Magic Items under CBM

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Swiss pikemen being undefeated for 100 years is a matter of historical record, and undefeated means undefeated. Why the hell are you talking about a 16th-17th century spanish troops when the age of pike dominance was pre-15th century...

The rodeleros were utilised as anti pikemen units from early 16 century, they were used already in the Italian wars which was the golden age of swiss pikes. Later on pikemen, rodeleros and musketeers were combined to the spansih tercio.

Another question is of course why the romans, the archetype of short sword and shield troops, was able to beat the hellenistic spear and pike armies, as well all the barbarian invasions (the barbarians who used very mixed weapons, but are depicted by roman documents on many occasions to have used big two hander axes, swords and spears).

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive. By making a twohander weapon as good as a one-hander+shield, something is going terribly wrong. Buff the attack and damage yes (the swiss pikes for example were very strong against other infantry when they attacked, but on defense against the rodeleros they were in serious trouble), but it doesn't hurt to have *some* realism in a fantasy game; two-handed weapons suck for defense, and that would be good to be given a thought

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

[Mardagg]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

Ah,on topic again
Yeah,thats the increase i am the most unsure about,too.
Thematically,though,i can justify it:
The Wraith sword is giving its wielder partial etherealness

Thats why i think,the Wraith Sword should offer pretty good Def compared to other 2h swords.
In addition,we got the Hell Sword already,for offense capability.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive.

This is not really true. A quick two handed weapon (mainly 2 handed swords and staves) is very effective at defense, due due to the reach advantage, surface area suitable to parrying, and the fact that they can actually be much faster than a one handed weapon, believe it or not. A decent sized shield IS superior, particularly if you have to fight in a line or absorb arrow fire, but a dueler with a 2-hand can be plenty agile and difficult to strike. Axes and maces, and especially flails are less suitable as defensive weapons imo, due to being less well balanced, heavier in general, and having less suitable surface area for parrying. A one handed weapon, in contrast, being shorter, lighter, slower, and carrying less force behind them are much worse for parrying and cover a smaller percentage of the body from attack, which is where the shield comes in.

So my personal take would be that two handed swords (and possibly staves) should in general have higher defense values than they currently have and make up a bit for the lack of having a shield. On the other hand, I do agree with you that they should not be as good defensively as a shield is. But considering just a plain old blacksteel tower shield, it would take a sword with a minimum of 12 defense on it to even approach the usefulness of it as a defensive weapon, not to mention a vine or gleaming gold shield.

I don't necessarily agree that the 2-hand needs to be as good as a 1-hand and shield (which would be very difficult considering all the nice effects some shields get), but it should definitely be an acceptable alternative for the cost. Currently I don't think that's the case.

[PyroStock]

Keep in mind forging shield+sword takes 2 mages (or turns), which means if I forge a 2-handed I can use the other mage to help reach a next research level or forge a another 2-handed weapon or cast a ritual or patrol or... etc.

In my current game, I wouldn't have the magic diversity to forge many of the good shields (10D5F, 10E5F, 5A5E, 5F5E, 10S5B) if it weren't for my pretender so there is a price to pay for that good sword/shield combo. A 2-handed sword that only requires 1 path shouldn't be as good as the good sword/shield combos.

I also think it's better to err on the side of caution, particularly as death magic is already powerful.

[Squirrelloid]

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak. In particular, there are other good uses for death gems than forgings. Given that, if there are weak death forgings, that's just a guarantee that no one will ever forge them. You have to think about this from the perspective of a player with death gems. Is he going to use them on some crappy item or to summon tarts? Any use of death gems must be competitive with existing uses of death gems or it will not see play. As such, there being plenty of good uses for death gems already is a strong argument for death forgings to be *stronger*, not weaker.

Sure, you can consider it an advantage for nations that have death gems (but that's going to be everyone, since you need death for the endgame), or you can consider every 12d (CBM) spent on death forgings to be one less tart that player is summoning. Or 2.5 fewer liches. Etc... The only thing death being strong argues for is that death boosters need to be expensive or inconvenient (and they are - one takes 2 hands, ie no hammer use at the same time, and the other is 25d), since those are generally necessary forgings for accessing the good stuff, not optional forgings.

