Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

This might be why I hate games once they get past the phase of having all the research done...armies get too big and the solution devolves into having one that's even bigger. Not my style.

--> this is like totally not so.. end game small forces can kill big armies and it's about how you use what you have.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

Twan, the problem in your particular game was not the dominions endgame but the victory conditions of your MP game.

It was essentially, owning 1 VP for so many turns I believe. So once a nation was strong enough to get it, castle it then it was effectively game over. As the defending player could put everything he had into defending it for the limited number of turns you had to defend it.

Culmative VP's are not a good idea, I speak from previous experience.

Multiple VP's would have stretched your forces more thinly and given the attacker/s more chance.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

Putting everything has nothing to do with it.

To cast master Enslave (without losing communion slaves) you need 6 mages (one casting LoNS, 4 slaves, master with S5 and matrix).
To cast Undead Mastery you need the D7 guy summoning your tartarians.
You need one more S mage for antimagic.
To cast Rain of Stones you need one rare indie mage (adept of metal order) or one tartarian titan with their most common paths, or any E3 mage empowered A1.
To cast something protecting your mages against rain of stones you need one E4 (army of...) or one A4 mage (fog warriors).
To block ennemies in castle gates you need 20 or so heavy infantry or living statues, and a storm to make fliers useless (staff on one commander or cast by a mage).

Total : the fight would have been exactly similar with just the 10-12 mages with the needed paths + say 30 hoplites. It's far to be "putting everything" a nation has in endgame (the only difficulty is gathering mages with the good paths). I remember games where I could have defended half my forts with that at the same time.

My additionnal mages have only dammaged my own troops (one casting wrathfull skies on my non-shock resistant army), and my SCs never reached the ennemies.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

Micah already said most of what I wanted to say but I'll add that I don't think the counter to these spells is to give attacking armies a free pass (a chance to buff before the defender's spells take effect) but to use a different force to attack (in fact, I'd say these spells are the counter to large armies/squads of mages and are working as intended). The decision of whether to attack and with what forces is just as much a part of the strategy as unit placement and scripting. Just as a solo SC may be met with an SC-killing squad so might an army be met with these spells. I don't see any reason why they should be guaranteed a chance to buff. It's like saying you have one tool and you want apply it to all situations as opposed to using something better suited to the job.

It is also worth noting that the changes you propose would have different effects on the direct damage spells vs. the MR resist spells. I think army of gold will reduce the effectiveness of rain of stones or earthquake to a greater degree than antimagic will the death/astral spells, especially since you can increase your penetration through boosters or adding mages to the communion. As Micah noted the net result might be to make astral nations even more powerful.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

Instead of butting your head against a strongpoint, outmanoeuver them. If someone sits on a province and defends it, then take other provinces. They can hardly flourish without gems, income, and so on.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

Yeah I concur with Micah and Valerius. The defender does get the advantage by attacking first but this by no means makes them invincible - you just have to use a different army configuration.

Agema: in the listed example, outmanuerving was not an option since the fort was protecting a key VP.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

I think some people get really offended that the late game is dependent on magic, and I can't really sympathize.

If Rain of Stones kills your human mages, then you should have armored them.

If your armies get taken by Master Enslave, then you should have sent in high MR troops like thugs or SCs.

Basically, the endgame is a wild place. Mere force of arms is a losing tactic.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

Strawman.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

It's only a strawman argument if I mischaracterized your position in order to make it easier to attack.

I've critiqued the core of your position, which is not the same.

Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
 

K... See post #602646. What you've said has already been suggested, and the answer already is here. You're 1 page late.