hits will be enough to kill the doom horror.


60 damage? Isn't it 2x 11+1d6 oe, +19 st, -25 for prot = 35?

So 35 damage averge per hit IF YOU HIT because you are att 19 trying to hit def 25, oh and btw you will have to make your own MR check at -2 in order to avoid simply damaging yourself.

EDIT: I stand corrected on this, the str is doubled to, resulting in average 54 damage per hit. Two hits will kill the doom horror.

You'd have been far better off casting drain life.


Tried it, didnt work. I had 8 sauromancers casting drain life at a doom horror and it did squat. Zero damage. Oh well.

I've heard petrify being good, since it paralyzes you even if you make your save... petrify could imobilize it for long enough to kill it. Casters that can cast petrify are hard to come by for most nations though.

[Soapyfrog]

And on the subject of undead, I cast 4 undead hordes and a bunch of raise dead at the start of the battle and the doom horrors ignored them and went right after my casters.

Not that skeletons would be able to HIT the doom horror, and even if they did they would probably just die from the blood vengeance.

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
And on the subject of undead, I cast 4 undead hordes and a bunch of raise dead at the start of the battle and the doom horrors ignored them and went right after my casters.



Look at the numbers on undead horde, and compare it to raise skeletons and animate dead. The only reason to cast undead horde is if you have a pretender with very high level death magic. Three castings of raise skeletons gives more troops than a single casting of undead horde. Two castings of animate dead gives more troops than a single casting of undead horde.


Not that skeletons would be able to HIT the doom horror, and even if they did they would probably just die from the blood vengeance.



Sure, but you have an infinite supply of them from the combination of drain life and raise skeletons. After all, the AI casts drain life as soon as its fatigue nears 100.

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
Thats a lot of casters.



Sure, but you'll have a lot by the time you start to see doom horrors around turn 60 or 70.


Not to mention the fact that there is really no margin for error, and your mages better not decide to target something other than the doom horror.



Mages target the units with the largest amount of hitpoints, so unless there's a pretender or abominations there, the doom horrors will be the primary target.


How the heck will the kill it? Fatigue?



Run it out of turns in the battle so that it retreats, but doesn't have anywhere to retreat to as you've cut off those provinces with ghost riders or other similar spells or stealth attacks.


Doom horror has attack 23 and defence 25. 19/20 is not great by comparison.



It's close enough that the bane lords will be probably able to bring doom horrors down for a smaller cost in resources.


60 damage? Isn't it 2x 11+1d6 oe, +19 st, -25 for prot = 35?



No, it's: (2*(11+19)+2d6oe) - (25+2d6oe)

I see that you corrected this later.

Bonus damage multipliers apply to both strength and weapon damage.


IF YOU HIT because you are att 19 trying to hit def 25,



It will hit 10% of the time assuming that there are only two units on the battlefield.


oh and btw you will have to make your own MR check at -2 in order to avoid simply damaging yourself.



With an AMA, the bane lord will make this check at a MR of 17. Without it will be 13. That's a chance of failure of 10% and 30% respectively.


Tried it, didnt work. I had 8 sauromancers casting drain life at a doom horror and it did squat. Zero damage.



If 40 castings of drain life did not kill the doom horror, and did not kill the sauromancers, then you must have had a rather large number of living troops on the battlefield. That's in the neighbourhood of 560 points of armor negating damage.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
Three castings of raise skeletons gives more troops than a single casting of undead horde. Two castings of animate dead gives more troops than a single casting of undead horde.


Yes however you dont have the luxury of time since the doom horrors will be eating your casters... actually they will eat them anyway since the skeletons run forward and the horrors fly in behind them and start to dine. Seriously I found this tactic wildly ineffectual.

And its even worse whent he doom horror(s) are not alone.


Sure, but you have an infinite supply of them from the combination of drain life and raise skeletons. After all, the AI casts drain life as soon as its fatigue nears 100.


Did I mention drain life didnt work on the doom horrors?

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
Yes however you dont have the luxury of time since the doom horrors will be eating your casters... actually they will eat them anyway since the skeletons run forward and the horrors fly in behind them and start to dine.



Looks like you got unlucky then, and attack rearmost worked. Most of the time it won't if you have any other troops on the battlefield.

[qutoe]Did I mention drain life didnt work on the doom horrors?

[/quote]

Yes, you did. I didn't give it much weight, since my own tests show that it works very nicely. Take 8 D4 sauromancers, or 8 demiliches. Have them cast raise skeletons on the first turn. Have them cast drain life on all other turns. For me it works with about 4 dead mages in about three combat rounds.

[Boron]

Graeme Dice said:

Soapyfrog said:
Yes however you dont have the luxury of time since the doom horrors will be eating your casters... actually they will eat them anyway since the skeletons run forward and the horrors fly in behind them and start to dine.



Looks like you got unlucky then, and attack rearmost worked. Most of the time it won't if you have any other troops on the battlefield.

[qutoe]Did I mention drain life didnt work on the doom horrors?



Yes, you did. I didn't give it much weight, since my own tests show that it works very nicely. Take 8 D4 sauromancers, or 8 demiliches. Have them cast raise skeletons on the first turn. Have them cast drain life on all other turns. For me it works with about 4 dead mages in about three combat rounds.

[/quote]
8 demiliches cost 200 deathgems so unless you fight in your own dominion this is costy then . But you are right demiliches are very good and they have 18 MR so the blood vengeance is not so horrible . And most important they are extremely useful for defense anyway since their function as drainlife/undeadspam brigade works quite well against almost everything .

In some ways i think the king of the world horror is better because he has 2x lifedrain and 2x astral claw as attack while the doom horror has it only once each and 2 mr - negate attacks .

Graeme what do you think is a better wish then ?
The doom horrors because they are rather cheap ( little equipment ) but still quite impressive ?
Air queens ?
Natarajas ?

[Graeme Dice]

Boron said:
8 demiliches cost 200 deathgems so unless you fight in your own dominion this is costy then.



I picked demiliches because it was easier to run the test with them than with sauromancers, since I didn't have to bother making skull staves.


But you are right demiliches are very good and they have 18 MR so the blood vengeance is not so horrible .



Blood vengeance is not horrible on most mages, since even sauromancers, for example, have a MR of 17. Most mages sit around MR 15.


Graeme what do you think is a better wish then ?
The doom horrors because they are rather cheap ( little equipment ) but still quite impressive ?



The most useful wishes are for power and magic power on your pretender. After that, I'd wish for artifacts that someone else has and you want. At that point, I'd start using my astrals for something else probably.

[Boron]

Graeme Dice said:
The most useful wishes are for power and magic power on your pretender. After that, I'd wish for artifacts that someone else has and you want. At that point, I'd start using my astrals for something else probably.


What's the something else ? SC-wise i still think wishing for SCs is quite good .
100 astral pearls are "only" 50 converted gems so i think wishing is not that bad . I personally like wishing for blood too since you get such a nice output http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .
I still haven't really figured out in which lategame things i should put in most of my resources to get the best overall return http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Soapyfrog]

Ah well, if drain life works then my bad... just that when *I* tried drain life, my sauromancers insisted on casting it on everything BUT the Doom Horror!!

[baruk]

Cainehill said:

baruk said:
The bugbears:

- Defending unfortified provinces from raids is too hard.
Solution: Initiative system for movement.

- Defending from raids using castles is too easy.
Solution: Castle speedbump effect removed.




These two contradict one another. On the one hand, you imply raiding is too powerful, and on the other hand, you want to make it more powerful.

The first one I think could use some improvement - random movement sequence would fix this.

The second one is insane. Fortifications are _supposed_ to provide defense from raids, that's one reason they were built all over most of the world. The idea of an army being able to come zooming right in, and in less than a month travel, siege, and storm is .... Well, I already used the word insane. Albeit it might be acceptable for mausoleums / watchtowers, which really aren't proper fortifications.



Firstly, I don't find my changes contradictory. My aim is not to hamstring raiding or fortifications. I just want to iron out a few kinks in the system.

I think armies should be able to travel, seige and storm a castle in the same turn. It doesn't make sense to me that they would seige a castle down to zero defences... and then stop abruptly, waiting a turn for new orders to storm the castle.

