Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I could point out dozens of examples. Really, CBM gets it mostly right, and changes something like 70% of pretenders in some way. That's how far off Vanilla is.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

CBM is not balanced *yet*. Its certainly better balanced than vanilla. Nation balance needs the most work.

I would maintain *pretenders* are pretty balanced in CBM. I mean, there's a couple that are still out of whack, but most of them are well-costed for what they do. (This necessarily means you can't make up for a weak nation with an undercosted pretender anymore, but nation balance is something that needs to be addressed anyway, fixing the pretenders possibly just made it more obvious).

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

We may call it anyhow but nation balance in CBM is, most probably, worse than in vanilla. Yes, you may be happy, that PoD costs 125 instead of 75 and that weakish nations for whom PoD was nearly the only viable choice can't take it anymore. You may be happy that there's no more fever fetish that was nearly the only hope for Machaka to do at least something. You may be happy that there's no clam of pearls for MA C'tis which has nearly no chance in CBM now unless it is really, really lucky. Yes, you may live and be happy but it is nations, not pretenders, or fetishes, or clams what people are supposed to play for and lead to victory, aren't they?
And, once again, CBM is a very good mod with a lot of work in it and many, many good and balance-wise changes, many new strategies and options etc. It is more interesting to play, without doubt but it is not balanced and actually is pretty far from that.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

At this point its nearly 9000 lines of mod code covering (as far as I know) every nation in the game. Im also not sure where it would be balancing to. But since its new manager I think its possibly shifted more toward balance more along the line of one-to-one (chess) balance for dueling strategy style games on small to medium maps. In that regard it does appear to serve its purpose and earns the dedicated support of its followers.

The only real problem I have with CBM now is that its gotten so large that its become "know how to play Dom3" and "know how to play Dom3 CBm". Guides, lists, most answers all have to specifically mention whether they refer to Dom3 or CBm.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Cheap communion slaves + death, nature, and astral mean that they will do just fine as long as they aren't attacked by multiple people, but then, no nation can survive that.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Not really, the point of CBM is that all spells in the research tree should be worth casting, not just some of them. CBM should be easier for new players in that they can't go [as] wrong trying out something new. Generally for any given nation, CBM provides more viable choices than vanilla.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I understand your point. I know thats the mission.
I dont agree that it does that. But I do understand that it wants to.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

The age old balance debate. :D Wonder how much about balance is subjective or contextual.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I didn't say "survive", actually. Surviving is not the aim of this game, really. For me, at least. I just said that they have little to no chance to win just from the start, but, of course, due to excellent troops and good magery they can survive very long.
You better tell me how you're going to play Machaka under CBM :):). But all this is just words, just like Baalz' guides.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

And who is that? What about all those nations which were good and could take an undercosted PoD? What about those nations which couldn't take an undercosted chassis like PoD?

Empirically disproven. Machaka beat the crap out of Vanheim in Land RAND, which is CBM 1.6.

(Machaka did die to Mictlan, but Mictlan jumped them while they were fighting Vanheim, and because they ran over a poorly played Shinuyama, they had a lot more material and had lost a lot less in their first war. So that's not really indicative of any nation balance issues necessarily.)

This isn't to say Machaka is necessarily good, but they're hardly hopeless.

Empirically disproven, MA C'tis was 4th (admittedly a distant 4th) in Land RAND, and beat Pythium (a power nation in MA by any metric).

I think you're the only person I've ever seen claim MA C'tis is bad.

Sure, but you can't balance nations until everything else is balanced, because so much of the material is shared between nations. Most pretenders are available to multiple nations. Any item can be forged by any nation. Almost all spells can be cast by any nation. And so on. While these options remain unbalanced there's no good way to balance nations. (A great nation benefits disproportionately more from unbalanced options than a poor nation does).

