Guide: Bandar Log - you whipped me with what?!?

[Edratman]

I agree with Endoperez and Baalz.

What they are saying is that it isn't a stretch to play Bandar and win in MP. They can't can't be played using a strategy of "recruit and smash mouth", but they have the resources available to play with any nation if you know what you are doing.

That is the purpose of Baalz guide. It is not to convince you that Bandar is the absolute easiest, best nation.

[Epaminondas]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

In case you return to this thread once more KO, I'd like to second the comment that sacred cavalry are, on the whole, a tad too pricey for what you get. It seems that perhaps there is just a multiplier being applied to cost, and while that multiplier is correctly applied to infantry, cavalry with their higher initial costs and higher initial stats do not gain any greater additional benefit from the bless than infantry do. Most blesses do not magnify a units power, but simply add to it.

So my point being, I think Tiger Riders are a bit high priced. I did a number of tests on different bless builds with Bandar Log, and by and large none of them are effective at early growth as the tried and true elephants. This just seems a little sad to me, that dual blessed tigers can't beat the ele. Sure, they are superior in some ways, but with no bless at all, there's almost no point whatsoever in purchasing them over elephants.

I think that perhaps your argument of how many of what units you would value more, breaks down a bit when you add the distinction of capital only. Capital only troops perhaps deserve to be just a little more cost effective, to encourage you to make use of them in your armies as you can afford to. Otherwise people will gravitate towards more easily replaced units to fill that particular niche.

On the other hand, I do think that recruitable Gandharvas may be a bit much. Though mid game summons like that might not be too bad with high resource cost, so that it's not worth buying them early on when you can't get a good squad together in any timeframe. Boosting gold cost may make them unattractive at all points of the game, especially if you are modding the summoned unit rather than copying it - as that will mean that summoned units gain the same high upkeep costs.


One other thing this made me think of (dear god, does he ever stop??), was that looking at what people will pay in gold for a particular summonable unit, brings into stark contrast the poor returns that you get from alchemizing. It seems people value units in the range of 30-50g per gem or more in some cases. Just makes me think that the pace of the game could be kept in check a bit if people had more incentive to alchemize gems for cash, rather than saving for more SCs.

1. You make an excellent point about the need for capital-only troops to be cheaper, because they will comprise only a small portion of your military.

As for Tiger Riders in particular, what do you think is a fair price for them in comparison to the Elephants? I've re-priced them to 85 from 100. The problem with them was that they were priced too high even within the context of the high price of cavalry in Dominions III in general. For instance, I did not see them as 30-35 percent more efficient than Androphags or Red Guards. They are likely the most over-costed sacred in the game, along with the Wind Riders.

2.Why would recruitable Ghandarvas be too much? I've ran a few tests with them on Gandalf's map, and they get stomped by both Niefel Giants and either the Hinnom or Ashdod giants on battles of 2 v 3 manpower ratio (that is, assuming Ghandarvas are priced at 100 to 150 for the giants). Sure, they are powerful; but they are not over-powering. If Niefel Giants were a summonable, they would be like a level 7-8 summon, no?

[Epaminondas]

Originally Posted by Kristoffer O

> The other issue is whether a unit ought to be priced in comparison with units of its own nation at all.

Yes, you must. Otherwise units of your nation will be obsolete (not that there are not obsolete units in dom3 , but it is good to keep the numbers down). Nations are not balanced vs other nations based on the cost of the most popular recruit, they are balanced as a whole.

So try to keep units relatively balanced within the nation and if they are too expensive compared to other nations, lower the cost of all units of the nation. This way you get the nation internally balanced, which is preferable.

Ok, you've made me see the other side of the coin. So I suppose that's why normal Elephants and armored Elephants are priced the same. So I suppose the right way to evaluate unit price is to compare them to both the nation's own units and foreign peer units?

[AreaOfEffect]

It is always important to avoid direct comparisons of vastly different units, such as elephants and tiger riders. I would not hesitate to choose elephants for initial expansion, but believe me, when it comes to war I would pick the tiger riders first. This goes double when I'm at war with a nation that uses fear effects or forces MR checks with their spells. This goes triple when I'm fighting Ry'leh. (Though I'd bring an elephant anyhow to absorb a few spells.)

