EA Tempest - Game Finished - Dimaz Wins!!!
 

New EA game, Tempest.

Game Info>
Admin: Executor
Game Name: Tempest
Server: LlamaServer

Settings:
Era: EA
Indies: 5
Special Sites: 50
Graphs: Disabled (use scouts)
HoF: 15
Research: Standard
Victory conditions: To the death
Mods: CBM 1.6, EDM

Hosting schedule: 24 hours until requested otherwise

NAPs and other agreements are expected to be honored once accepted, not binding however.

Players:

Executor - Kailasa
Odeoderok - Ermor
ghoul31 - Yomi
Ossa - Hinnom
vargr - Lanka
HorrorFend - T'ien Chi
Dimaz - Mictlan
Hoplosternum - Niefelheim
Mightypeon - Sauromatia
Aethyr - Abysia
kasnavada - Fomoria
don_Pablo - Helheim
Sil - Atlantis

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Why are you using 1.6? With 1.6, tarts are the only good SC's in the game.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I'd like to join as Ermor.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I'll take Yomi

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

CBM 1.8 has one change too many for me, with a special note on ****ed up item prices and the inability to rush/forge artifacts.

Welcome aboard guys.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I'd give it a try with Hinnom. Never played them before.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I'd like to join. Lanka for some fiendish monkey business..

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I'm in. I've been waiting for a chance to play EA T'ien Chi.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Hi Exec, nice to see you back. I'll be away till the beginning of August, if you start your game in August I can join too.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Ossa, vargr, HorrorFend, welcome.

Hello Dimaz,
thanks, it's nice to be back.
Sorry World of Symmetry ended as it did, couldn't be helped much from my part, it was an especially pleasant game for me.

I'm happy to wait for you, personally I enjoy playing with you, but if the other player are not too keen on waiting for you I might have to start without you as not to lose other players, I hope you understand.
However, I will keep this game open for a while to see if we can maybe get more players and make it a big and competitive game, hopefully, you'll be able to join in by than.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

It's fine either way for me, probably I'll start my own 1.6 game in August if you start before I return.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I would like to join. I like EA :) And I like 1.6 :)

I have not played Niefel in mp so I'll choose them if I can and people seem to be choosing a lot of the heavy hitter nations. If not I'll take one of my old favourites - Fomoria or Helheim.

I am happy to wait until August so Dimaz can join. Although as he usually (always?) thrashes me when we meet I am not sure why :p

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Another familiar face! Of course you can take Niefelheim Hoplo, I see no reason to ban any nation when I've obviously taken the most powerful nation of them all! ;)

Anyway, I'd be happy to take the honor of trashing you if Dimaz becomes unavailable or doesn't start next to you. :)

Dimaz, I've put you down for the game, would you like to chose a nation now perhaps? You can think trough your strategy while you're on your vacation (I suppose?)

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I could always use more Caelum practice.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Greetings, I would be interested in Sauromatia.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I'll take one of the remaining ones later, it's time to try something new. Yes, you're right about vacation.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Welcome back Ex. I'll take Abysia.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I'd like to join in too. I don't care about waiting until August at all, on the contrary. I'll pick Fomoria.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Well, I failed to resist joining this game. :(

Helheim for me please.
I'd prefer to start in august. I believe that HaidaGwaii will capture the hidden city of Shangri-La by that moment :)

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Louist, Mightypeon, Aethyr, kasnavada, welcome.

don_Pablo, I'll do what I can to rid you of that game, however it might speed things up if you dispel your SoAP, and give me them shiny boots. :)

All righty, seems we have 13 players so far, and waiting for Dimaz to pick a nation and join in in about a week.
Seeming how all the nations are land nations I'm willing to hear suggestions regarding the map we'll be using.
I guess if worst comes to worst we(I) could modify the seas on a map to dead water (no characteristics, gems, gold, pop, etc...)