So now that items and pretenders and spells have been (mostly) balanced, nation balancing can actually happen. Indeed, CBM has done some of that, but its only started making changes specifically for nation balance.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Lol. Player always means much more than nation. And a seasoned vet like Wraithlord will in the most cases beat a newbie playing the uber-nation, be it Ashdod, Niefelheim, Mictlan or anything. But in a duel with a player of equal skill this means nothing. Also, one game can no way count as an empirical proof. As Wrana mentioned above, you arguments are a bit strange, not to say the least :)
Same here:):) . C'tis was played by Meglobob who has tons of experience and is a really good player
I know I should think the results of Land Rand are the ultimate truth but I'll probably won't do it. Also, there has been much discussion about MA C'tis (a couple of years ago) at the forums and there have very different opinions. Probably you missed that thread.
Very well. So, let's nerf all nations to the points where they become really poor and thus equal?

Once again, I don't say CBM is bad, it is very good. But in many, many aspects nation balance is even worse that in vanilla. That's what I think. If (or when) nation balance is improved, I'll hail QM but until it is I don't think that the word "balanced" is appropriate. And also, the 50-point gorgon that you started this discussion with is only a part of nation balance because it is available to 4 nations total.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Ano:
LandRAND and games like it seem to be the best testing ground for 'balance' because there's no diplomacy - diplomacy dominates any game balance issues when its conducted well. CBM 1.6 is also relatively new, or it would be easier to refer to more games.

Besides, if a 'hopeless' nation can do well at the hands of a 'veteran', then its not so hopeless, now is it?

Regarding the Gorgon - since all I can do is point to poorly priced examples, I pointed to one. There's *tons* of poorly priced pretenders. Indeed, if you chose a pretender in vanilla at random, chances are its poorly priced. The gorgon just happens to be one of the most obvious offenders. Pretenders like the PoD and Cyclops were also too cheap for what they did. Most of the rainbows were too expensive for what they did. And so on.

The correct response is not to say 'lol, he only provided one example', especially as I intimated a large number of other examples. Indeed, it should be blatantly obvious vanilla pretenders aren't balanced. (Look at the distribution of pretender chasses that are actually played, its pretty skewed towards a few choices in Vanilla games.) Why must I do the work of tracking down all the imbalanced pretender chasses to make the claim - presumption should be for the claim that the game is imbalanced because its a negative claim. Its the counter-claim that vanilla is balanced that requires proof. (And given the designers have explicitly said they weren't concerned with balance, well, its pretty obvious any such claim is doomed to failure.)

So by all means, prove Vanilla is balanced, or just accept that its not.

PS: Balance is a global claim over the entirety of the game. A single counter-example disproves the game is balanced. At which point it just remains to determine *how much* imbalance there is.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

It seemed balanced that the continual predictions of 'every game ends up' didnt seem to come about. But I dont really care if vanilla is balanced or not. I can see a need for a balance mod to be available for competitive play, and some going the other direction also. Altho, I think the chess mods (the ones which make nations match) are an extreme example.

CBM is someplace in the middle. But continually taking out the "worst" tactic only creates a new worst, along with finding out that the previous worst was actually the counter to the present one. I think that cbm just creates a different balance which is comfortable to some players. If anything, the efforts seem to go further toward creating the 'every game ends up' situation.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Do you have the qualifications to make such a statement? Have you ever played in a single MP game ever under your current name, or are you going to once again insinuate that you have a (outlawed by the rules) sockpuppet account that you've used to join games? Frankly, your mindless middle approach to defending the game gets tiring after seeing you preach it without any significant change in content for a half decade.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

IIRC, Gandalf has been playing MP since Dom 1. I recall some forums with the discussions of games with Gandlaf, Alex Podger and mass lesser air elementals. I only played SP at those times.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I wonder who paid Atlantis for this stupid attack. Actually, I'm nearly sure it was Septimius because nobody else knows what is there (and I didn't know as well. If I knew, I would even bother with it). What was the aim of that, I'd like to know. Preventing me from hiring another amazon or showing me that you are able to capture VP's with ease? Or do you dislike the gold I'm sending you?
This province is nothing uber at all until very late game and even then I doubt I will need it. But if you have enough resources to pay Atlantis for such things, you're welcome. I'll take this into account