It does not strike me as unreasonable that a weak fortification, or one left undefended should not be vulnerable to capture in a single turn by a large force. Note that I have suggested a one half seiging penalty for armies that have moved in the same turn, effectively doubling the size of force needed to achieve a single turn capture. Fort defence values could perhaps be increased 10 or 20% across the board as some compensation.

Note that armies using magical movement would not get the move & storm option. It would be a bonus available to the conventional army, and thus may be easier for a defender to anticipate/intercept.



baruk said:- Sphinx lost teleport. Effectiveness of magical movement over standard movement for defence and offence.
Solution: Planar sickness.




Cainehill said:Your "solution" simply makes combat teleportation unusable for many units, while once again allowing the Sphinx to plop right down on an enemy capital, easily surviving the couple of turns it takes to regain consciousness before casting fire shield, astral shield, etc, and winning. You also don't mention why cloud trapeze should have "planar sickness", since it doesn't involve plane shifting. Or why flying units shouldn't have "air sickness".



In game balance terms, if I'm going to penalise teleport, then the same has to go for cloud trapeze, as its just as accessible and effective, a sphinx-type SC can use either spell quite easily. If you allow some fantasy license, you can imagine a powerful spell such as cloud trapeze would involve traversing the elemental plane of air (not in the spell blurb as such, but not something that has to be regarded as gospel). Flying units, and others with large strategic move would be fine, as they simply use natural, "earthly" abilities.

Regarding the Sphinx example, its possible it will still be successfully used to hit capitals, and I'm not against such a use in principle. It will be considerably less effective with 120 starting fatigue, however. If it is tested and still considered too powerful, the fatigue penalty could be exaggerated for the larger creatures, eg. 5, 15, 30, 50, 90, 150 for sizes 1 to 6. Another tweak could be to scale fatigue according to enemy dominion strength, perhaps an additional hit of 5 or 10 fatigue per enemy candle. Alternatively, you could give an extra vulnerability to the Sphinx: dominion dependence. This would work by depriving a pretender (by some combination)of his magical powers and protection when in enemy dominion (and perhaps increase the penalty to hit points substantially).

My original thoughts about gateway were that a fatigue penalty could be a tradeoff in allowing it to target any province, as it did in dominions 1. This is really not needed, as that ability is covered by astral travel. The fatigue penalty, however, keeps it in theme with teleport and cloud trapeze, the trio forming an "economy class" of movement spells. For symmetry, under my fatigue system, at level 8 or 9 research non-fatiguing Versions of teleport and cloud trapeze would be available.

[baruk]

alexti said:

baruk said:
The bugbears:

- Defending unfortified provinces from raids is too hard.
Solution: Initiative system for movement.

- Defending from raids using castles is too easy.
Solution: Castle speedbump effect removed.



I'm not sure if making defending unfortified provinces from raids easier is a positive thing. Some strategies rely on raiding rather than taking on the clash of armies. And I'm on receiving end of such strategy in one of my MP games. I keep winning major battles with minimal losses and a good loot from the enemy, but I'm still losing the game, because of massive raids. That's an interesting experience, and one thing that makes Dominions 2 great is the variety of different strategies that can lead to success.

In any case, this kind of change would affect the game a lot and it wouldn't be easy to rebalance other things to keep everything in balance.



My suggestion is more of a tweak to the movement system, than an attempt to hurt raiding.

An example: a raiding party is attacking Nation A. It can attack one of 5 provinces. The defenders have one army trying to intercept the raiders. Under the current system, to force a fight, the defenders have to move into the correct province being raided, a 1 in 5 chance of success. Using my suggestion, and assuming both forces are equal, the defenders can attempt to force a fight by moving into the province currently occupied by the raiders. They would have an almost 50/50 chance of moving first, and striking the raiders before they move. Note that in the case of the raiders winning the battle, they would still carry out their movement order and raid their target province.

I think a change to the movement system would be a step forward. At the moment the simultaneous movement system gives the advantage to raiders. With an initiative system, players would have to plan raids more carefully to be successful. They would gain initiative advantages from using faster troops, which would add variety to the game.


baruk said:
- The spell AI ignores my orders.
Solution: Change AI, and the way gems are used in battle.



alexti said:Actually, it was changed in one of the patches (was it in 2.12?) Before, AI tended to waste gems without a reason. Now it is much smarter and uses the gems sensibly (in most cases). The one problem that I see is that sometimes the mages won't use extra gems to bring their fatigue lower. But this is one is not easy to resolve. Sometimes I'd give the mage extra gems, so that he can lower his fatigue and in another situation I'd give more gems because I expect to fight 2 battles in the same turn. Making it configurable would add even more micromanagement, but if AI would just use spare gems only in the castle battles (storming or defending vs storm), which are bound to be the Last I'd be glad.

Generally, spell-casting AI is not that bad if you brought right mages and gems. Several times I was surprised by AI switching to his own plan (better than mine) after running through my scripts.



Fair enough. I would agree that making spell AI more configurable would help. I just sense that Illwinter want to keep the system as simple as possible.

My argument is basically that players cannot adequately control gem usage of their mages over several battles in one turn. Ideally there would only be one battle a turn for each mage to be prepared for, or fresh orders could be given in between battles. Consider a mage in a lab province, with a stack of gems. He gets involved in a fight, and uses all his gems. He will have no gems for the next fight that turn, as I can't give him the gems until the turn is finished processing, even though he has a lab available. Either a super-AI, more configurable orders, or battle-usage-friendly gems are needed to resolve this.


baruk said:
- Gem generators, used every game, by everybody, yawn.
Solution: Add a dominion based per-province limit.



alexti said:
Is there actually a problem here? I highly doubt that there's a problem with bloodstones, fever fetishes is not likely to be a problem either, so only clams are candidates, but there's no agreement on that issue. Maybe the latest change (non-stacking gem generators) will be sufficient to close the whole issue.



Perhaps.

Gem generators are not much of a problem to me. However, some dominions players like to limit their use in games. I have (hopefully) suggested a fun, creative, in-theme way to do this.

The non-clam of pearls gem generators are less of a problem, but it makes sense to put the same limits on them, as otherwise the "problem" simply moves to another item. In any case, if they are not produced in large numbers, they are not affected by my limitation, which affects the total number of productive generators in each province, rather than the ability to produce them. Only the wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth horde fetishists should be hurt by my proposed change.


baruk said:
- Sphinx lost teleport. Effectiveness of magical movement over standard movement for defence and offence.
Solution: Planar sickness.



alexti said:
Personally, I like Sphinx being non-teleportable, it makes him a unique pretender. Magical movement really helps in the late large games. Just imaging dragging that large army of yours across of 15 provinces just to get anywhere close to the enemy. And then the enemy can avoid you infinitively. So in the end it may become just a matter of filling all provinces with a large armies (sooner or later one will have enough gems to do it). But this will cause "army-size-inflataion". Those "large" army will be considered a small forces, while the real "now large" armies will have to be dragged across the map again. So the magic movement is needed at least to avoid horrible micromanagement. If there're too many penalties for teleporting (stands for any kind of magic movement) armies, nobody will use them to engage in a serious battle, which will result in all that extra micromanagement.

Suggested 20 fatigue per size is too much of a penalty, in my opinion. Though just 20 fatigue (or some similar number) can be an interesting option. Another option would be to make teleporting defenders lose initiative, meaning that in this case the turn sequence would be: defending garrison - attacking army - teleported defenders. Dom2 engine probably doesn't support such a sequence, but it can be emulated by making teleporting defenders skip their first round. Attackers (whether they move magically or not) are already at disadvantage, so I'm not sure that any extra penalties would be good.



Good suggestions.

Late game army movement would not be affected by my changes, just the offensive use of some of the magical movement spells would be curtailed. The late game, research level 8 and 9 spells would not have a fatigue penalty. And I suggested in another post that level 8 or 9 fatigue-free Versions of teleport and cloud trapeze would be available.

[baruk]

Gandalf Parker said:

Alneyan said:
My main concern on the matter of clams is the impact of their removal (or at least, their nerfing) on the nations for which clams are the saving grace. For example, while Arcoscephale or Pythium are likely good enough without clams, what about T'ien Ch'i? The Celestial Empire isn't exactly regarded as being the most powerful nation around, and reducing their access to clams will probably have a negative consequence on them.