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

If you only use 10n shields then you've locked yourself into quite the little hell of a predictable box. Good is relative depending on what you're up against and what you have available.

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak.

Do you always resort to strawmen? Even on your 1st response to new posters in a thread??? I would be curious why you find all death forges weak, but if your strawmen are any indication of your level of civil discussion then nevermind and goodbye. In short, I never said that.

In particular, there are other good uses for death gems than forgings. You have to think about this from the perspective of a player with death gems. Is he going to use them on some crappy item or to summon tarts? Any use of death gems must be competitive with existing uses of death gems or it will not see play. As such, there being plenty of good uses for death gems already is a strong argument for death forgings to be *stronger*, not weaker. Sure, you can consider it an advantage for nations that have death gems (but that's going to be everyone, since you need death for the endgame), or you can consider every 12d (CBM) spent on death forgings to be one less tart that player is summoning. Or 2.5 fewer liches. Etc...

Hey lets make Stygian Paths work like Astral Travel, because that means 1 less Tartartian too! I'm not convinced by your argument that death is very strong so lets make it even stronger via diversity. In fact by less nature gems spent on shields you can GoR more Tartarians (since now you have your "just as competitive" 2-handed sword). And conveniently, you apparently see the advantage of gaining 1 mage turn (no shield forge needed) as insignificant since you ignored that point.

Thanks for your opinion Squirrelloid, but your ideal CBM with death being awesome at everything just because it is awesome at many things doesn't sound appealing to me.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by PyroStock

If you only use 10n shields then you've locked yourself into quite the little hell of a predictable box. Good is relative depending on what you're up against and what you have available.

Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?

The next best shield is arguably Eye Shield.

Do you always resort to strawmen? Even on your 1st response to new posters in a thread??? I would be curious why you find all death forges weak, but if your strawmen are any indication of your level of civil discussion then nevermind and goodbye. In short, I never said that.

Where's the strawman? Strawmen reach a faulty conclusion because they depend on a mis-characterization. I made a factual claim: death gems being already useful is no reason for another use to be worse. And the logical conclusion: worse uses won't see play. Look, death gems have a value. That value is set by their best uses. Any use whose value is less than that is not going to get played. This isn't a strawman, its basic economics.

(Now, value can vary depending on situation a little bit, but something that has very situational uses and thus is unlikely to be used more than once in that fashion still has a pretty low utility. Wraithsword currently has *no* situation in which its worthwhile).

I didn't say all death forges were weak, I said no death forge should be weak because it won't see play. So if any death forging is weak it needs to be improved or it might as well be removed from the game.

Now, whether you interpret that as a direct rebuttal of your urge for caution remark is up to you. It doesn't change the factual nature of my statements.

Hey lets make Stygian Paths work like Astral Travel, because that means 1 less Tartartian too! I'm not convinced by your argument that death is very strong so lets make it even stronger via diversity. In fact by less nature gems spent on shields you can GoR more Tartarians (since now you have your "just as competitive" 2-handed sword).

Now who's using strawman arguments?

Stygian paths may need a little buffing, but hardly needs its functionality changed. Possibly needs to be made a little cheaper. It certainly sees occasional use at present (unlike wraithsword), and has niche uses (its one of the few ways to move a Sphinx, for example), so there are times where its situational value is high enough to warrant spending d gems on it.

I would still take a single-handed weapon + vine shield over the proposed wraithsword.

And conveniently, you apparently don't see the advantage of gaining 1 mage turn (no shield forge needed) as insignificant since you ignored that point.

It is insignificant. When you have 50 or 100 mages, what's one more mage turn?

Early game its an issue, but very few nations are equipping piles of thugs/SCs in the early game (and those nations generally really want shields - ie, vanheim, eriu, etc...).

Thanks for your opinion Squirrelloid, but your ideal CBM with death being awesome at everything just because it is awesome at many things doesn't sound appealing to me.