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Mostly I was burned out on MP play by Dom2. Most of my MP play of Dom3 is in beta group with the devs. You can ask people like Quantum Mechani and IronHawk since they were there (with heavy discussions of CBM by the way). Most of my CBM games were with Zens original "fix things" version. But I do play one now and then.
Most of my present MP games I dont play here. Im presently in two on the Matryx server. And one on a 3rd forum. The last MP game I played on this forum I believe was YARG. And before that the AAR game. Generally it takes a game with more interesting settings than King-of-the-Hill to get my attention anymore. Sorry about that.

Edited: the first YARG, not YARG2

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

LOL. :D
Thanks again for proving my point for me. I think that you should just read your your juryspudence textbook again. It's you who make accusations/assumptions and it's on you that burden of proof lies. :) And if you are going to quote Popper here... :D
Returning to CBM. I spoke with QM on this very question and he said that between-nations balance is just not the purpose of this mod. I think he knows slightly more on this question than you do. :) I agree that its initial purpose was worthy. It just never lived up to it. And now I think it never would due to becoming just too large to be wieldy. As an example, I pointed out several mistypings (including some code duplications) during 3.14. I was thanked... and they still were there when I checked last time (at 3.16 appearance).
So you may preach at whatever length you want. CBM will itself prove you wrong time and again. And when it does not what is important (a balance between nations, as Ano pointed out), it doesn't matter whether it does better some issues for some nations. And some of their choices just do the game worse. Of course, if you consider the game's purpose to be that new players just couldn't make bad choice... but I'd say for this the Tetris is much better choice anyway! :D

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Mr. Rabinovich is wanted to ask you just how much gold is there that came from and whether he could get his part? ;) Or more?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

How nice. An appeal to authority and an is-ought fallacy all rolled into one. Can't you at least _try_ to make your arguments worth bothering to read?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Wrana
I read your message twice and still don't understand it, sorry:)
I do keep sending gold to Septimius as a sign of "eternal love" if that's what your question is about.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Graeme: Is Wrana even making an argument? I haven't seen one. I mean, as far as I can tell his last post is just a random string of assertions with no point. Its not even worth trying to figure out what Wrana is trying to say - there's no content, so the fact you can actually identify a statement as fallacy means it made more sense than anything else in that post.

Anyone who can't make an actual point isn't worth any effort spent pointing out their logical fallacies. (But I suppose too much shouldn't be expected from someone who confuses an insistence that basic rules of logic be adhered to with Karl Popper...).

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Nice debate, lets try to keep at least some of the focus of the thread on the game, though I do enjoy open and civil debate on range of issues. Wonder if we will resolve it here though.

Ano, you keep sending me 1 gold piece a turn. Doesn't bother me, not psyching me out either. Maybe the person responsible for the Atlantean attack also has that "eternal love" for you. Who knows.:D

Had two people ask for 48 hours before we hit 20, but the majority seem to be cool with the current schedule. Let me know if I am mistaken.

Btw, how do people like my thematic AI magic locations and associated retinue? fun/interesting/difficult/useful/not useful?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

My opinion is in the above post regarding your atlantean attack

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Ouch dude. What are the qualifications to have an opinion here?

Whats the big deal if somoene repeats an opinion. Air is free.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I played Dom 1 a lot. The demo was so good I never bought the real thing. Dom 2 I bought, Dom3 likewise.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Yes, I saw it, are you speaking of one location or do you have knowledge of all 4 yet?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

How can I have knowledge until they are conquered? There's the only person who has knowledge and that's what I dislike in the concept. Knowledge should be equal throughout players so that nobody has an advantage
One more thing. Adding gryphons to the blood spot was a bad idea of yours because gryphons leave after one battle fought just like gladiators.Also, there was terrible starvation in that swamp because of many size-5 troops. So after I looked at the province with my scout, only the Deva and a few diseased defenders left there

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Ideally one should be an active player of multiplayer games to expect your opinion about multiplayer games to be considered useful.