The devs have specificaly mentioned Atlantis as a nation where clams are a basic part of the strategy. And that any clam-nerfing would have to be considered for what it would do to them. They dont have alot going for them now.



I would be against a change that reduced access to clams (by increasing their cost) or that made them almost useless(a suggestion I read to no longer allow transfer of gems from commanders to the lab). I'm not wild about horror marking the poor clam holders either.

I hope my suggestion was in the same spirit as Illwinter's recent change, limiting gem generators to one per commander (my suggestion was limiting numbers of each productive generator to dominion strength + magic rating per province, minimum value of 1). Putting an upper limit on the generators (per province) is not too harsh a change, and under my system, a potential hoarder such as Atlantis could tailor nation design toward hoarding, with high magic rating and dominion strength. My idea would probably be more for dominions 3 or a mod, as it would have a devastating effect on current games.

I don't think Atlantis is too weak a nation, anyway, they just seem to be going through a phase of unpopularity. I can remember a dominions 1 discussion about R'lyeh's inferiority to Atlantis, based on their vulnerability to massed war lobster assaults. It amuses me to see the argument come full circle when not a lot has changed since then. Just the void gate, which has made R'lyeh a bit more fun (mental image of squidheads throwing around a beachball, heh).

[alexti]

baruk said:
- The spell AI ignores my orders.
Solution: Change AI, and the way gems are used in battle.



alexti said:Actually, it was changed in one of the patches (was it in 2.12?) Before, AI tended to waste gems without a reason. Now it is much smarter and uses the gems sensibly (in most cases). The one problem that I see is that sometimes the mages won't use extra gems to bring their fatigue lower. But this is one is not easy to resolve. Sometimes I'd give the mage extra gems, so that he can lower his fatigue and in another situation I'd give more gems because I expect to fight 2 battles in the same turn. Making it configurable would add even more micromanagement, but if AI would just use spare gems only in the castle battles (storming or defending vs storm), which are bound to be the Last I'd be glad.

Generally, spell-casting AI is not that bad if you brought right mages and gems. Several times I was surprised by AI switching to his own plan (better than mine) after running through my scripts.



baruk said:
Fair enough. I would agree that making spell AI more configurable would help. I just sense that Illwinter want to keep the system as simple as possible.

My argument is basically that players cannot adequately control gem usage of their mages over several battles in one turn. Ideally there would only be one battle a turn for each mage to be prepared for, or fresh orders could be given in between battles. Consider a mage in a lab province, with a stack of gems. He gets involved in a fight, and uses all his gems. He will have no gems for the next fight that turn, as I can't give him the gems until the turn is finished processing, even though he has a lab available. Either a super-AI, more configurable orders, or battle-usage-friendly gems are needed to resolve this.



I find it good to have mroe than one battle per turn. It gives more interesting options. Concerning the mage near the lab, it maybe reasonable to replenish gems between the battles, but what is supposed to happen if there isn't enough gems? And in any case 2 battles in the province where you control the lab is really uncommon.



baruk said:
- Gem generators, used every game, by everybody, yawn.
Solution: Add a dominion based per-province limit.



alexti said:
Is there actually a problem here? I highly doubt that there's a problem with bloodstones, fever fetishes is not likely to be a problem either, so only clams are candidates, but there's no agreement on that issue. Maybe the latest change (non-stacking gem generators) will be sufficient to close the whole issue.



baruk said:
Perhaps.

Gem generators are not much of a problem to me. However, some dominions players like to limit their use in games. I have (hopefully) suggested a fun, creative, in-theme way to do this.

The non-clam of pearls gem generators are less of a problem, but it makes sense to put the same limits on them, as otherwise the "problem" simply moves to another item. In any case, if they are not produced in large numbers, they are not affected by my limitation, which affects the total number of productive generators in each province, rather than the ability to produce them. Only the wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth horde fetishists should be hurt by my proposed change.



What I don't like about your idea is not the limitation, but "per-province" basis. If now you can just slap clam on the third from the left researher, with your idea you'd have to count how many clams are already in this province (meaning scanning all mages there) and then to take into account possible dominion change. And all these efforts don't really add anything to the game experience. With overall limit, you'd typically know that you're well below the limit, so no worries and counting. I'm still not sure if the overall limit would be a good idea or not.

[Cheezeninja]

Regarding Doom Horrors, I just encountered them for the first time in a MP game, playing against Zapmeisters R'yleh using Jotunheim. While they ate everything (including many Jarls) that I threw at them for awhile I was eventually able to make huge headway against them to the tune of massed vampires and counts (free immortal chaff/disintigrate or drain life or skeleton casters) along with Jade amazons and Gyjas fitted with rune smashers, thistle maces, spell foci, flying boots, and AMA's set to mass cast charm. I was able to pay for my own gear with my own stockpile of clams and fetishes, which gave me enough gem capital to completely create the charm strategy in ~3 turns, which was quick enough to allow me to survive. While its quite likely I will still eventually lose, right now i've killed 3 horrors and brought one over to my own side, complete with ring of regen and AMA of his own.

Doom Horrors are far from invincible, if I was going to spend a hundred astrals on something it would probably be wishing for bloodslaves and mass-casting Vampire Counts.

[Chazar]

Soapyfrog said:
I like larger maps, but I dont like the way they devolve as they do under the current setup, where essentially you must hoard to survive, and failing to hoard is a death sentence.



http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif I wonder how people determine that the clam-hoarder has won because of clam-hoarding, especially since everybody else hoarded as well?
I've yet to see that clam-hoarding is a successful strategy at all, but on the other hand I do not play maps with more than 150 provinces, which are already way to large for me.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif I also wonder why people like larger maps if they do not like the way the game behaves on such maps...

[Soapyfrog]

If everyone hoards then "great". However NOT hoarding is not a viable strategy. That's bad.

You might maybe get away with it on a small, crowded map... games that don't Last much past (or get called at) 40-50 turns will probably not see hoarding as a serious problem.

Large maps are fun becuase they are large, there is more opportunity for give and take, the game is more epic, more sweeping. But it loses most of it's allure as you are forced into a few narrowly defined strategies revolving around hoarding. So as you can see the things I find fun about large maps are mostly cancelled out by the devolution of the game caused by hoarding strategies.

It's like any game that has a shortcoming. You fix that shortcoming and you have a better game. It's not complicated.

[Endoperez]

I am on the same boat with Chazar. I don't understand why a hoarder should be able to win someone who has not hoarded but instead conquered twice or thrice as much provinces AND searched them for sites. Sure, if the hoarder is left to be for 30+ turns he will have beter income, but if he is attacked *now* with armies almost twice as large as his he is in great trouble.

Has this been tried, has it worked? If not, why? I don't see any reason for it to *not* to work... ...with all my experience I got solely by reading this forum and playing SP games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Soapyfrog]

Alright lets look at the game I am currently getting smashed in, Faerun Folly.

One player I know for a fact has something like 400 fever fetishes and 250+ clams.

How much of Faerun do you have to conquer before you can compare to that?

Another empire, who is smashing me, overran me with endless castings blackhawks, followed up by armies of mechancial men and multiple doom horrors. And this was circa turn 70... AND he had already been fighting several other powers. I do not know for sure but his astral income is surely in the hundreds. He was territorially probably twice as alrge as me, but he was also fighting two other people.

5 turns into the war I was OUT of gems... completely cleaned out and of course my gem production was insignificant by comparison so while he was able to keep slinging masses of remote spells every turn and generate new armies of mechanical men, I was reduced to a minimum of ritual magic and a desperate scrabble for resources. From there on in it was a downhill slide.

The only thing which has kept me, very feebly, alive is... you guessed it... soul contracts, and some infusions of cash and gems from another hoarding nation. Of course, I am doomed anyway but it just goes to show.

[Tuidjy]

Whine, whine, whine, *****, *****, *****.

There are too many strategies in Dominions II, and I cannot deal with most
of them! I especially cannot deal with more than one applied at the same
time. Lets change the rules we know to something completely untested, and
hardly making any sense! Lets remove any magic strategy that has been used
against me with any success! I wanna play with knights, archers and
groundpounders, although I think that knights should lose the charge bonus,
and the attack rear command should be disabled.