I'll keep the game open until we settle on a map, at which point I'll create the game on Llamaserver.
You should all have a couple of days to create your pretender and work on your strategy.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

If there's still space I'd like either Atlantis or C'tis. Depending on whether you want a solo water nation or not.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Sure, one water player is better than none. Atlantis it is.

Two best map choices imo seem to be Cradle of Dominions or Riverlands, both good for 1 sea player and about 12-13 land nations.

Keeping that in mind it might be best to close the game now also.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

(edited, learn to read skill needed).

If the problem is the number of sea provinces, I offer to switch to a water nation : I wished to try something different, fomoria or a sea nation is way different from what I usually play so both are fine.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Sorry everyone, I'm going to have to withdraw. I'd missed that this game is planning to start next month, and I'm planning to go camping towards the end of August.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

*Fetching for news*

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I guess it has been a little quiet...

Well, we're still a few days from August, but I suppose I should create the game some time soon. With Louist out it's down to 12+1 players (assuming nobody else dropped out too), so it's either Cradle of Dominions for the map or Greece Stain, depending on how I feel like it tomorrow.

Oh, and I think Sil would like to be the only water player here from what I read Kasnavada, so no need to switch nations.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I don't mind. For "balance" issue sometime it is asked to have 2 water nations, and most map are for 2 / 3 water + X number of land nations.

Fomoria it is then.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I vote for Cradle

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I dont mind.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Instead of using 1.6 I would suggest the latest,just add more magic sites to compensate hammers. There is no way to compensate rods, but those nations in EA which can bloodhunt are strong enough to be happy even without them.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Interesting idea...I guess I could go along with either option.

On a separate note, and it's totally cool if you guys are not open to this, but I've been just dying to try Azurain's Assimilation mod in MP. Ex, any chance you would consider this for this game?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=46696

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Sounds interesting. I'd give it a try.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Militarist, increasing magic site frequency (any more that this) would most likely force everyone to take a rainbow mage to compensate for lack of national paths which I think is bad choice really.

I've played in a larger game with such a setting and it just brought massive amounts of SCs, AN abuse(from my part :)) and other.
Generally just total magic madness. Anyone who didn't choose a rainbow mage got behind rather fast and lost.

If there is a 1.8 version of CBM with no item modification I'd be happy yo use that version, however the item prices are totally out of balance now so we stick with 1.6 otherwise.

Aethyr, I actually wanted to try out this mod a while back, so I wouldn't mind including it in this game.
However I won't sneak in this mod after everybody already signed on, so if the rest of you are up for this mod we'll use it.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I thibk it would alter the balance too much. Everyone would have every magic path pretty quickly and would make things very bland.

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

I agree with this decision, if agreement is not unanimous then we should not use it. If that's the case, maybe next time. :)

Re: New EA game, Tempest, Recruiting
 

Mictlan please.
I'll be able to create and send pretender this Sunday.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Game created, finally...

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Pretender incoming!

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Pretender sent !

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Pretender is in.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

CB 1.9 will be out in a few weeks, with heavily rethought item prices (although there are many changes, item changes are the biggest thing), along with full documentation. When it comes I'd be very grateful for your comments Executor (and everyone else).

In so far as is possible (probably not very possible), I would like the latest version of CBM to be an uncontroversially preferable choice.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

I don't think it's possible, unless QM by some miracle decided to bring back into the game hammers and rods.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Well if that happened then I wouldn't use the new version! :)

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

My personnal opinion on CBM is that it's about as balanced as the base game is. It has the same basic flaws : lots of undocumented changes, and mostly undocumented reasons for changes. Which is the expected result of having no guidelines (unless I missed them ?) when making a modification. guidelines like "for balance issue, nations should be able to take X number of provinces by turn Y", "for balance issue, nations should be able to field thugs around turn Z". "Those nations got thugs earlier, but compensated by lack of A B and C".

It feels like CBM changes on a forum discussion with "let's try this" ideas instead of putting down guidelines and enforcing them.

Nevertheless, CBM are fun to play because it gives a new experience with the same game, however, as winning in this game relies on completely knowing how every single undocumented stuff works... well I like new stuff more than winning so it's ok I guess.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

I think that's fairly damning!

