Re: Exploit question
 

Without gemgens, the guy who has conquered the most provinces, as long as he also researched and found magic sites. As simple as that.

Oh no, he won't. Having to rely on weak troops when your opponent has strong troops is bad, and so far nobody managed to make it work.

That's just ridiculously false. When somebody tried to start a non-CBM 1.6 mod, people came and told him that he shouldnt. It was like a holy war against heresy.
Such crusading obviously worked, so its impossible to find a game with gemgens now. CBM was promoted until EVERYONE believed that nobody should play without it. It doesnt necessarily mean its true.
And then it changed the game in such a dramatic way.

Re: Exploit question
 

And with gemgens, it's exactly the same, with the caveat that the underwater races don't need the same number of provinces because they are harder to attack. Having more provinces with gem generators simply means that I'm going to be making more gemgens than you. The game breaks utterly when one can leverage incomes of hundreds of gems per turn.

Really? Nobody has ever managed it? Nobody has ever won while playing C'Tis? Caelum? Jotunheim? Any of the majority of the nations who have average quality troops?

No, people told him that they weren't interested in playing a game with gem generators. Look, I'm happy to play in one or two games a year where generators decide the outcome, just as long as I get to play R'lyeh, C'Tis or Bandar log in each case. Because that essentially means that if I can convince my neighbours to act as a buffer between hostile nations and myself
for just long enough, then I'm going to win the game by forging clams.

You could start your own games you know. But then you'd probably rather claim that you're being oppressed because you can't find people to play against who want to use your particular favourite set of rules. And is it really crusading when the arguments have been going on for six straight years?

Yes. It changed the game in a dramatic way for the better. People want to play with it both because the balance between nations is better and because it removes a huge amount of mandatory micromanagement from the late game.

Would you really choose to play a middle age game as Marignon with gemgens enabled? In a game where C'Tis, Oceania, R'lyeh and Bandar Log are your opponents? After all, you have better troops than all of them, and if you really prefer the strategic game with gemgens you should be happy to play any nation in such an environment.

Re: Exploit question
 

ComfortZone was the most recent vanilla game I joined, it started last Nov. Cleveland posted the OP, and it had 14 signups already the next day.

I agree that some of the early comments regarding gem gems in the "Clam Shortage" thread were out of line, especially the "go play with yourself" one. But if Xanatos had started a game that sounded more fun, with better parameters, and just stated right off some reasons that it was going to be include gem gens, he probably would have had more people join.

Kuritza, I didn't see any game thread in the MP forum started by you. "Clam Shortage" has got no graphs, it's all-age, and it's got no victory condition other than "last man standing/concession", on a 20+ player game. And it started off non-CBM and then switched to CBM, for additional unappealing wishy-washyness.

I think it's kind of ironical that you're complaining here about people not playing vanilla, but then you bailed on "Clam Shortage" because it included the vanilla nations LA Ermor and LA R'lyeh.

Re: Exploit question
 

No, not true, or rather not always true. Expansion IS important (every turn that I am not at war with somebody feels like a wasted turn once indies are eaten), of course, but if I invested more in diversification I can get an upper hand over somebody who invested everything into expansion.
Not true with CBM 1.6 anymore.

Really. Nobody managed to win for Bandar Log even with clams. Ctis and Jotunheim have OK troops, not to mention that most victories we know of were won with gemgens. MA Caelum has awesome combat mages while EA Caelum has thugs / combat mages.
But actually, I was responding to Baaltz's comment that somebody might show me the power of monkey troops. :)

Ha ha! :) Go win with Bandar Log. So far nobody did, over how many years? :))))
And, my oh my, not all games are won by Ctis and Rlyeh either. Not even by MA Pythium, although it kind of dominates MA. Maybe thats because clams are not the MAIN factor?

Then they will come and say OMG, dont ever start a game without CBM 1.6, vanilla is so ridiculously unbalanced, I've read it on the forums!

For you, perhaps. But not for me. And deciding for others is like playing a God.

Right now, it has worse balance between nations (MA Oceania without clams? haha) and gemgens did NOT add to micromanagement that much, its a nonsense. I played this game too, remember? To make clams is to give several extra orders per turn. How many clams are you forging?.. 3? 4? Thats 6 to 8 extra clicks.

Sure, I'd make a God who can summon a naiad to clam for me, and rush Bandar Log. And, oh wonder, MA Marignon has won 2 games in HoF *with gemgens*, while Bandar Log has won none.
Thanks for proving my point.

Oh well. I sort of regret it, but you must understand - I'm rather tired of Ermor/Rlyeh alliances in games with many new players. Setsumi was the last drop for me.
Ermor is even worse in CBM anyway, since, you see, troops are more important there.

Re: Exploit question
 

wait, are you kidding me? It all makes sense now. you have no idea what the micromanegment is. what about clicking every single guy with a clam and putting his pearl away one at a time because the pool button is a way to royally F*** yourself?