Whahhh!

Guys, if you do expand quickly, you will lose the game. If you do not build
reaction forces, you will lose the game. If you do not make alliances that
benefit both parties, you will lose the game. If you do not have some
hoarding strategy you will lose the game. If you do not have a good idea
about what your opponents are doing, you will lose the game.

If you do all the above, you may still lose the game.

And if all of the above are removed, the people who are kicking your *** will
adapt, and still kick your ***. Only, Dominion II will be a lot less fun...

[Soapyfrog]

Pardon me but it is certainly MORE fun with no hoarding. More possible strategies, less micromanagement. its a NO-BRAINER.

But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd. I'll bet you thought the VQ was dandy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

You seem to think that Illwinter have created the perfect game, perfect in all respects, in no need of tweaking/modding whatsover. Ah yes, truly, ignorance is bliss! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Arryn]

Soapyfrog said:
But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd.

By definition, someone who believes "nothing is broken" is a conservative and thus the opposite of a reactionary (someone who feels a need for change). You really ought to understand the meaning of the terms you sling.

[Soapyfrog]

Reactionary and conservative are quite synonymous terms.

As a quick source to back up my use of the word, here is a definition from dictionary.com:

"Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative."

The term you are looking for is "revolutionary" which is the opposite of "reactionary".

[Esben Mose Hansen]

Arryn said:

Soapyfrog said:
But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd.

By definition, someone who believes "nothing is broken" is a conservative and thus the opposite of a reactionary (someone who feels a need for change). You really ought to understand the meaning of the terms you sling.


Actually, Soapyfrog's use of the word was quite appropriate. See e.g. wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary)

[Arryn]

Soapyfrog said:
The term you are looking for is "revolutionary" which is the opposite of "reactionary".

My bad. You're right. I read "revolutionary" when you actually wrote "reactionary". I really am senile today. I should just go back to bed. Either that or go load up on caffeine.

[Tuidjy]

Soapyfrog said:
Pardon me but it is certainly MORE fun with no hoarding. More possible strategies, less micromanagement. its a NO-BRAINER.


Pardon me, but 'cast black servant', 'forge fetish', 'forge clam', and
sticking the Last two on the former is no more micromanagement than any
other strategy requires. And please explain to me how _removing_ a
strategy opens up more strategies? Or are you one of the deluded fools
who think that any strategy is a garantee for success? Because in one
game, I'll end up facing someone who is hoarding at least clams and devils,
and most probably fetishes, judging from the fortified temple in each
province of hers. Oh, by the way, she also is second in provinces and
research, and has supercombatants, and a wished pretender. And you know
what? I do not intend to let her win the game.

But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd.


I belong to the intersection of the 'Win with the tools you're given'
and the 'Can't stand rebels without a clue' crowds. Or so I like to
think. Care to prove me wrong in a 1x1?

I'll bet you thought the VQ was dandy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


I thought that the VQ was a newbie friendly pretender, and possibly
underpriced. At the time, I did not consider myself good enough to be
positive. I have fielded VQs in a MP game twice. Once after the VQ nerf
was announced, to see what the big deal is, and once after the nerf, to
win the tournament's semi-final against the most vocal anti-VQ crusader.
I have not used her since, because I find her horribly overpriced.

You seem to think that Illwinter have created the perfect game, perfect in all respects, in no need of tweaking/modding whatsover.


Certainly in no need of tweaking/modding prompted by the whine-du-jour of
clueless losers.

Ah yes, truly, ignorance is bliss! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif


I am sure that explains why you are so happy with yourself. But I prefer
finding my own happiness in winning. Once again, care to play a game so
that we can both indulge?

[baruk]

alexti said:
I find it good to have mroe than one battle per turn. It gives more interesting options. Concerning the mage near the lab, it maybe reasonable to replenish gems between the battles, but what is supposed to happen if there isn't enough gems? And in any case 2 battles in the province where you control the lab is really uncommon.



Multiple battles (per army) in a turn are not bad in themselves. It seems a little easy to me for a knowledgable player to use the system against gem-wielding mages. Players can always use their familiarity with the AI against others.

Labs may usually be in fortified provinces, but also consider the more common situation when people use scouts as gem carriers for large armies. It doesn't make sense to me that a mage wouldn't try to replenish his gem supply mid-turn before a major battle (having spent his gems in a magical battle). I doubt that an AI would accomplish this satisfactorily, though (but maybe worth a try). With a limited gem supply, gems may go to the wrong mages, or be distributed in insufficient numbers.


alexti said:
What I don't like about your idea is not the limitation, but "per-province" basis. If now you can just slap clam on the third from the left researher, with your idea you'd have to count how many clams are already in this province (meaning scanning all mages there) and then to take into account possible dominion change. And all these efforts don't really add anything to the game experience. With overall limit, you'd typically know that you're well below the limit, so no worries and counting. I'm still not sure if the overall limit would be a good idea or not.



Its true that it would add a lot of micro-management. Being a veteran of dominions-PPP, I have built up quite a tolerance.

Gem generation would happen before dominion change under my system (not sure what the turn order is currently), so your number of active generators would be predictable from turn-to-turn.

An overall limit may be better in terms of micro-managing. It would, however, allow more of an all-eggs-in-one-basket type approach for the hoarder, made effective by use of domes. A simpler limit could be that any null or enemy-dominion province has a limit of one active generator.

Dominion pushing as a tool against hoarders could be interesting, might add something to the game.

[Soapyfrog]

Tuidjy said:
And please explain to me how _removing_ a
strategy opens up more strategies?


Because you will use those resources with which you MUST otherwise hoard to do other interesting things that never get done because everyone is busy hoarding.

For EXAMPLE: Soul contracts invalidate huge swathes of blood summons. Most never get used becuase it is much much much more cost effective to create soul contracts.


Or are you one of the deluded fools who think that any strategy is a garantee for success?


No of course not. It's all about what you DO with it... however hoarding is a REQUIREMENT. It is something you _MUST_ do. There is no "alternate" strategy. It doesnt improve the game, it just drowns out other possible uses for your gems/slaves. It's badly balanced.

Worse, there is exactly ZERO strategy involved in hoarding. It is simple administrative work. Tedious. But sadly neccessary.

Why not simply have all magic sites double in output every 20 turns? You would get the same effect, and not have to work for it... AND nations which are inherently bad at hoarding wouldn't take it in the teeth as much.

Certainly in no need of tweaking/modding prompted by the whine-du-jour of clueless losers.


Clearly I must fold in the face of your irrefutable logic. Touché.

[Gandalf Parker]

Soapyfrog said:

Tuidjy said:
And please explain to me how _removing_ a
strategy opens up more strategies?


Because you will use those resources with which you MUST otherwise hoard to do other interesting things that never get done because everyone is busy hoarding.

No of course not. It's all about what you DO with it... however hoarding is a REQUIREMENT. It is something you _MUST_ do. There is no "alternate" strategy. It doesnt improve the game, it just drowns out other possible uses for your gems/slaves. It's badly balanced.




You keep saying the same thing over and over and louder and louder. Most people have moved on. I hope you dont take that to mean that you are convincing people of this "problem" you are trying to fix.

[Arryn]

Gandalf, while your point about 'frog's persistance may be true, he also raised a valid point when he said:

"Soul contracts invalidate huge swathes of blood summons. Most never get used becuase it is much much much more cost effective to create soul contracts."



Of course the same argument could be said about only summoning Bane Lords with your death gems, or Vine Ogres with nature gems (well, Fairy Queens are very nice too).

The real argument is whether a player is an optimizer (aka min-maxer), a strategist, or a RPer. Each camp vehemently expounds its views, and never will members from one camp sway those of another. Hence the perpetual bickering.

[deccan]

Soapyfrog said:
For EXAMPLE: Soul contracts invalidate huge swathes of blood summons. Most never get used becuase it is much much much more cost effective to create soul contracts.




I have to agree with that. I wish there were different Versions of soul contracts to make storm demons and demon knights. But there aren't. So I just make devils.

[Soapyfrog]

Arryn said:
Of course the same argument could be said about only summoning Bane Lords with your death gems, or Vine Ogres with nature gems (well, Fairy Queens are very nice too).