Well, ideally i'd prefer if the value of all gems was equally high, but CBM is not going to make sufficient changes to the game to make water gems as valuable as death gems. The game, even as balanced by CBM, does have implicit values for every gem type, and barring significant rebalancing to change those values, there is no point in assuming anything but the existing values. Basically, when making small modifications to the game, you're a price taker in terms of the value of gold, gems, and resources. If you deviate from the value already dictated by the game, either your changes are overpowered or will never see play, depending on which direction you deviated.

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?

Fine be predictable and I'm sure your opponents won't mind either. Micah covered many other points well enough.

Where's the strawman?

You said, "Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak" in response to my post. No one ever made "an argument for death forgings to be weak," so there was no reason to mention that. Regardless, I accept your revision of, "no death forge should be weak" because it won't see play as that doesn't imply anyone is making "an argument for death forgings to be weak."

Look, death gems have a value. That value is set by their best uses.

Wrong. Even when CBM first started the vanilla 10D Tartarian was one of the best use for death gems (especially since it didn't even have shattered soul yet). CBM didn't change everything and base it off the overpowered vanilla 10D Tartarian (that's ridiculous)... instead it nerfed the Tartarian.

Any use whose value is less than that is not going to get played.
(Now, value can vary depending on situation a little bit, but something that has very situational uses and thus is unlikely to be used more than once in that fashion still has a pretty low utility. Wraithsword currently has *no* situation in which its worthwhile).

I'm not objecting to a change for the wraithsword, however, another problem with applying your "best uses" theory to all items/spells is you're further widening the power gap (well chasm) between the weaker/stronger gems and making death heavy nations even stronger. Additionally, your deliberate neglect of the research tree by comparing Conj9 Tartarians to a Cons6 item makes them not a valid comparison and makes your "value" to the death gem wildly inappropriate for balance.

I didn't say all death forges were weak, I said no death forge should be weak because it won't see play. So if any death forging is weak it needs to be improved or it might as well be removed from the game. Now, whether you interpret that as a direct rebuttal of your urge for caution remark is up to you.

I can agree more with the above because there's a big difference between "it needs to be improved because it sees no play" and some of your other outrageous statements.

Now who's using strawman arguments?

You don't like the taste of your own medicine? Good.

Stygian paths may need a little buffing, but hardly needs its functionality changed.

I was being sarcastic.

I would still take a single-handed weapon + vine shield over the proposed wraithsword.

It always keeps coming back to the 10n shields. If every 2-handed weapon (and eventually shield) gets compared to the 10n shields then perhaps it's your precious 10n shields that are too cheap/overpowered.

It is insignificant. When you have 50 or 100 mages, what's one more mage turn?

It's 1 mage turn if you only make 1 shield every game regardless of the nation and game settings. Even IF one's imagination for the mages is limited to research then the cumulative effect adds up and could mean hitting a research level sooner to turn the tide of battles or get a unique first. It's easy to ignore since it's not easy to witness.

Well, ideally i'd prefer if the value of all gems was equally high, but CBM is not going to make sufficient changes to the game to make water gems as valuable as death gems. The game, even as balanced by CBM, does have implicit values for every gem type, and barring significant rebalancing to change those values, there is no point in assuming anything but the existing values. Basically, when making small modifications to the game, you're a price taker in terms of the value of gold, gems, and resources. If you deviate from the value already dictated by the game, either your changes are overpowered or will never see play, depending on which direction you deviated.

And everyone sees those values differently, which you demonstrated quite well for me. As you yourself said spell/forge value can vary depending on the situation (the individual, the nation, game settings, game rules, etc). That further suggests it's better to be cautious so things remain more constant and fewer things become overpowered under different situations. The item can always be revisited again later. I would rather have CBM err on the side of "these 11 were changed, but still don't see play according to many players so perhaps we need to look at some again" rather than "well the last CBM version made the following 3 items/spells overpowered... while we try to correct those lets also make these other 11 more powerful to make sure they get some use now."