Actually it's not. Everytime Parker posts his same golden mean/mindless middle stuff he wastes the time of every single person who reads it. I consider my time valuable (at least $20/hour breakpoint for whether a project is worth undertaking), don't you?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Actually you could have some knowledge of troops in each one via scout, scry, spy, tentative scout attack, merc info, or other method. Though you would not know exact sites or recruitment. True, but as you'll recall I was hoping not to have to be in the game, to remain as impartial as possible, but alas, it could not be helped. I do try though to keep as much secret as possible and to try to forget other things.

Now that's the kinda feedback I'm looking for, why didn't ya speak up and give more details? I had thought you assassinated the Deva or something, was wondering how you could have dealt with those troops. What else can you tell me?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

And what else do you need to be told?
Assassinating the Deva was hardly possible but a horde of green lizards did their job ;)

But the province itself is pretty poor, IMO. I mean the sites, obviously. While, of course, they would be very useful for the Sanguinarium team

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Whatever else you'll tell me. :D Your team's troop concentrations and locations, pretender info, research levels, interactions with the merc, etc. All the stuff the captain of an oposing team might find useful.;) Thanks for your openness and input though.

Ah, if only we had a human played Sang team to make use of it. :D
Do you mind if another team makes use of it at least temporarily?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

You may try :)

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Sorry man, I think hosting games, creating sites, creating rand programs, volunteering hardware and time, and being with the company since the beginning entitles you to voice an opinion.


I don't understand your animus. There has been a lot of mindless drivel - see the joke threads, the sombre threads, septs advertising threads (no offense). To which I haven't noted significant objection, so I don't think you're consistent in your standards.

I have no desire to debate Gandalf, but I think its better to debate ideas not people. I'll leave the last word to you.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I said I am. Im in 3 at the moment long games. Not to mention short irc games. How many are you in right now?

But... who jumped us just to mp? Ive been told that cbm is something everyone should used including solo players and brand new people. Both of those I disagree with. If you do also then we at least have one agreement.

Heehee. One of my sigs says
If I knew more about the subject I could charge more for my answers.
What do I charge now? Oh this was offered for free.
Im no longer paid here. Sorry.
In fact, Im retired. I can do anything I want and not worry about that. My hourly rate on various small internet jobs is based totally on whether or not the subject is interesting. Which also tends to explain the type of mods and things I do.

I know that you are filling in. Im sure you will get better at it.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Chris:
Graeme's point was you should be familiar with how MP is played, especially by the more competitive players, in order for your opinion on MP games to be taken seriously. You should also have experience with the mod in question. I haven't seen Gandalf sign up to use any CBM 1.6 games, maybe he has, I don't know, but his general apparent hostility to the mod doesn't seem well reasoned, and he doesn't seem to understand the MP metagame at all. (His association of CBM with 'dueling' is mindboggling, since I've only seen one duel game ever organized on this or any other forum - not that I can say I follow all the forums Dom3 gets games organized on, but dueling seems really rare).

How many of those games use CBM? If you want your opinion on CBM to carry any weight you need to actually play with it.

If you never intend to play MP, then sure, play vanilla. Play totally random stuff. Play whatever the hell you want. It doesn't matter.

If you intend to play MP (especially on this or the new more-sombre forums), you should just start with CBM and never look back, because 80+% of games use CBM. Might as well familiarize yourself with the version of the game you'll actually be using most of the time, even in SP.