Yes its true there are optimal summons for all paths. however you do frequently summon other stuff too, and thats useful too... sometimes you will summon wraith lords, or demi-liches, or lamia queens. You will cast arouse hunger and ghost riders and call of the wild, etc etc. There are many useful things to put your nature and and death gems (well nature gems mostly go into fetishes if you are diligent, but still.)

The point is that while there are optimizations, they dont invalidate other strategies in the way that, say, soul contracts do. You cant compete with a soul contract in terms of regular units with any other blood summons. At least in the other arenas, the optimizations are not so blindingly obvious...

[Arryn]

Soapy, you've made your point, as Gandalf (and I) have tried to point out. Hammering away at it over and over again won't help further your cause, unless your intent is really that of trolling for someone to argue with.

Some people believe (fervently, or dare I say it, religiously) that SCs are too strong in the game, or that clams are unbalancing, or creature X is too cheap/expensive/strong/weak, or item Y is too cheap/expensive/strong/weak, or that feature Z is broken. And they are entitled to their opinions. But they are just that, opinions. Common courtesy (and common sense) asks that said pet opinions not be crammed down the throats of those who don't agree, since it's pointless and unpleasant.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
The real argument is whether a player is an optimizer (aka min-maxer), a strategist, or a RPer. Each camp vehemently expounds its views, and never will members from one camp sway those of another. Hence the perpetual bickering.



There are also those who feel that each thing must be balanced by another thing. If they get a pawn then I should have a pawn. But the balance in this game is a level which is difficult to see. So many feel that so much is too powerful but as long as they cannot agree on what that thing is, then they balance each other out. Its difficult to see for someone who, for example, is a summoner who feels that they have found the unbeatable summons tactic. Or the armored-units person who feels that there is no balancing strength for his armored tactic. In a summoners game, or an armored game, they may be correct (even then I feel its alittle soon to have the ultimate one). But in a game where both play together they find their tactic is not such an automatic win.

[Arryn]

Gandalf Parker said:
But in a game where both play together they find their tactic is not such an automatic win.

And they become frustrated, which immediately leads them to whining on the forum. It's all so boringly, annoyingly repetitive. The gripe du jour.

[Boron]

Soapyfrog said:
The point is that while there are optimizations, they dont invalidate other strategies in the way that, say, soul contracts do. You cant compete with a soul contract in terms of regular units with any other blood summons. At least in the other arenas, the optimizations are not so blindingly obvious...


Well storm demons beat the devils . A SC beats them too etc. etc. .
So soul contract hoarding doesn't ensure you a win .

With clams etc. it is the same though not so severe :
If you only convert your water gems to clams then you don't lose too much but then it is a rather slow process .

If you convert back your gained astral pearls to speedup the clamhoarding process though then you lack them for some time and are vulnerable until you start to use them .
And there are too many factors to evaluate if your clamhoarding is good enough . If the other player intead gets 1 province more as you every 1-2 turns while you get 2-3 clams more the other player has still an advantage over you because he gets more gold , gems from sites , perhaps freespawns etc. .

I thought exactly like you do a few weeks before but i think now that hoarding is not a no-brainer .

[Soapyfrog]

Boron said:
Well storm demons beat the devils . A SC beats them too etc. etc..


I agree 1 on 1 a storm demon beats a devil. The problem is that I will have 300 devils and you will have 30 storm demons...

SC I agree you can with a LOT of effort make an SC who can tank an unlimited number of devils. However of course there are more devils where they came from (for free!!) AND of course I can use anti-SC tactics against your devil-tanking SC.

Since my devil army is endless replenishable, losing it is not a crippling blow. Your SC on the other hand, well, you will have to expend those considerable resources all over again, since the devil problem wont go away just ebcuase you killed a bunch of them.

You have to kill the source... and you cant becuase they are hidden on scouts...

[Kel]

Soapyfrog said:
However of course there are more devils where they came from (for free!!)



They aren't free. They just have a form of payment that rewards in the long term, rather than in the short term. Do you think it would be fair to pay 80 slaves for a single devil ? Of course not. To get many devils out of a soul contract, you consume many different kinds of resources and one which most people seem to ignore is the resource of Time.


Since my devil army is endless replenishable




Gem sites do not run out. Every army and summon is "endlessly replenishable". What you mean is that you have to reinvest gems. With contracts, though, you still have to reinvest Time. You don't think that's important ?


losing it is not a crippling blow. Your SC on the other hand, well, you will have to expend those considerable resources all over again, since the devil problem wont go away just ebcuase you killed a bunch of them.



That's true ! Of course, if I kill my opponents Bane Lord army, I doubt the problem will go away, either. Unless I actually start taking his resources away from him. Now, the obvious counter-point here is that the devils don't really take a lot of resources to rebuild, other than time (actually, even that has a caveat since we haven't talked about who is leading these devils). Even then, the answer is Time. If you can summon SCs faster than his contracts can produce devils (obviously not on a 1 for 1 basis), even in the short run, you should be able to take some of his resources away from him.

Now, I am not taking a stance on whether contracts are balanced or not. I am just beginning to explore them heavily, myself. I just wanted to point out that Time, as a resource, is something that all of the investment item discussions seem to overlook.

- Kel

[Boron]

Soapyfrog said:

Boron said:
Well storm demons beat the devils . A SC beats them too etc. etc..


I agree 1 on 1 a storm demon beats a devil. The problem is that I will have 300 devils and you will have 30 storm demons...

SC I agree you can with a LOT of effort make an SC who can tank an unlimited number of devils. However of course there are more devils where they came from (for free!!) AND of course I can use anti-SC tactics against your devil-tanking SC.

Since my devil army is endless replenishable, losing it is not a crippling blow. Your SC on the other hand, well, you will have to expend those considerable resources all over again, since the devil problem wont go away just ebcuase you killed a bunch of them.

You have to kill the source... and you cant becuase they are hidden on scouts...



Ok . But i can siege the province where the scouts are in .
And until very lategame you don't have so many soul contracts that you generate each turn 100 new devils , rather 20-50 new ones .
So killing 200-300 of your devils you need a few turns to have them again .
With staff of storm + a few air casters who cast e.g. thunderstrike + orb lightning the devils don't look too good .
And they have -50% cold resistence so ice strike and falling frost can do some damage too .


The devils are of course tough but fortunately you can ground them via storm and as a sideeffect the storm makes fire magic harder to use as well .



Most important though you have to remember the high costs of soul contracts .
80 slaves , 60 with dwarfen hammer .
A dwarfen hammer costs though 20 earthgems and the blood nations are not the best sitesearchers . Abysia and Mictlan both lack earthmagic , Mictlan lacks it total and Abysia can only get E on warlocks , then you can forge a bloodstone and earth boots for earth 3 but that takes some time .
If you don't take blood 5 on your pretender then you will need construction 6 in order to get 2 boosters to blood 5 to forge the soul contracts .
And you will use a lot of your initial blood first on the ice/arch devils normally .

So by turn 30 you have i think if you don't go only on soul contracts about 10 and produce each turn 1-2 new .
By turn 50 you have then like 20-50 soul contracts but on turn 50 the others will have other good things .
Only when you reach 100+ soul contracts at turn 70-100 they start to really get out of control .

Soul contracts are good but unless you manage to get FoTa running or find a constructionbonus site they are not really overpowered .
With forces of darkness you get 14 Fiends for 50 blood that's not bad too . A fiend of darkness has about the same combat power like a Devil .
So only after 15 turns the soul contract starts to get a higher output .
But 15 turns is a long time so the player who uses the lvl 9 blood spell instead will have more forces earlier than you .
If you can survive this then it is fine but chances are not bad that the nonhorder overwhelms you before your hoarding really pays off .

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
SC I agree you can with a LOT of effort make an SC who can tank an unlimited number of devils.



A lot of effort? Iron dragon with an amulet of luck and AMA.

[Boron]

Graeme Dice said:

Soapyfrog said:
SC I agree you can with a LOT of effort make an SC who can tank an unlimited number of devils.



A lot of effort? Iron dragon with an amulet of luck and AMA.