There are a *lot* of balance issues in the base game. CBM may not get everything right but it does fix a lot of egregious issues.

In my opinion just removing gem gens makes the game hugely more satisfying.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Well I look forward to seeing the new CBM Llama, but I'm not really optimistic about it to be honest. I kinda agree with Dimaz.
I'm convinced that the hammers are a lesser of two evils (the other one being hugely unbalanced item prices), including blood rods. They might overpower blood magic but at least all nation can use blood equally.

Now as for item price regulation in the new CBM, so far I looked at it from a construction rusher point of view. The current 1.8 CB version almost eliminates the point of rushing artifacts as you can't afford to forge them even when you hit const 8 first, which I find ridiculous as the whole point of risking to rush construction and not researching battle or summoning spells so that you can snatch the best artifacts is sort of obsolete.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Hmm, interesting.

Well I should say that I was unsure about the hammer change for a long time, although I've now decided I'm in favour of it. But I can see that's it's controversial.

With regard to the lesser of two evils: Item prices can at least be separately modded (in CB1.9 lots of artifacts get a lot cheaper). But so long as the hammer is in the game, every nation has to have a way to get E3, which feels like a nasty and kind of unthematic restriction.

The hope would be that by rebalancing item prices, we can manage to get neither evil.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Hi Llama,

I amd in partial agreement with Executor. I do not necessarily want to see hammers return, but we do need to see some changes in artifact pricing sot that the construction rush can be a viable strategy option. I'm glad to hear that 1.9 will make some changes, and I look forward to the coming release.

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

Btw, what was the final decision on the map?

Re: EA Tempest - Send Pretenders
 

I was totally against hammer removal from the moment CBM 1.7 was released. And from having had a taste of games with CBM 1.7 (played) and 1.8+ (playing), I can say I absolutely hate the effects that the removal of hammers has had on the game.

As besides the much talked about item pricing issue (which is a problem, and a major one, but not THE major one for me) there is the unsolvable problem (ie. Can't be solved without hammers) that no hammers has removed an intrinsic part of the strategy from the game, and indeed has IMO removed a large chunk of player skill from the game by drastically reducing the judgement calls that need to be made in the early to mid game (say from design to turn 40).



As take the following hypothetical scenario. It's very early in the game, say before turn 20, you have no hammers and a limited amount of Earth gems (lets say 5+2). Your first war has just started, and you decide a good option for the upcoming fights will be to have a thug (we'll say just one thug is needed right now) that needs to have both some fire protection and good chaff killing ability, and lets say you have Const 4, and the paths to forge any item.

Now basically any newbie, vet, or total Dominions retard can forge a Fire Brand and stick it on the thug, and that fits the needs of the above requirements in terms of FR and chaff killing. But without hammers, where the f**k is the skill in just ordering a mage to "forge a Fire Brand"? I'll tell you where the skill in that is, there is no f**king skill in that. End of story.

But WITH hammers, this changes dramatically, as some typical examples of the type of "judgement calls" you need to make are....


1 - Can I afford to use the few Earth gems I have to splash out on a Fire Brand? How will that effect both the speed and availability of my hammers going into mid game? Can I really risk not getting hammers until turn 30+? As with my Earth gems sitting on just 5+2, using 5E to forge a Fire Brand could hurt my hammer situation.

2 - How soon do I need my thug to have a Fire Brand? Can I afford to delay it until I get my first hammer, when I can forge it at a discount, or maybe until I know I will have more Earth gems (either from events or new sites) so that forging a Fire Brand at full price won't hurt my hammer situation.

