Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!

[Chazar]

tinkthank said:I will give you some of my reasons, even though I am not voting in this poll. (I think you will need 4-6 questions with more choices to do it right, sorry.)

I agree completely! A poll needs a lot of questions and answers, but it is difficult to anticipate all possible opinions. Therefore I am only interested in the reasons, as you have posted yours! Thanks! I am interested in considerations about the topic. My small poll shall only give a rough overview for someone who may find this post later on: if the results would be 5 against 50, there would be no need to read the whole thread, since the topic would not be controversial, but merely a singular misguided perception of mine...

[Chazar]

PS: It might help to be aware of the Dom2 Research Calculator by (?webpage does not name its inventor?)! With most settings, sages are among the top (except for Philosophers)!

[Oversway]

It seems like its a gamble to rely on being able to get sages. Some people will choose & design their nation based on finding them, some won't.

You do have a good point that if you find a library that you can protect, it is very rare that you wouldn't use them.

Anyways, I think you can mod away the 'sage factor' if you like...

[Huzurdaddi]

They are really unbalanced. It's painfully clear. Most nations who do not find them for one reason or another have horrible research. Those that do find them have good research.

You can somewhat insulate yourself from the horror of not finding mages by taking magic-3 scale and playing one of the nations who has decent base researchers ( woe to he who plays Abysia, Nieflehem, or Ulm and does not find Sages). If you find one or two of these sites early in the game you can rest assured that all other things being equal you will do pretty well in the game. If you have not found any by turn 30 well you had better be kicking *** in some other phase of the game.

[Boron]

A Theurg has 6 RP and costs 150 Gold , because he is sacred he costs slightly lower upkeep then a sage .
The nice thing is that a Theurg can be used in early-midgame as a quite good combat mage also and in lategame as a "fodder"mage .

A Seraph costs 100 Gold and gives at least 5 RP , so an almost as good researcher then the sage but also a very nice combat mage too .
Finally there is the generally more useful non-capitol only seithkona also .

All in all most nations really benefit from sages though and only for the 3 above mentioned Nations sages won't bring a big extra advantage , though you probably still build 1-2 sages even with these nations if you can afford .

[Yvelina]

I voted no. Sages are certainly nice, but in no way a requirement for victory.

I play Vanheim, and it is arguably one of the nations that needs a bit of help with research. But I also play with magic 3, and on that setting, sages are not much better than quite a few other indies, for example, shamans or amazon priestesses. There comes a time, often as early as turn 20, where I start building mages for their combat value, rather than their research ability.

And, as an aside, I cannot recall a game in which I found no decent indy researchers. In my current game, I had found two sage provinces by turn ten, and on turn 15, I took a onyx amazon province from my first opponent. Two turns later, I stopped building sages - I thought I needed the amazons and my national mages more.

[Endoperez]

Gold/RP calculator gives these results (Magic 1, 50 turns):

1 Arcoscephale - (Golden Era) Philosopher 0.65
2 Man - Daughter of Avalon 0.75
3 Independents - Sage 0.80
4&5 Tien Chi - Master of the Dead 0.85
6 Mictlan - Mictlan Priest 0.91
7 Pythium (Serpent Cult) - Serpent Acolyte 0.91
6-10 Other independents - Conjurer 0.91, Garnet Priestess 0.94, Jade Priestess 0.94
11-13 Various Tien Chi themes - Master of the Way´0.94
14-15 independents - Witch 0.94, Lore Master 0.95
16 Jotunheim - Vaetti Hag 1.01
17 Pangea (Carrion Woods) - Black Dryad 1.02
18 Abysia (Blood of Humans) - Newt 1.02
19 Pythium (base) Theurg Acolyte 1.02
20 Ctis/Indep - Shaman 1.03

From this, it seems that sages are one of the best researchers, but that there are lots of other options. However, the fact that nations/themes with the best researchers are often not played in competitive games seems to show that people rely they can find Sages or almost as good independents.

Going only 10 turns introduces lots of other independents and some more national troops, including Harab Seraph, Initiate of the Deep and Seithkona. However, many of the national researchers from the top 20 of 50 turns remain in the list, and the very top doesn't change much. Sage is still great.


Without playing games but looking at these numbers, I would say yes. Nations that can research fast/economically aren't played as often as they should if the magic really rules the game, and sage is in the very top both in short and long time invervals (?).

So, I hope that is good enough explanation for why someone without MP experience voted on this. You should really add "I don't play MP but am interested in the result" for those like us that don't play multiåplayer...

[Graeme Dice]

Huzurdaddi said:
You can somewhat insulate yourself from the horror of not finding mages by taking magic-3 scale and playing one of the nations who has decent base researchers ( woe to he who plays Abysia, Nieflehem, or Ulm and does not find Sages).

I wouldn't include Ulm there. Sages in drain 3 are only slightly more effective researchers than master smith's.

[Taqwus]

Aye. On the other hand, it might be helpful for the random magic, if we're talking base earth/fire Ulm. Death and Astral in particular are decent for bootstrapping since the divination spells only require one level and the first boosting items take two.

[Chazar]

Very nice discussion! I now think that sages are a huge advantage, but not in a life-and-death sense (I guess I just exaggerated a bit ).

I also realize that their gold/research ratio is indeed ok, but it is really their quick availability which bugs me. (Because I am convinced now that Lore Masters are ok.) Having them earlier will allow a nation to jump ahead way too quickly...especially in small-map games...since they can be built so quick!

However, changing them to a total 3 RP and 30 gold cost as I proposed earlier might be a bad idea either: the magic scale would then have a much larger impact on sages (drain3 rendering them usesless while magic 3 doubles their effectivity). I cannot decide whether this is good or a bad...??? (Opinions?)
(I do not know if it is possible to make them drain immune, but I guess this would be too much of a boost either...)
(Maybe 4RP/50GP could be a compromise, but might be too similar to Philosophers.)

---

Another option which came to my mind could be leaving their research bonus and cold cost alone, but adding a resource cost of, say, 40 points. It might not be too thematic (you really need a lot of wood in order to produce all those thick books such a nasty sage uses up, you know... ), but it might serve its purpose: Without a proper fortress, one could only produce a sage every other turn. Building a fortress would then snatch away resources from somewhere else, so it is a decision that one has to think about it (unlike now, where capturing a library means building a lab immediately! Miasmas excluded...).

Does this make any sense to anybody else? Why would you consider to take part or not in a game with one of the above depicted mods in place?