Interesting Combo .
One question though : Doesn't the Iron dragon than trample around and so a lot of devils ignore him and march further to your mages etc. ?

[Soapyfrog]

Boron said:
Ok . But i can siege the province where the scouts are in.


And they can just sneak away! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

And until very lategame you don't have so many soul contracts that you generate each turn 100 new devils , rather 20-50 new ones.


20-50 is a LOT... it really adds up. Typically you can have 20 soul contracts by turn 40 or so PLUS Ice and Arch devils, and you can be building 2-3 per turn after that.


So killing 200-300 of your devils you need a few turns to have them again.


Yes but.. I WILL have them again. With no additional expenditure of resources and no risk... so in addition to being able to do everything else I could do, i.e. equip and use SCs, I get X free devils every turn... which I think you'll agree is a significant advantage.

With staff of storm + a few air casters who cast e.g. thunderstrike + orb lightning the devils don't look too good .


Certainly, that is how you kill devils!! They'll be back though...


Most important though you have to remember the high costs of soul contracts . 80 slaves , 60 with dwarfen hammer.


This cost does not seem high to me... A blood nation with 10-12 provinces being hunted can easily generate upwards of 150 blood per turn. To take advantage of this you need only 2 blood 5 casters with dwarven hammers so the setup costs are not super significant... for Abysia its downright trivial, for example. I would be quite happy producing two contracts a turn until I can start wishing for blood and power. Generally this will leave enough excess blood to do other fun stuff with but if you are really diligent you can just produce more soul contracts every so often with the excess.

If you don't take blood 5 on your pretender then you will need construction 6 in order to get 2 boosters to blood 5 to forge the soul contracts.


Yes true but actually it is much faster to empower, especially in a hard research setting, which is not so expensive considering how easy it is to accumulate blood.

And you will use a lot of your initial blood first on the ice/arch devils normally..


Agreed Ice devils and Arch devils take precedence, since they are valuable uniques. In a normal research game playing blood nation you should have all your ice and archies by turn 25 or so, at which point you can start contracting... Although I usually break that rule and setup some contracts early, once I have a few uniques already.


But 15 turns is a long time so the player who uses the lvl 9 blood spell instead will have more forces earlier than you.


You surely wont have level 9 blood before I already have a pretty nice devil factory going.

If you can survive this then it is fine but chances are not bad that the nonhorder overwhelms you before your hoarding really pays off.


Perhaps on a small map. I agree you definitely have to make it to turn 30 or so, although having Ice Devils by turn 13 should be a nice boost to your survivability.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
A lot of effort? Iron dragon with an amulet of luck and AMA.


I'd say Construction 9 reuires "a lot of effort" yes, considering you will have to be fighting my mile wide mass o' devils well before that.

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
20-50 is a LOT... it really adds up. Typically you can have 20 soul contracts by turn 40 or so PLUS Ice and Arch devils, and you can be building 2-3 per turn after that.



Doubtful. That's an expenditure of 1200 to 3000 blood slaves, not counting what you spent on the devil commanders. To get 3000 slaves requires about 500-600 mage turns, which means that you had to have 15 mages hunting for the entire game to that point. That's not particularly likely when facing Abysia, but could be possible with Mictlan if they haven't worked on their dominion at all. That's also a minimum of 5 provinces used for blood hunting, with the associated loss of income. You must be playing on absolutely massive maps if you can afford to have that many provinces devoted to blod hunting. After all, 5 provinces would be a quarter of your empire on normally populated maps.


Certainly, that is how you kill devils!! They'll be back though...



That doesn't matter if you kill them without taking losses.


This cost does not seem high to me... A blood nation with 10-12 provinces being hunted can easily generate upwards of 150 blood per turn.



If you have 10-12 provinces being hunted, then your empire must be massive, or else you won't have the gold income to keep up in your research.


You surely wont have level 9 blood before I already have a pretty nice devil factory going.



Level 9 magic in one path with level 5-6 in others by turn 40 is easily doable for any nation with decent researchers.


Perhaps on a small map. I agree you definitely have to make it to turn 30 or so, although having Ice Devils by turn 13 should be a nice boost to your survivability.



Ice devils in turn 13 won't do you much good because they won't be equipped with anything.

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
I'd say Construction 9 reuires "a lot of effort" yes, considering you will have to be fighting my mile wide mass o' devils well before that.



Construction 9 doesn't require a lot of effort. It's easily reachable by turn 40 without sacrificing any expansion or defense for most living nations. Even Ermor can manage level 9 conjuration, level 6 alteration, level 6 construction, and level 4 enchantment by turn 45 or so.

[Boron]

Soapyfrog said:

If you can survive this then it is fine but chances are not bad that the nonhorder overwhelms you before your hoarding really pays off.


Perhaps on a small map. I agree you definitely have to make it to turn 30 or so, although having Ice Devils by turn 13 should be a nice boost to your survivability.



Hm i thought Scouts can't sneak away a besieged castle not sure though .

Ice devils are nice but if you have them unequipped they are not invincible .
Abysia can't clamhoard before they research water bracelet . Your pretender could clamhoard but normally he has more important tasks like conquering provinces earlygame .
So with water bracelet and either spectres or lucky Warlocks you can clamhoard finally .

But getting the astral items early for your Ice devils if you don't trade isn't so easy .
Boots of flying + an Air resistence item can be if you have no luck with your Warlock random take a while too .

Simliar with Mictlan they lack Earth + Air magic too on their mages .

Earlygame Caelum or Vanheim can be pretty hard opponents against your devils and they may have 1-2 Airqueen SCs then too when you have e.g. 100 devils + 3-4 ice devils / arch devils .

Caelum can screw your blood hunting earlygame by false horror raiding strat , Vanheim can do similiar with this + stealthy Vans .


Bloodhunting costs you a lot because you have to use mages for this + get normally no income from the bloodhunted provinces .
So you have less research than other nations + less gold income .

A staff of storms is very common . Basically every better air nation could give you a lot of trouble if they want to wipe you out early .

The resources you invest in Soul Contract hoarding pay off but it maybe too late .

How do you defend as Abysia/Mictlan when you hord against Vanheim/Caelum/Pythium ?
Finally with the blood nations you can have just plain bad luck and neighbor ermor on the one side + have poor provinces on the other side limiting your bloodhunt abilities more than normal .

It all depends , if you survive the early-midgame your hoarding pays off but often you won't survive early-midgame .
So you will perhaps win half of your games or 1/3 with hoarding but lose the rest .

Abysia is very good at hoarding Bloodstones + Soul contracts while Mictlan is good at hoarding Soul contracts + Clams while e.g. Pythium is damn good at site searching + Clamhoarding .
Normally the different ways to hoard pay off all similiar and the nations who suck at horde are very good early-midgame then instead so they can very often compensate this by territory .

You have a lot of good points though .
What makes the Devil so special are his stats + abilities .
18 attack + 16 def make most ( or all ? ) national troops useless .
18 attack + 16 def is almost as good as a banelord early game SC or similiar .

The devil almost forces your opponent to get staffs of storm + use air magic to counter you . If he can't do this he has probably problems .

But about 1/3 of the nations can do this with little or no effort . Another 1/3 has other not too bad means like banefire ( Ctis desert tombs ) or watermagic . Bladewind and magma eruption etc. should not be tooo bad against devils too .
You are probably more mobile though so you can pick your battles easier .

There are too many different factors to think of that you can say if devils are imbalanced or not .
They are probably costwise the best summon but there has always to be 1 best thing in each area .

But earlygame you use your resources setting up your hoarding factory . So you are very vulnerable there .
Midgame airnations can still give you a good fight and lategame everyone else has other strong measures against you in fields where he is good at .

[Cheezeninja]

To me the preferred solution would be making sneaking units targetable by overland spells. While hoarding would still be quite possible, useful, and smart to do, an enemy with good and detailed intelligence could attempt to take out your production base.

I would also very much like to see an overland spell capable of castle destruction, which would open up some very interesting tactical opportunities IMO. If you made it so that the chances of success were predicated on the number of earth gems put into it against the defense rating of the castle it would also encourage people to use the high defense castles alot more.

[Graeme Dice]

Cheezeninja said:
I would also very much like to see an overland spell capable of castle destruction, which would open up some very interesting tactical opportunities IMO.



