Vote

[Dimaz]

In principle the idea of restricting nations to their native paths sounds interesting, however my main concern is that it's necessary to have almost all paths in big lategame battles to have any chance. Imagine a battle between 2 armies with SCs and heavy mage support where one side has access to earth (Army of *, Weapons of Sharpness) and another only to water. The outcome is obvious. In current setup Tarts more or less balance this by providing enough diversity to support several armies, but with the 50 gems/tart with 1 level 4 path version, I fear endgame balance will shatter.

[WraithLord]

I think the secret to success in general but esp. in a game as complex as dom is not to go to extremes.

By aiming to make nations more unique I'm not planning to start a crusade against all possible diversification paths. I think it's all about the right weights, so ideally a nation would have easier (as in cheaper) access to spells and summons related to it's theme (i.e. myth and culture) while it would find it harder (more expensive) to diversify.

Dimaz, to your example, there's no one color nation (that I can think of), so it's more likely you'll see say, E+A pitted vs. W+N+S for instance. I'd imagine this would actually make battles more interesting.

[Baalz]

Originally Posted by Dimaz

Imagine a battle between 2 armies with SCs and heavy mage support where one side has access to earth (Army of *, Weapons of Sharpness) and another only to water. The outcome is obvious.

Not to be pendantic, but Niefel Flames are gonna take a big old dump on your "army of" guys, and quickening can be more effective than weapons of sharpness in plenty of situations. I find a lot of the time people think things are underpowered are because they're just not playing to their strengths...

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Baalz

Not to be pendantic, but Niefel Flames are gonna take a big old dump on your "army of" guys, and quickening can be more effective than weapons of sharpness in plenty of situations. I find a lot of the time people think things are underpowered are because they're just not playing to their strengths...

True, I love how quickening is one of the few ways to take out two squares of chaff on attack and not one. I think this double attack isn't given by the quickening boots. Am I right or not?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Baalz

Not to be pendantic, but Niefel Flames are gonna take a big old dump on your "army of" guys, and quickening can be more effective than weapons of sharpness in plenty of situations. I find a lot of the time people think things are underpowered are because they're just not playing to their strengths...

I think it is a combination of that, as well as group think. Group think is a terrible thing. I cannot tell you how many games have been ruined by group think, because people don't want to get out of the preconceived notions about a nation. Heck, look at Kailasa, BL, Patala. There have been a fair number of wins among those nations, but all you hear is the complaints about monkey PD (not trying to dredge that up again). If they were so bad, how are those nations getting the wins (K has 4, BL and Pat have 2 each)?

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think it is a combination of that, as well as group think. Group think is a terrible thing. I cannot tell you how many games have been ruined by group think, because people don't want to get out of the preconceived notions about a nation. Heck, look at Kailasa, BL, Patala. There have been a fair number of wins among those nations, but all you hear is the complaints about monkey PD (not trying to dredge that up again). If they were so bad, how are those nations getting the wins (K has 4, BL and Pat have 2 each)?

Frankly, the hall of fame (and the results of multiplayer games in general) isn't the place to go to get an idea of whether or not a nation is balanced/powerful/objectively competitive, simply because of the very small sample size coupled with the fact that MP games are more often than not decided by map geography, random luck on sites and most importantly diplomacy and who fights whom when.

In the case of the monkeys for example, on paper they look like they have a great endgame (monkey PD or not) tacked on a really tough start. So if they get rushed, they lose hard - which is the time frame their dreck of a PD really hurts, too. When even the 25PD on your cap can be taken out effortlessly by 40 tribe archers... yeah.
But OTOH if their neighbours have other fishes to fry during those first few years, the monkeys probably have a decent shot at the win.

In the same vein, while everyone quite rightfully agrees Ashdod is overpowered as all getout I'd wager they'll very rarely if ever win one of the rare games in which they're not outright banned, simply because they'll immediately get ganked by a coalition of all of their neighbours LA Ermor style. Whereas an underdog nation in the very same game might unexpectedly thrive... because everyone else is busy ganging on Ashdod and leaving them alone.

(Yes, I know my sentences are overly long and convoluted )