Re: Exploit question
 

Then maybe you need to learn to play better? Because every turn spent fighting when somebody else isn't fighting is another turn of income they've turned into castles and research mages that you haven't. So that could quite possibly be why you're not able to win. And really, if a player who is playing to rush can't beat somebody who is playing for a long term victory, then the balance is broken anyways.

Nobody has reported a win is what you mean. But then, nobody has reported a win with Vanheim either, and they are certainly not a weak nation, and only a single win has been reported for Ashdod. Clearly we can't really rely on the list of reported wins.

Now you're bringing mages into it. I thought you said that it was impossible to overcome poor national troops, and yet, now you're telling me that good combat mages can do so. Why don't you think through your statements before you make them?

In any game that lasts for sufficiently long, the winner will be the person who has forged more clams. There's some small caveats to that, given that some nations can survive wishes for armageddon better than others, but those aren't really that important.

Are you, in your extreme arrogance, not perhaps aware that there are plenty of people who have been playing Dominions for twice as long as you've been a member of this forum, and that these people are the primary ones behind the removal of gem generators? I've seen them ruin games for five years now, and I was ecstatic to see them finally removed.

Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that you aren't trying to tell others how they should play the game.

No, they aren't horrible to make. The micromanagement comes in the fact that you typically put them on scouts, who will sit with the hide order, and require you to press 'n' more than a hundred times in a single province. If you hold it down too long, thanks to there not being a previous button, you have to go through it all over again to make sure you aren't missing any commanders. Blood stones require you to move slaves between scouts unless you pay your anti-micro tax and build labs everywhere. Then there are fever fetishes, which are micromanagement hell.

Are you aware that ignoring your opponent's arguments is usually considered to mean that you are conceding that they are correct? C'Tis and R'Lyeh have both won just as many games as Marignon in that survey. 44 games is far too small of a sample size to pull a proper distribution out of a dataset where there are are 23 possible victorious nations.

Personally I'd be happy to play Bandar Log against you on, say, Urgaia. But, since you've already indicated that you don't play the game anymore (Though why you hang around the forum then I don't know), I guess we'll have to skip that.

Re: Exploit question
 

Who is kidding whom again?
Ah wait. You probably didnt realize you can remember (write in a text file if thats easier for you) guys with clams for returning and global buffs, pool in the beginning of every turn and just give these guys pearls again.
Thats what I do, and it works like a charm, and it doesnt take much time.

Re: Exploit question
 

A classic l2p comment? Feel free to consider me a noob, its quite refreshing. :)
But its possible to build mages and fight at the same time, believe me or not.

Yep, nobody has reported a win, its the same thing. And no, I have reported a win with Vanheim, but HoF is not updated anymore. Vanheim is not that uber-strong anyway, it is rather limited in its magic... and it cant clam. :) Hehe. LA Vanheim is much stronger in my opinion.
Ashdod is banned all too often now, so cant blame them for not winning.

Of course I am. Combat mages are part of your military, arent they? And recruitable thugs too.

Not entirely true.

Perhaps you, in your extreme arrogance, are not aware that I was playing this game before I joined this forum, in another community, since Dominions II, and played Dominions I in single player? Now if you were playing this game before Dominions PPP... :P


Are you aware that you just ignored my arguments too? :)

Because I still play two games that already started? Once they are over, I will get everyone rid of my annoying presense. I didnt find this Urgaia game you mentioned, by the way. I was curious about its settings.
Or... you mean a 1vs1 game on a Urgaia map? And how would making a custom build for overcoming one opponent prove that monkey military is good enough without clams?

Re: Exploit question
 

Again, see Artifacts. I had at least one gem gen on every single commander that wasn't fighting, two on most, and shuffling the damn things around when I needed to pull commanders for combat duty was really horrible. Oh, and armageddons were going off, so scouts and the like had to be armored, or beefier clam holders were required. Until you've been through a post-armageddon 300+ gen income/turn stalemate you're really not in a good position to argue the effect of gens on the high-level games that are played.

Re: Exploit question
 

Except that you can build more mages when you aren't fighting. Every 1500 gold that goes into an army is essentially another castle+lab that you could have built.

You still haven't dealt with the fact that out of 44 games, one would expect at least a few nations to have no wins.

They are part of your military. They are not part of your national troops.

Really? Then how do you plan to win if your opponent has 100+ clams while you have 50? He can dispel any globals you put up, and will always outproduce you. Never mind that there is absolutely no reason why a player that controls more than half the map shouldn't win in the first place.

How? Seeing as how Bandar Log's troops (Especially white ones) are nearly as good as Marignon's, and seeing as how Marignon won't have sufficient astral power in a rush situation to deal with the MR 8 on the other monkeys, I don't see how their troops are going to make a rush that easy. Plus, summoning Naiads to forge clams means that you won't have as many as the person who doesn't have to spend water gems on mages.

No such game currently exists. And I'm also not foolish enough to think that a single duel game would make any difference to your opinion at all. What it would do is merely show that their military is not as pathetic as you seem to think it is. They have elephants, so they can expand about as fast as double blessed Mictlan, and their other troops are adequate.