That role is taken by crumble.

[Cheezeninja]

Crumble hasn't been very effective in my experience... I was refering to a spell that would physically remove the castle, thereby removing the speedbump effect, which crumble does not do.

[Cohen]

Crumble is damn good!!!
It damages even the troops inside the castle, and I saw a Tartarian get killed by crumble! (well it disappeared, and there was in only a crumble in that province).

[Cheezeninja]

It seems to me that almost every time im using crumble, im doing so because there's a large number of defenders inside the castle keeping me from beating down the walls. When this is the case all that seems to happen is that crumble beats down the walls but then the defender vs besieger check happens afterwards and I get the message saying the defenders are repairing the wall faster than I can beat it down and I dont actually get a chance to storm the castle. While some damage is implied in the spell description I have never seen any statistics on it, or any noticable damage when I cast it.

[Graeme Dice]

Cheezeninja said:
While some damage is implied in the spell description I have never seen any statistics on it, or any noticable damage when I cast it.



The spell description tells you right out that it does 150 damage to the defense of the castle, with an additional 25 for each level of skill above 5.

[Cheezeninja]

I should have been more specific, I meant the spell description implies damage is done to the units inside the castle, but I have never seen evidence of it. I am aware of the damage the spell does to the castle, but if the units inside the castle can repair better than your troops outside it becomes moot how much damage you do as the game first applies the crumble damage and then does the besieger/defender check. While it does have uses now, obviously, it would become alot more useful if it either 1) fully destroyed the castle, requiring a new one to be built, or 2) applied the damage AFTER the defender/besieger check so that if the walls were completely crumbled you would then be able to storm the castle. This is only personal preference on my part.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Boron said:
Most important though you have to remember the high costs of soul contracts .
80 slaves , 60 with dwarfen hammer .
A dwarfen hammer costs though 20 earthgems and the blood nations are not the best sitesearchers . Abysia and Mictlan both lack earthmagic , Mictlan lacks it total and Abysia can only get E on warlocks , then you can forge a bloodstone and earth boots for earth 3 but that takes some time .
If you don't take blood 5 on your pretender then you will need construction 6 in order to get 2 boosters to blood 5 to forge the soul contracts .



Am I the only one who thinks that, for a long term game, taking plenty of blood on the pretender to start with is a waste of good design points? You don't NEED to take construction 6 to get boosters in a world that allows empowerment, and blood is the one path in which it is easy to gain enough gems (slaves) to empower early on.

Unless I specifically take a pretender who starts with blood (hello, vampire queen), I think blood 0 (high path cost) or 1-3 (low path cost) is quite enough to start with. The points freed up thus can be used for something else entirely, such as a nicer SC chassis, somebody with good magic skills in the lacking national areas (perhaps even a minor bless effect or two for your sacred troops), or better scales (perhaps allowing more bloodhunting without hurting income) - and blood empowerment will still see you reach blood 5 reasonably early at the same cost as 1-3 contracts. It does mean that the devil factory will start a few rounds later, but in my mind it makes for a stronger nation in the long run. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ...if you invested the points freed up by not going blood 5 from the start wisely, that is.

If you have a good national blood commander, you can even consider empowering one of those early on for medim-high blood skill leaving your pretender free for other tasks.

[Boron]

Peter Ebbesen said:

Boron said:
Most important though you have to remember the high costs of soul contracts .
80 slaves , 60 with dwarfen hammer .
A dwarfen hammer costs though 20 earthgems and the blood nations are not the best sitesearchers . Abysia and Mictlan both lack earthmagic , Mictlan lacks it total and Abysia can only get E on warlocks , then you can forge a bloodstone and earth boots for earth 3 but that takes some time .
If you don't take blood 5 on your pretender then you will need construction 6 in order to get 2 boosters to blood 5 to forge the soul contracts .



Am I the only one who thinks that, for a long term game, taking plenty of blood on the pretender to start with is a waste of good design points? You don't NEED to take construction 6 to get boosters in a world that allows empowerment, and blood is the one path in which it is easy to gain enough gems (slaves) to empower early on.

Unless I specifically take a pretender who starts with blood (hello, vampire queen), I think blood 0 (high path cost) or 1-3 (low path cost) is quite enough to start with. The points freed up thus can be used for something else entirely, such as a nicer SC chassis, somebody with good magic skills in the lacking national areas (perhaps even a minor bless effect or two for your sacred troops), or better scales (perhaps allowing more bloodhunting without hurting income) - and blood empowerment will still see you reach blood 5 reasonably early at the same cost as 1-3 contracts. It does mean that the devil factory will start a few rounds later, but in my mind it makes for a stronger nation in the long run. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ...if you invested the points freed up by not going blood 5 from the start wisely, that is.


Construction 6 gives you hellsword + blood thorn anyway so why empower when construction 6 is such an important goal for a blood nation anyways ?

Or you research Blood 5/6 first , use your blood for the uniques and then rush to construction 6 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Peter Ebbesen]

Boron said:
Construction 6 gives you hellsword + blood thorn anyway so why empower when construction 6 is such an important goal for a blood nation anyways ?



For the design points saved that you can use to boost your scales, pretender chassis, or other magic skills as I suggested? Perhaps you happened to miss that rather vital part of the empowering strategy?

Nothing in the empowering process prevents you from researching construction 6 first if that is what you want to for the items, though it might delay it if you set more people on bloodhunting duties.


The major worry would be a unique rush, if you were too late to summon the uniques because you had to spend turns and slaves on empowering your pretender. On the other hand, if you were counting on researching construction 6 before being able to summon the uniques, you should be able to get enough empowerment in the same time while focusing on blood primarily (and construction secondarily)

[Boron]

Peter Ebbesen said:

Boron said:
Construction 6 gives you hellsword + blood thorn anyway so why empower when construction 6 is such an important goal for a blood nation anyways ?



For the design points saved that you can use to boost your scales, pretender chassis, or other magic skills as I suggested? Perhaps you happened to miss that rather vital part of the empowering strategy?




I didn't say take blood on your pretender .
Abysia just needs 2 +1 blood items on a demonbred and he can summon the Arch devils then .

Mictlan needs construction 4 anyways for SDR so you can continue to Con 6 then they can summon both Arch devils and Ice devils .


You are right though i missed your point that if you empower e.g. a demonbred to blood 4 you save time .
You have to invest iirc 45+60 blood instead of 20+20 for 2 +1 items but you save several turns .
If you want to rush to the Ice devils you are forced to take at least water 3 on your pretender though cause the only +1 items are water bracelet and robe of the sea but the latter requires W3 to forge .

So good ideas : if you take W3 on your pretender but no blood you have to pay 50+30+45 blood to empower him to get the ice devils .
So in both strats "only" about 80-100 slaves higher costs but you will be 5-15 turns earlier there as your enemy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .
Thnx for sharing your strat , i learned a new lesson http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Peter Ebbesen]

Boron said:
You are right though i missed your point that if you empower e.g. a demonbred to blood 4 you save time .



I have added it to the original post now. Sorry that I did not make it clear. I love using empowered demonbreds to hammer flat the slaves for the soul contracts and I love to blood-empower my pretender later on to use the multipath blood spells (not only for the ice devils in a rush strategy but also for the very highlevel mass summons in an end-game strategy). No matter what, it is my firm belieft that the pretender should not have to waste his time on such mundane business as staying in a fortress hammering slaves. It is so undignified.

He should be making dwarven hammers and kicking ***. E3/W3 are, as you note, great to take on the pretender for hammer and ice devil goodness.

[Boron]

Which pretender do you normally take ?
If you take a VQ you already have B2 so B3 only costs you 8 points and B4 16 , so 24 in total .

Similiar if you use one of the mictlan national pretenders or a warlock .

Do you take such pretenders or do you always play with a ghostking ?

[baruk]

Ate too much cheese Last night and had some thoughts about clams...

Clams versus gem sites

A recent game as Atlantis got me thinking (sites 40, Old World). I conquer the seas, and use voice of tiamat to search my 15+ underwater provinces. I find a few gem sites (a smattering of earth, fire and astral), but work out I would have had a higher income (albeit solely astral) had I forged clams. I suppose it can be put down to voice of tiamat being inefficient at 40% sites, manual site searching being more worthwhile (but costing more mage time overall, and therefore more research).