If nothing else, eliminating gem gens means that I will actively avoid playing in non-CBM 1.6+ games from now on, because gem gens leads to degenerate gameplay that I don't find appealing. (Note I'm only subbing in this game as a favor to Chris). Lots of other players feel the same way. So just because a minority of games still happen using vanilla doesn't mean you'd ever have to actually play in one. And since most of the best MPers seem to only play CBM, if you want to play against the strongest players the game has to offer you're going to want to spend your time practicing CBM.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

This topic seems to come up a lot in this thread. Maybe someone should make a CBM vs vanilla thread on the main forum for debating the subject?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Some do tho none at the moment. Most actually cut up cbm into pieces and play with just the pretender parts or the gengen parts. I guess if I wanted my "opinion on CBM to carry any weight" Id play more of them and join in on the cbm conversation thread. But my only opinion on cbm is that its not worthy of becoming the "de facto standard" of Dom3. :)

That might be true of Sombre's forums. Im not sure about 80% here. But as far as those go I guess your statement is true. If I was interested in MP games of those type then I could expect them to be cbm.

And again, back to this forum, and the king of the hill crowd (by duelist I didnt mean one-on-one as much as the my-strategy-kicks-your-*** challenges gaming). Im not sure how "best MPers" would stand up but I know a number of pretty kickass players that I dont remember seeing in a cbm game. Possibly our views are restricted. I enjoy playing with the devs altho Im not sure how they compare on your scale.

So the feeling is that only those who can win games using cbm are qualified opinions on why cbm is good? And all of the best MPers play cbm only? And their opinions on what "always happens" in non-cbm games are the generally accepted facts?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

That would give you a valuable opinion on those things, and still make your opinion worthless on multiplayer balance. That he's a former employee of Shrapnel who left on apparently good terms actually makes his opinion worth less than if he wasn`t, since it provides an obvious conflict of interest.

I don't like people who waste my time with PR copy.

Parker doesn't have any ideas. He spouts the mindless middle, which is the fallacious idea that whatever is in the middle of two viewpoints is correct rather than what is supported by the evidence.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Really? Do you have any actual statistics on this? Because it was only within the last month that Edi even released such a version of CBM 1.6, and the something awful forums have a tiny number of games compared to Llamaserver. And guess what. Not a single game on Llamaserver is using such a sliced up version of CBM 1.6

Yes, we're well aware that you're ignorant. Are you still going to prattle on about how putting black hearts on Pan's and assinating independent commanders is a great way to expand in the early game?

It was shown to you several months ago that well over 80% (closer to 95%) of all games on Llamaserver are using a version of CBM. Can you please try and utilize the actual evidence instead of your imagination? Evidence has value. Your statements based on what you think do not.

Here Parker indicates that he likes to utilize strawman arguments. Nobody has made this statement other than you. Can you please try and debate honestly? Or is that impossible for a paid Shrapnel shill?

But really. Could you please try and base your arguments on reality instead of your imagination?

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I can't stand playing most nations in vanilla, because the units are so poorly priced. (Heavy cavalry units are especially bad, and generally unplayable outside of CBM with a few rare exceptions).

Fortunately BL doesn't suffer markedly from this problem - the tiger riders are badly priced, but everything else (that you'd bother to use) is fine.

First of all, it doesn't take much playing of vanilla to figure out what should always happen. There are very few spells of each type that are worth using in vanilla. (Eg, only a small minority of summons will ever see play in vanilla). And rampant clamming means the game necessarily degenerates into armageddon fests by those nations who can take advantage of it. CBM certainly increases the number of useable spells, and makes the endgame less degenerate (or at least, it degenerates less quickly).

Both CBM and Vanilla share the 'tartarians are key to the endgame' problem. Llamabeasts Endgame Diversity Mod is a step in the right direction, but Tartarians are really just too cheap for what they do, which inordinately rewards whomever can hold onto the chalice or keep GoH up. This is the one major spell issue CBM still needs to fix.

Finally, *winning* isn't the key to having a well-reasoned opinion. Playing with good players probably is though.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

There are different mods a player may choose to play with, though many may not be as comprehensive as CBM. But let's not ram any particular mod down peoples throats or intimate that if you choose to play without a particular mod that you are not a "good player".

