Max Forge Bonus

[shovah]

ive only used it in sp though, too risky for multiplayer me thinkies (it is for me atleast)

[WraithLord]

shovah said:
ive only used it in sp though, too risky for multiplayer me thinkies (it is for me atleast)

Risky??

[shovah]

if you dont get enough gems initially you wont be able to pull it off quickly enough and there is a very good chance you will get stomped

[Chazar]

It certainly depends on the map size played on: With a medium sized map (less than ~16 provinces per participating nation) hoarding gem generating items should not be viable, as the resources should be rather required immediately to ward off the enemies.

-----

Furthermore, what are realistic forge bonuses achievable in reasonably sized games? Master Smiths? Nah, I would not want to play Ulm in MP unless the map is really small and you cannot rely on finding the steel oven, can you?

[WraithLord]

I agree that hoarding depends on the map size.
Unfortunately for me it's most prominent in large maps, which happen to be my favorites both for SP and MP.

Hoarding can be done by most nations, I don't think it's only limited to Ulm. And for the long run it's worth it even with zero forge bonus.

My experience from MP is that saving water, fire and earth (blood) gems exclusively for hoarding pays off. Now I don't like this, but since it's so effective and everyone else is probably doing the same I don't have much choice.

This can be solved by house rules for limiting hoarding, I just think that enforcing those rules through the game would be much better.

[Chazar]

The second paragraph was rather generally asking for the maximal forge bonus attainable in a real MP game...but I geuess it is an unsound question anyway...

-----

I still fail to understand why some people prefer huge maps (which, for me, means anything above 25 provinces per participating player)? Of course, it is a good thing that everyone plays as they like, but I am curious and just want to understand it: What is the idea behind choosing maps that are so large?
- If I prefer endgame magic, I can choose easy research...
- If I prefer endless magical supplies, I increase the magic site frequency...
- If I want abundance of resources, I use the 'rich world setting'...

So what's left? More room for long-term strategic maneuvers due to slow moving troops? No, because long-run games feature all those fast moving SCs or army-teleporting spells, making 1-province movers almost obsolete. So maybe the benefit lies in the distance between players, similar to what Atlantis (the hoarder per se), Ryleh and Oceania achieve: the safety to implement a long-term plan. Is this so? Do big maps simply allow peaceful buildups?

I mean, I do understand that people like it to build-up things. If one has a grand scheme then one also wants enough time & peace to implement it. Getting a good plan foiled by a fellow player is certainly one of the most unpleasant experiences, right? If I play Caelum, I try my best diplomatics to make sure that I am left alone as long as possible to boost my research, but usually my enemies wont allow this. But isnt this the point of a strategy game, to know when ones time is right to reach out and grasp the world? Isnt it the essence of strategy to anticipate and thwart each others plans?

[Ironhawk]

I'm with Chazar on this one. Since the micromanagement of dom2 is already significant I am loathe to increase it with a large map. As for getting the chance to try large-scale long term strats - I only allow myself that luxury as a reward for having successfully survived The Winnowing (what I refer to the first one or two rounds of wars in a game) by politics or force.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that ppl shouldnt play on large maps. Just that I am right along with Chazar in my confusion over why people choose it.

[Cainehill]

And it's funny listening to some of the players who once loved huge maps when they turn around and say they dread their turns, are starting to hate Dom2, etc, all because of a couple Faerun or World map games.

[WraithLord]

I'm not sure why I prefer large maps.
Maybe it's the sense of attachment to the virual empire or the epic feeling the works for me.

Its the same for me in all strat games. Can't help it doc. *** sob ***

[Boron]

I am surprised that the main problem why large maps are unplayable has not even yet been mentioned:

The low unit limit!

I once tested it and iirc even Indy troops count towards it.
The unitlimit is only 32k-something.

This limit can even be too small for medium-sized games like on the cradle map but there the risk is really low.
On Faerun though it is very high.

If one of those Nations/Themes does well it is dangerous:
1. Ermor AE
2. Mictlan Blood heavy + using lots of slaves for patrolling
3. Pan CW/ Pan with Maenads
4. Ctis Dtombs
5. Ulm BF relying on Vampire counts

If Ermor AE controls e.g. 100-150 Provinces on Faerun (which is only 1/4-1/3 of the map) it should get at least 1000 freespawns per turn.
You see how easy they alone can exceed the unit limit