A comparison of clams and magic sites:

- Magic sites are linked to provinces, clams can be passed around.

- Magic sites are spread around an empire, making it hard to defend all of them. Clams can be stockpiled in well defended provinces, and moved via the lab if threatened (and on to other commanders if available).

- Discovered magic sites can be seen with scouts and astral window-type spells, whilst total site income is known if graphs are enabled. Clams are only visible on a commander's inventory.

- Both clams and gem sites require micro-management: searching for sites, forging, placing and gem collection for clams.

- The site count of a well searched empire is proportional to its province count (times the site frequency). Clam count of a nation using hoarding strategy is proportional to the turn count.

- Magic sites are capturable. Clams are somewhat less capturable.

Two balancing factors have been suggested that should naturally limit use of clams: diplomacy and map size.

Diplomacy can't be levelled directly against clams, as they are invisible to scouting and world graphs. Clams have low costs, so they won't necessarily overly weaken a player in the short term compared to one who spent the gems on summons eg. winter wolves.

A small map size can be chosen, which should give a quicker game, and thus limit effectiveness of clams. The number of players, and aggressiveness of their respective playstyles will have as much influence on the length of the game, however.

I'm leaning towards thinking that a potential Dominions 3 should have a few more choices on the game set-up screen, beyond site frequency, indy strength and richness etc. Perhaps a choice to alter blood hunting (easy, normal, hard), and one to tweak gem generators (perhaps: Dom 2 style, limited in some way, or removed). Whether you think blood hunting and gem generators are perfectly balanced or not, they have enough effect on the game that the ability to tweak the game setup in this way may be beneficial.

[Cainehill]

What, a reasonably balanced post about clams, cheese, and wine? What is this, Usenet or Fox News? (A fair and balanced look at prostituting the political process. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

A few game options would indeed be good. Blood is definately imbalanced right now with certain game settings - Quantum's Twilight of Magic games, for instance, have sites set to 5% or 10% tops, but blood keeps rolling in. A switch to modify blood would definately be a Good Thing, as it would simply balance blood nations the same as site frequency does already. ( Not sure, but I think that modifying blood hunting by the site frequency itself might be better - if, after all, there is a very dismal amount of magic sites, people (and kings, and gods) are going to protect their virgins that much more, as the main source of magic. Alternatively, some 'patriots' will 'protect' the virgins from becoming blood sacrifices through time honored methods. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Gem generators are more complicated, as some nations are arguably much more affected then others. Atlantis, some say, lives or dies by its clams. But on the other hand - Caelum can eak out a few fire gems by fetishes that it would have a hard time getting otherwise. Hrm. No sympathy for Caelum, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Machaka is another case in point - without the ability to bring in extra fire gems, it is arguably hosed.

But still - if it's a game option, then people can play around with these options, if need be avoiding games that either say "no gem generators" or "1/2 price sale on gem generators, reasonable credit". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[baruk]

I think with the clam thing, what I'm getting at is that I have no problem with the "1 astral income for 10 water gems" dynamic. Its their invisibility (on power screen) and uncapturability that are slightly annoying (unlike with magic sites, for instance). Perhaps the addition of a magic item counter on the Power screen could be handy.

Local Labs

One idea I had was to have a new spot in the lab, for special, "commander free" items, that would give the province or nation as a whole a boost. Perhaps you could call it the "hoard", "cache" or "items of regalia", that kind of thing (perhaps someone could think of a cool name for it). It would have some interesting properties:

1. It would act as extra, local, magic item storage (for when the main, national lab is too full, and you don't want to lose track of items on random commanders).

2. The items within it would be captured if the province was lost to the enemy. So if clams, for example, were designed to be a "cache-only" item, it would make them more capturable.

3. Items would be untransferable directly from the "stash" to the main lab, a commander would be needed to transfer them (to make it a little harder to evacuate precious items). Some "cache-only" items could be cursed once they are assigned to a cache, so that they are unremovable (perhaps a specific ritual could exist that would allow them to be moved).

4. New types of magic items would exist that would provide benefits to the province or nation when stored in a cache. They would not necessarily confer any benefit to a commander, however they would be carryable in the misc. slot. For example, items could exist that would: push dominion (such as a holy relic), affect dominion scales, give benefit to the commanders in the province (such as research or morale bonuses), or provide gem income direct to the treasury.

5. (Optional, perhaps a choice during game set-up) The number of slots available in the cache could be dependent on magic scale and/or dominion strength.
Alternatively, the number of slots could remain constant, but the number of "active" slots could be dominion dependent (the active slots would be highlighted). An active slot would be one that allowed a special item to provide benefit.
A further option could be to only allow special items to be placed in active slots, where they would continue to provide benefit even if dominion dropped afterwards.

6. A new lab-based order would exist: use cached item. The idea is that certain cached items would require interaction with a commander before they provided their benefit. For example, if fever fetishes were a cache item, they would still require a commander to "use" them before producing a fire gem (the commander being diseased in return).

Gem usage in battles

Its a pet peeve of mine that the AI sometimes disregards my spell orders, when it feels that they are "overkill", such as wrathful skies on a call of the winds. The meddling AI is basically a result of the turn sequence. It allows several battles in a turn, meaning that it is important to conserve gems between fights in the same turn, as players can exploit the turn sequence by using remote summons to run enemy armies out of gems before the main battle of the turn.
I've been trying to think up solutions to this for a while, I have a couple of (I think) new ones, based on making it easier to have gems available in each battle on the same turn:

1. The gem wallet! This is a new magic item that provides the owner with magic gems whenever he is involved in a battle. There would be a different wallet for each type of magic gem, and perhaps various size classes of wallet available at different levels of construction, producing between 1 and 5 gems in each battle. The gems would be temporary, available for that battle only, disappearing afterwards.

2. A two tier system of gem usage. Certain battlefield spells would now have a partial gem requirement. Instead of becoming used up, the gems would "grey-out", becoming unavailable for use until the next battle. I thought this would be suitable for defensive and summoning spells, such as wards, storm, the lesser elementals, and howl, and perhaps for fatigue reduction. Offensive spells, such as wrathful skies, would retain a requirement for permanent gem usage, perhaps along with partial gem use. However, I think the permanent gem usage could be restricted to 1 or 2 for most spells.

3. Blood magic. I can't see how a blood slave could be "partially" used, or that an item could produce slaves in response to a battle, so blood would require a different approach. My idea is that certain blood spells would have a "virginal blood spillage" requirement, ie. the spells would become usable once a certain number of blood slaves has been sacrificed on the battle field, by either side. This blood spillage requirement would carry over between battles that occur in the same province, in the same turn. Some spells would retain a sacrifice requirement (reinvigoration, for example), and any spell order requiring a spillage of blood would allow the blood requirement to be met, if slaves were available. A new battlefield order could be introduced: sacrifice x blood slaves, for when you want certain blood spillage requirements fulfilled, but without spell casting. An additional effect could be that certain spells grow in power in proportion to the total blood spillage.
This system would mean on overhaul of all the current battlefield blood spells, much tweakage would be needed to get the relative power level right.

National Enchantments

A quick thought: the limit of 5 globals can be a little frustrating in a large multiplayer game, it would be nice to see an option to extend the allowed globals to 10 or 15 (like the hall of fame).
My other thought was to introduce national enchantments. These would comprise any global enchantments that only affect the nation that cast them, without being clearly intended to be unique, (eg. forge of the ancients would remain a global, whilst mechanical militia would be national). Each nation would have a limit of 3 national enchantments, and they would be available for dispel as with the globals. The difference is that multiple nations would be allowed to have the same national enchantment up at the same time (I am probably thinking in terms of the minor wonders in civ 3).

[Ygorl]

I kind of like the idea of being able to plug magic items into a lab. I think it's much harder to make a case for hoarded items being a problem when they only work "plugged in" to a lab (which can then be conquered and despoiled). Also, you could have other nifty thematic setups (like a massive lightning rod that makes corpse men much easier to animate, or an enhancement to the castle's artillery, or ... dang it, it's time to go drink some beer)
Being able to choose the number of globals wouldn't be so bad either.