3 - Is a Fire Brand the best option when considering all factors? Can I perhaps forge a Ring of FR and another weapon instead to do the same job? As even though that might cost me more gems for worse items, it would preserve my Earth gem stocks for hammers

4 - Can I delay my enemy, or allow him to capture a few meaningless provinces, until the situation is clearer regarding my Earth gem situation. If I want to win the game, then there's no point winning this war at the cost of throwing the game away (by sacrificing hammers just to forge the "ideal" item for the job, a Fire Brand)

5 - Do I know anything about my enemy's gem income? As if he has good Earth income, then I can risk using up my Earth gems now (at the risk of falling behind in hammers) in order to try and conquer a good source of Earth gems, thereby solving my hammer/Earth income problem.


And the above is just ONE example of ONE type of judgement call that needs to be made when hammers are in the game, and I've ignored all trade options. And there can be dozens of these types of judgement calls in each game based simply around hammers. Several coming just during Pretender design alone. But as I indicated above, without hammers the above list of options is reduced to just one completely skill-less option of...


1 - Forge a Fire Brand as it's the best option. (and since there are no hammers, there's no penalty for forging items early. No penalty for not thinking ahead with regards what I need to forge, as I can just mass forge anything I need at any point. And without hammers there's far less need to try and conserve specific gem types for essential "must forge these early or I will fall badly behind other players" type items)


And reducing the options available from a substantial list of viable ones, to one no brainer option, is NOT a good change from any viewpoint. Apart from the viewpoint of watering down the game and making it easier to play (as now less judgement calls need to be made, and far less ability needed to think ahead to what items you need so that you make sure to forge them with hammers. Since f**k thinking ahead by forging optimally! Mass forging everything the turn before you need it FTW!).



All the reasons for removing hammers were bulls**t as well IMO. As hammers only cause late game MM if you are constantly moving hammers around mages, but if you are doing that then you are creating your own MM. As you still need basic items like AMA's, Rainbow Armours, Quickboots etc each turn with or without hammers in the game, so you still need to click "forge essential item #1" multiple times each turn either way. It's just with hammers you had to do, and do JUST ONE TIME, an additional few mouse clicks to "put a hammer on the regular forger guy". There is no way that can be considered MM in the larger context of the MM you need to do in the late game.

And there is the argument that "you HAVE to forge hammers or you will just lose". But I fail to understand why this is such a bad thing, as having essential gameplay elements, or "things you must do", form the basis of most games. (And you have to research, expand, buy troops etc etc etc, so there are already lots of things you MUST do). But within the parameters of these "must do things" there is a great deal for both scope and learning in how, in this case, to get a good hammer supply with each nation, and in knowing and learning just where the boundaries are with regards to how few hammers you can survive on if supply is limited (by working out well in advance what items you will need in X turns time, and not just mass forging the turn before you need them) and in knowing when you can accept the cost of forging without hammers if the advantages are worth it, or knowing how to achieve the same things without items that you usually achieve with them (ie. using spell casting raiders or naked thugs with support buffs, instead of using thug raiders with items)



Since at the end of the day for me, there are a lot of decisions in the early / mid game (and design stage) that need to be made that are focused around hammers, which are beneficial to the overall gameplay. And on times there is a lot of skill required in making the correct judgement calls at crucial times, and in balancing your war needs against making sure you managed to get hammers (and a further balancing act on top of this again if you are rushing artefacts). And all this was especially so in games where your Earth gems were in limited supply. (indeed I remember fondly some games I played where I had almost no Earth gems, so really had to dig deep into the trick bag to survive and prosper with only forging limited items, as I knew forging at full cost would ruin my overall chances of winning the game). As making bad judgement calls in such situations can pretty much leave you with having no chance to win by turn 40, regardless of whether you are winning your current war(s). And this is a good thing IMO, as making bad judgement calls should be harshly punished.