Making direct comparisons between gandharvas and niefel giants is also not a fair comparison. Sacred units tend to have naturally higher moral scores. You put the gandharva at a disadvantage when putting them up against another sacred because their awe becomes almost irrelevant. The gandharvas also have a standard and infantry average move speed, which means they are army friendly and operate best by elevating your regulars. Niefel Giants operate best on their own. Niefel giants are also priced in comparison to giants, meaning they absorb the benefits of being a giant as a national advantage.

Back to what KO is saying, it is important to compare units of a nation to each other and not other nations. Otherwise you discount national weaknesses and strengths. If you compared every infantry unit to Mictlan's infantry then you would conclude that all solidly average units should be priced as 9 gold and not 10. This would cause you to completely miss the fact that Mictlan's national advantage is cheap humans soldiers. Bandar Log has a national disadvantage, which is that all of their units are animals. Give them a unit that isn't an animal, but rather a magic being, and you must account for it.

I don't like gandharvas as a national unit because I think it is unthematic. The point of Bandar Log is that the apes have come to stand on their own. It is the only ape nation that rules itself. The summons imply that the celestial beings now answer to them, not the other way around. If gandharvas are around and are revered by the monkeys then it would logically imply that a gandharva-like commander would naturally follow. Though a faction with gandharva-like commanders and sacreds fighting along side apes already exists, it's called Kailasa.

[Epaminondas]

AreaofEffect,

If that post was directed to me, you are already preaching to the (half-) converted. I acknowledged as much in my response to Kristoffer. He introduced an angle I did not sufficiently consider before.

Nonetheless, if you are trying to go to an immoderate lengths with the argument and simply say that cross-national comparisons ought not be made, period--well, then, I can't agree.

[Kuritza]

>> Again, to repeat what I said you'll put every gem to good use, but at the end of the day your most critical needs can be met by a couple Yakasha, a Kinnara, several Rishi, and the proper research.

A couple of Yakshas is already very expensive. What does 'a couple' mean? 3 of them is 75 nature gems already. Dont forge anything out of nature? Clams are nature, for starters. And how are you going to equip your thugs (kinnaras?) without nature, then? Not trying to say its impossible, just not sure how to do it as a Bandar Log.

Finesse when using Bandar troops is great, but what happens when your opponent, who has got real troops, uses it too? He's got better tools, so if he's as skilled as you are... you're in trouble.

[Kristoffer O]

>JM> In case you return to this thread once more KO, I'd like to second the comment that sacred cavalry are, on the whole, a tad too pricey for what you get. It seems that perhaps there is just a multiplier being applied to cost, and while that multiplier is correctly applied to infantry, cavalry with their higher initial costs and higher initial stats do not gain any greater additional benefit from the bless than infantry do. Most blesses do not magnify a units power, but simply add to it.

No multiplier. Just a guess from my side. More powerful units have less educated guesses. Benefits from defense and prot are generally more useful when the initial value is high.

> So my point being, I think Tiger Riders are a bit high priced. I did a number of tests on different bless builds with Bandar Log, and by and large none of them are effective at early growth as the tried and true elephants. This just seems a little sad to me, that dual blessed tigers can't beat the ele. Sure, they are superior in some ways, but with no bless at all, there's almost no point whatsoever in purchasing them over elephants.

Might be true. Might be more of an elephant problem though.

> I think that perhaps your argument of how many of what units you would value more, breaks down a bit when you add the distinction of capital only. Capital only troops perhaps deserve to be just a little more cost effective, to encourage you to make use of them in your armies as you can afford to. Otherwise people will gravitate towards more easily replaced units to fill that particular niche.

True.

> On the other hand, I do think that recruitable Gandharvas may be a bit much. Though mid game summons like that might not be too bad with high resource cost, so that it's not worth buying them early on when you can't get a good squad together in any timeframe. Boosting gold cost may make them unattractive at all points of the game, especially if you are modding the summoned unit rather than copying it - as that will mean that summoned units gain the same high upkeep costs.

> One other thing this made me think of (dear god, does he ever stop??), was that looking at what people will pay in gold for a particular summonable unit, brings into stark contrast the poor returns that you get from alchemizing. It seems people value units in the range of 30-50g per gem or more in some cases. Just makes me think that the pace of the game could be kept in check a bit if people had more incentive to alchemize gems for cash, rather than saving for more SCs.

It would lead to faster research and more castles. I have not really thought about the consequences though. I mostly view alchemy as a last resort/niche use.