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I never said 'if you play with CBM you are a good player', I said 'if you are a good player, you _probably_ play with CBM'. This requires you already know who the good players are. So if you know who the good players are (Example: Micah), then you can check out the games they're playing or have played. I can't think of a non-CBM game Micah has played in recently. Indeed, one could use the HoF top player list and cross-reference their wins to games to see what mods they typically use (keeping in mind the HoF goes back farther than CBM, and CBM becomes more common the closer you get to the recent).

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

I like CBM, I like vanilla. Most players just coming to the game will probably have SP experience and hence likely no CBM experience.

So vanilla games have use, introducing new players to the complexity of MP without thowing the complexity of cBM in at the same time.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Right, the longer you play the game, generally the more experienced and the better you will get at it, whether you choose to play with a mod or without a mod, whether your name is in the Hall of Fame or not. It is probably best to play with and without mods so that you can appreciate any differences and judge for yourself. Everyone has their own preferences, play styles, etc. Should be no hostility towards this mod or that mod, SP or MP, vanilla vs. CBM, or the individuals who hold these preferences or opinions. As for myself, though I do have preferences as everyone else does, I'm open to playing many different types of games with anyone else who is willing to play and with players of any experience level, not just a certain group of them.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

[quote=Septimius Severus;747857Everyone has their own preferences, play styles, etc.[/quote]

So? That doesn't mean that all those things are all equally valid.

The only initial hostitlity here is coming from those people who want to desperately hold onto their gem generators and use them to squash newbies.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

GEMGENS and GORGON.

I think some people like some nations and don't like other just because they choose the nation by look and feel, not competitiveness, sometimes through all Dom line,. but still want to be competitive. And some nations, which sometimes were not strongest even with gems, were seriously nerfed and these nations became even weaker. That obviously hits these players.

I see the way out either in compensating these nations this loss (it's a complicated way I don't like), or, what I really would like to see, is to make gemgens spell NATIONAL open for some nations,so these nations would get these items from casting, no forging, open for those nations who were hit the most , and who will not become OP because of it (for example ULMs and Kaliasa/BL/Patala). I don't know it it possible.

When someone say that gemgens or gorgona is a way to be OP, the proper question to ask - the way for whom? Which nations would become OP with it? And which are not? Pangaeas don't become OP, Sauromantia is already there even without Gorgon, but it can skip choosing Gorgon just because it doesn't really need awake SC early game, and nobody care if they have Gorgon imprisoned - in a late game Gorgon is not a problem at all. So here I would prefer to exclude Gorgon from the list of Sauromantia's pretenders rather then nerfing it, with respect to initial ballance. The same with gemgens. Again, I'm not modder, so don't know if forging gemgens can be replaced somehow by something with the same function but another form to make them accessible by the those nations which really need them and dont become OP.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

No.

Gorgons are better than every other pretender option. That's the very definition of overpowered. If Pangaea is underpowered, then that should be addressed in a way that makes them balanced, not by giving them OP pretender options. (Now, CBM may have gone a little far at 150pts - imo Gorgon should be 125pts like Moloch/PoD, because its the same type of chassis).

I would argue Pangaea isn't actually underpowered, people just play them wrong. They're a bless nation - the turmoil -> maenads thing is just a distraction that prevents people from figuring out how to actually play them. Play for the white centaurs, not the maenads.

And gem gens aren't fair for anyone. Making them available to only a few nations is even worse than being available for everyone.

(Monkey nations hardly need access to clams. 12-20 pearls/turn is perfectly reasonable mid-game pearl income, which is a rudra every 3-5 turns. Given everyone else also has fewer gems, that seems perfectly sufficient. Actually, that's a general problem with the theory that loss of gem gens hurt some nations more than others - everyone has fewer gems now, so you need fewer summons to be relevant. I think some people just liked turtling too much, which is why they whine about gemgens being gone - get over it, this is a game about conducting warfare, not hiding).

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Septimius, please add 5h to the timer just for the case zegc-ben doesn't come in time. I really don't want my bid wasted and I need to go to bed now. Thanks.

Re: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. In Progress.
 

Squirellord, I answered on invisionfree related forum, it's probably not the right place...