Gem gens had much of the same gameplay mechanics as hammers, in that if you didn't forge them you would just lose long-term, and if you wanted to win you always had to keep a close eye on making sure you started forging gem gens (or clams basically, as they gave you 2x the income of the other gem gens via Wish) asap. But they had to be removed not because having the ability to invest gems early into directly creating gems for long-term gain (ie. the theory of the mechanic was not broken), but because the way they worked was just horrible for all aspects of the game (or at least mid-large sized games between competent players). But the mechanics of hammers was not, and is not, broken at all. Hammers work fine, always have and always will. As they allow the player some control over how much he pays for items, and thereby allows the player to decided for themselves if and when paying full price for an item is worth it. (more player decisions is a good thing IMO)

I do accept that removing hammers might have made the game more "fun" for some players. As who wants to be forced into "thinking" about things like hammers during Pretender design. ("I just want to create a cool thematic God for my nation"). Or trying to work out how to get hammers during the game. ("having to ensure I get Earth gems somehow is just unfair, and limits my options in-game, as I really want to spam 'Earth gem summon X / Earth gem item Y' because that is a good laugh, but I can't because then I will lose the game against those players smart enough to keep their Earth gems for hammers. Boo hoo, I hate hammers, and I hate being forced to do stuff. In fact I've just decided that I'm not going to school tomorrow since I only go because I am being forced to, and there's also no way my mum is going to force me to take a bath ever again. If I want to stink of sh*t then that's my decision! Free will FTW!!!").



I won't be playing in any new games for quite a while due to my RL work commitments, but I can safely say that I will never play another game without hammers, as they remove one of the fundamental aspects of the game, and indeed one of the aspects I enjoy the most about Dominions (and games in general). ie. Having to make judgement calls on a regular basis (the more the better, as more means more chances of allowing the skill of a player to make the correct calls), where bad decisions (due to lack of ability or forethought) are severely punished, and having to finely balance several needs at once (as above, the more the better) and having the skill and experience to know how little or much of "whatever" is needed in each given situation (such are knowing and learning how to survive with either none or limited items, if lack of hammers is limiting forging abilities).

Removing hammers might have made the game more "fun" for some players, but those who think it has "improved" the game are very misguided IMO. It's just a real shame that the vast majority of the "serious" Dominions players have left the community (or at least are no longer active), since I very much doubt they would have been supportive of such a change. But most players now seem to fall into the "casual" category, and to them a watered down game where less judgement calls need to be made, and where less thought in Pretender design is required, is preferred over a deeper game where more forethought and skill is required. Or maybe it's just a lot of the current (new) players don't realise that games with hammers are better, since they always get advised by the CBM loving regulars to "you must use the latest CBM", thereby preventing them from really ever getting the chance to realise or experience that games with hammers are simply better than games without them (if you enjoy more complex games).


Oh and finally, for me at least no amount of item re-pricing will solve the problem (not that I don't appreciate all the efforts that llama is putting into CBM these days, since that truly is legendry), since you can make every item cost 5gems and OP, or make every item cost 130gems and UP. Since the basic problem is you've taken away from the player (via hammer removal) the ability to decide in-game just how much a player is willing to pay for an item, and all the judgement calls that have to be made in the early to mid game, based around whether you are willing to pay full price for an item, or instead are willing and able to wait, do without, find alternatives etc to those items. This is a fundamental aspect of the game, and IMO removing it has had a negative effect on the game, and even worse to me personally, has made the game far less enjoyable to play, as there are far less things to think about in the first 40 turns, and a lot less judgement calls and balancing acts to make and perform. (which are all negatives in my book)

As gameplay wise, in a "perfectly played game" paying full price for any item at any time is ideally something to be avoided. Unless of course the needs of the current in-game situation justify it (and this is always a judgement call). But the entire gameplay mechanic based around the price of items has now been removed in CBM 1.7+, and Dominions in certainly a less enjoyable game without it as a result (or at least for me it is). And for those who don't think an entire gameplay mechanic has been removed by removing hammers, then I'm sorry to say you are simply either delusional, or you just don't understand how the game is really played, or at least played properly at higher levels.


ps. @ Executor - Good to see that at least one other person refuses to play in games without hammers by continuing to use CBM 1.6. Hope this game is a good one :)

pss. I likely won't be around to continue this debate, as I'm only home this weekend for a wedding, and will be gone again within 24 hours. But I haven't Dom-ranted in a long while, so couldn't miss this chance to get a fix :D