Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)

[Twan]

Hum yes I translated early game by expansion/rush (with say level 3 max magic researched). Midgame by when you have several schools at levels 4-6. Late when you have several levels 7-9. Also I value more mass astral spells than midgame ones, even if the two are powerful, my Arco's peak would be just in the beginning of late stage, when first level 8-9 battle magic (will of the fates, master enslave) is reached.

But my interpretation is probably not the best as I feel like a note is missing for after.

The end game (when you and all your opponents have most schools at level 9 and access to numerous tartarians able to cast spells like rain of stones) is very different than the beginning of late game, as human mages lose most of their offensive power. On the other hand calling "midgame" all the game between level 4-5 magic and the moment all magic is researched, would make hard to differenciate nations.

[JimMorrison]

Well the way I looked at it is this (and maybe I should clarify in the first post) - early game is mostly indies, unless it is a nation that can do viable fast rushes in the first year, then you score accordingly. Mid game, you've researched first few key schools, cons 4 for blood nations, maybe fire arrows, mistform for SCs, whatever, the point being you've only accessed the first 2-3 pivotal spells for your strat, and you may be going into a real war at this point. Late game is not end game for sure, but would be the point where people are getting to level 9 in 1-2 schools (depending on strat and magic scale), and are starting to deploy late game summons, and introduce powerful rituals and whatnot, though such things are not saturated, nor commonplace.

[JimMorrison]

I really appreciate the posts so far, but I'm going to keep this thread up top for a few more days at least. If you see the potential of this resource, poke your friends, they can post as few or as many ratings as they like, as long as they feed the beast.

[JimMorrison]

Rate some nations, you lazy sots!

I'm content to lift the restrictions on # of ratings. Just give me some. It's hardly a compiled average if most nations are only rated by 1-2 people..... Doing this will save you time and effort explaining to new players which nations to try in order to learn the game faster. Also, it will entertain you, I PROMISE. <3

[sansanjuan]

JM,
I've enjoyed reading the posts but don't have enough nations under my belt for useful rating context. Interesting thread though.
-SSJ

[MaxWilson]

Okay, in that case, with the understanding that the late-game numbers are quite fuzzy:

EA Agartha 2 4 3 3 ? (Have to learn national summons to play well.)
EA Ulm 4 3 3 4 ? (Piles and piles of excellent troops, have to learn to forge earth boots.)
EA Helheim 5 4 3 3 ? (Easy to learn bless strats for the early game, harder to learn to use thugs and air magic. Poor research.)
EA Niefelheim 5 4 4 4 ? (Easy to learn bless strats and skinshifters.)
EA C'tis 4 4 5 4 ? (Excellent troops, pretty to learn some options for death mages. Have to learn to diversify in late game.)
EA Yomi 4 2 4 2 ? (Oni Kings are easy, have to learn to use everything else.)
EA Marverni 3 4 4 2 ? (Not everyone sees the potential at first. Read Baalz's guide for pointers.)
EA Ermor 4 4 4 4 ? (Excellent troops + battlemages, like C'tis but with better diversity.)
EA Lanka 5 5 5 4 ? (Early game bless is simple, blood magic more complicated later on.)

MA Ashdod 5 5 5 4 ? (Excellent battlemages, good troops and PD.)

LA Agartha 4 5 4 3 ? (Have to learn effective expansion strategies, and how to use national summons. Poor mapmove except for summons.)

The average is high because I've mostly played with nations that seem strong and/or interesting to me, and I didn't feel qualified to rate those that I haven't played with. Even the nations that are rated low could be quite powerful in the endgame if you have a good gem/gold economy or branch out to other magic paths via your pretender/certain indies.

-Max

Edit: Revised Helheim's rating downward. Revised EA Ermor early-game rating downward. Revised Ulm slightly upward.

[Wokeye]

A good idea, this - although I dont feel I've played enough different nations enough to rate the ones I have in relative terms to contribute.

[dirtywick]

It's been a while since I played...

MA Shinuyama 23432 : Just awful until you get a small economy going (easier said than done with their less expensive troops!), great summons mid/late but lack of astral hurts, can be difficult to survive at times. Really cool nation to play with though, one of my favorites.
LA Man 1??11 : I couldn't get anywhere with these guys! Just terrible I thought
MA Abysia 55334 : Strong early/mid, less so later, really easy to use, going to have to learn blood magic, not so much fun to micromanage that
EA Ulm 45224 : Strong early, best mid, not many options late, there's some small intricacies to use them to their full ability, but not hard to be effective until late game just massing troops

I have dabbled with others, but not enough to rate them.

[quantum_mechani]

I know the point of this thread isn't not to nitpick individual ratings, but it doesn't seem like some healthy discussion would do any harm.

MaxWilson said:

EA Ulm 4 3 2 4 ? (Piles and piles of excellent troops, have to learn to forge earth boots.)

I really don't see EA Ulm getting weaker with time. At the start they have the disadvantage of having some rather unspectacular sacreds for early era, and mages with no consistently devastating options (besides bladewind, a niche thier archers already have well covered). On the other hand, as the game drags on forge bonus on such versatile mages, and lack of reliance on the capital start to really give them a leg up. They can be a great nations if played right, I just don't find their early power at all comparable to the likes of Helhiem and Niefelhiem.

EA C'tis 4 4 5 4 ? (Excellent troops, pretty to learn some options for death mages. Have to learn to diversify in late game.)

Another nations with some definite perks later on (non capital only mages) but with a distinctly dicey early game. They have some tricks like skelly spam and shadow blast that help a lot early, but other nations have this _and_ many other options.

EA Marverni 4 4 4 2 ? (Not everyone sees the potential at first. Read Baalz's guide for pointers.)

I'm a huge fan of Marverni, I've played them in MP several times and even won with them, but if they are not a 1 or 2 at the start then no one is. They have some great spell options, but it takes time to research them and they are extremely vulnerable during that time.

dirtywick said:

LA Man 1??11 : I couldn't get anywhere with these guys! Just terrible I thought

I can understand the difficulty to play ratings - some nations just mesh better with some people - but I think the rating of one at the start is pretty unfair. I can't think of a nation with much stronger human troops.

dirtywick said:
MA Abysia 55334 : Strong early/mid, less so later, really easy to use, going to have to learn blood magic, not so much fun to micromanage that

They are no pushovers, but two fives seems a bit strong. Their sacreds are not all that impressive and they have some rather severe old age and capital only problems. They also have a rather serious liability to evocations like thunder strike and magma eruption.

Anyway, I hope no one minds a little commentary, feel free to pick at my ratings.