>Epaminondas> Ok, you've made me see the other side of the coin. So I suppose that's why normal Elephants and armored Elephants are priced the same. So I suppose the right way to evaluate unit price is to compare them to both the nation's own units and foreign peer units?

Thats nice! Yep!

[AreaOfEffect]

Originally Posted by Epaminondas

AreaofEffect,

If that post was directed to me, you are already preaching to the (half-) converted. I acknowledged as much in my response to Kristoffer. He introduced an angle I did not sufficiently consider before.

Nonetheless, if you are trying to go to an immoderate lengths with the argument and simply say that cross-national comparisons ought not be made, period--well, then, I can't agree.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against making comparisons between nations in general. Nation-to-nation comparisons are always good in my book. What I'm saying is that unit-to-unit comparisons aren't very helpful. Also note that I feel even more strongly about this when the two units being compared fill completely different niches. Comparing a size 6 trampler to a sacred mounted unit and a standard bearer with awe against an ice giant are rather drastic comparisons to make.

My opinion is that you should make comparisons for the sake of game balance. However, those comparisons should be made by taking in the nation as a whole. Regular units, sacred units, commanders, province defense, priest power, magic paths, starting gems, pretender selection, national spells, extra dominion effects, castle types, and temple costs all have to be considered. It's not an easy comparison to make.

The purpose in the post is to express my concern that some comparisons were being made rather hastily and incorrectly. That comparisons were being made in a manner that didn't reveal much insight.

I'm glad you are half converted on this issue. I guess that means that I don't have much else to say. I just wanted to be clear that nation-to-nation comparisons are fine, though doomed to be skewed by personal opinion. Nothings perfect.

[JimMorrison]

Well AOE, perhaps I misspoke a bit, as I didn't mean to make a strictly direct comparison. I was mostly just trying to show how unless you are absolutely rolling in cash you can't spend, the tigers generally end up not being not entirely cost effective.

And really, I did not just compare them to elephants. I also compared them to White Ones. Unfortunately, Bandar Log has no other cavalry, certainly no other sacred cavalry, so what would be a better unit to compare to? I compared them to the other unit with a similar cost, and to the other sacred unit, I think that's all I could do, since we all seemed to agree it's not right to compare them to Oiorpata, for example.

I just hope that KO's agreement of my point on cost, wasn't a euphemistic, philosophical agreement. I will cross my fingers that we see a cost reduction of capital only units (not commanders) in the next patch - to encourage people to use their special national units more frequently.

<3

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by Kuritza

Regarding luck/skill... skill wont make you win with Bandar Log, they just lack the tools to win with what they are guaranteed to have. Bad combat magic, terrible troops, inability to craft many important items etc.
Luck isnt much better, because even if you are lucky, you wont have enough nature gems for everything. Clams, thug items, yakshas (whole strategy seems to be based around these) - too many uses for your nature gems, which are rarely abudant.
Which sums up why Bandar Log doesnt win games.

Not to wax poetic... but...

Bandar Log and Kailasa are nations of finesse and elegance. They are ineffably powerful, and infinitely fragile. Most people don't have the touch (I didn't say skill) to play them, and they don't understand them; the range and contradiction between comments regarding the nation seen in this thread alone will attest to that.

They take zen and laser-like focus to play (I didn't say luck or skill, though both are factors).

They also take patience, and there is more micro-management involved; what to summon where to summon how to mix...

They take foresight, caution, and planning... what enemy might I face in the next twelve turns, what spells are top priority for that enemy, what does my army need to look like, where does my army need to be, how many commanders and priests do I need and where to I need them. These are the vital questions for this nation, yet surprisingly these are not always the general vital questions most people are thinking about. Most nations don't require careful foresight regarding leadership that this nation does, so people take leadership and availability for granted, and then fall flat when the lack of leadership logistics immobilizes a nation that counts mobility and flexibility among its primary strengths.

This is not a press the gas and GO GO GO nation. They take deliberate but deft maneuvering. This nation is neither a monster truck, nor a drag racer, yet that is the play paradigm most people will approach the nations with; no wonder most people fail with this one. They are kind of like mario kart, where too much gas off the line is just as bad as too little, but hit it just right and you just take off; most people are not used to thinking with that kind of vision in Dominions. This nation has heavy logistical requirements, and you have to think turns ahead; maximizing speed through one turn may actually result in a poor position for another, with a net loss of overall speed (still with the racing metaphor). And as always, sometimes your better hanging behind, making a plan, and stuffing a red turtle shell up number one's ***.