Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Excuse me if I say that, Zeldor. You are clearly a much more expert player than me, for your grade and your deep knowledge of the paths mechanics.

But I don't like the tone of your participation. You are not saying - that is cool and I think I have ideas of how to improve it. You are just pointing out things it seems you think have been done wrong with a rude sarcasm that put me somehow in discomfort.

I'm not attacking you, I don't know you and possibly you are a very kind and moderate person. And I'm not some kind of "politically correctness" tyrant. I just want to say I hope people use more moderate tones towards the work of the devs to create this huge game world with dozens of nations and thousands of spells... mostly because I respect and really like their work, and secondly and in minor part, because it would be easy to make them feel underappreciated and lose their support for the game... and I don't think you will find another game so wide and unique around http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Peace ^_^

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Oh, I was not attacking anyone. Sorry if someone understood it that way. I totally agree with JimMorrison that nations should be different and play differently. But it is strategy game and we'd all like to start with our favourite nations with as equal chances as possible. It is unfair to suggest someone to play other nation because the one he likes just sucks in late game.

The thing I said was that instead of trying to balance many nations we should balance magic system. Because magic is what matters later. And you simply need astral and death [at least a lot of astral] to have any chances. Nature can get everyone with common indies. Giving some nation N10 recruitable mages wouldn't really change much, people wouldn't fear them. And imagine someone getting S10 or D10 mages.

And Tifone, I am in favour of removing Mind Hunt and Magic Duel totally from the game, or at least really nerfing them. That probably goes for horror spam too. There are many overpowered [well, simply too easy and cheap] tactics in that game. Luckily CBM makes it a bit better and gets better with every version.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

BINGO, and excellently put.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

It is actually true that the vast scope of this game cannot be realized by the players at all. You get a sense of it when you try to mod. And even with a simple mod like Epic Heroes, which is tiny in scope, it is hard to balance, and a few months after I stop working on it, I cannot recall all of the abilities each Hero has etc.

Unless KO has a photographic memory, then there is no way he can remember all of the spells, units, items effects.

It is amazing that the races are as balanced as they are, even with the limitless diversity.

It is also true that no matter how much work KO devotes to tweaking the races, even if he did it for 12 hours a day until the day he last drew breath, would a game of this scope be "perfect."

Something could always be found that could be tweaked. Which is why 99 percent of games that have no monthly fee to play just fix a glaring bug or 2, and that is that.

The online games that continue to tweak the game, develop new content etc, as you may have noticed, all charge a monthly fee.

Lastly, I do disagree that all magic paths should be equal
in power. And besides s and d, which Zeldor mentioned, Earth and Blood are also very powerful. Ask all of the astral nations that fell to Pangaea in Alpaca!

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Ahah, "last breath"? Don't you know man? KO can cast Phoenyx Pyre whenever he wants, and always has Life After Death on him so he can return as an Undead Priest to Reanimate Longdeads who will work on the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

And about JK, i don't really need to remind you about Rejuvenate and Youth Boots... Sacrificing virgins pays http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

They troops suck badly and they have no sacreds. The nation is nice, i like their magic versatility and with a good awake SC they are viable. But that does not change the fact that they initial expansion strength sucks, and they are vulnerable to early attacks. I think it has been done on purpose, actually, as a way to counterbalance their powerful research.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Wow. Im having a blast with them.
It sounds like yet another case of "they suck" when it might better be said "They suck at playing my style". Im not knocking you. There are two common things I see in posts about things that are broken or out of balance with nations.

A) not understanding that nations do not balance to each other, the game is rock-paper-scissors balance

B) talking about nations without apparently having played to their strengths.

When you played LA Bogarus...
did you make use of their cavalry?
did you make use of Skopets and Khlysts?
did you make use of 5 Fold Angels?
did you make use of the Luck protection?

As an example; there is nothing wrong with LA Bogarus not doing as well as LA Ulm if they are both playd with LA Ulm tactics.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

This is not the case, though they aren't especially awe-inspiring.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I did not say Bogarus suck. Actually, i did say i like the nation.

But they troops suck. From a basic stat comparison. Their stats are weaker than anyone else (And that includes most indis) Their missile weapon is a *short bow* in *late era*, which they couple with precision 8. And it happens to be the good part of his army, go figure.

The nation is good. Just that its strength is not the troops. And that is exactly what this thread is for: to find out each nation strength and weaknesses.

I know Bogarus should not play as Ulm, becouse Ulm has good starting troops and Bogarus... well, does not. I would rate Bogarus higher than Ulm anyday, though.

EDIT: as already said for Maverni. Fine, if Bogarus troops are "good", then which ones are "bad"? Which nation troops will you rate weaker than Bogarus in Late Age? Becouse if Bogarus is a 4/5, then everybody else is a 5/5 and Uttgarde or Vanheim are 8/5.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

True. "they have no sacreds worth mentioning" is more accurate.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Actually, I think I remember to have read from K.O. that the game is not balanced, nor it is intended to. I remember him saying that the game supposes that 2 weaker nations will cooperate against the stronger ones, and that LA ermor and LA ryleh fail to this "balance" becouse they can win 2vs1.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

My rating of a strong or weak nation would be based quite abit on my style of play. Which is heavily into stealth, surprise tactics, and basically luck. So in many cases, what other people consider underdog nations are my favorites.

I only have a problem when people list what they feel are bad things about bad nations when they obviously are not the type of player to play to that nations built-in strengths. I think that instead of complaining about a nation and wanting to change it into another nation, its more fun to try and figure out how its meant to be played. But thats probably just the basic hacker in me.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Fine, you are wellcome to rate Bogarus (or any other nation) differently. However, if you rate Bogarus Early Game (that is, bassically it's troop strength) highly and it's Middle and Late Game (where I value things like magic diversity, research power and access to Astral) lowly, they I will use my right to disagree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

quote]I only have a problem when people list what they feel are bad things about bad nations when they obviously are not the type of player to play to that nations built-in strengths. I think that instead of complaining about a nation and wanting to change it into another nation, its more fun to try and figure out how its meant to be played. But thats probably just the basic hacker in me.

[/quote] I'm not complaining about Bogarus *at all*. I'm complaining about the previous poster ability to find Bogarus built-in strengths (which have plenty), and it's (in my opinion) misdirecting post, which might make some new player to conclude that Bogarus is a good "rush nation" based on its 4/5 (that is, near perfect) score in "early game". That would make it to be on par with nations like Uttgarde, Pangaea or Arcoscephale, which have been rated (rightly imho) that way already in this post, and have MUCH stronger base troops.

The entire point of this post is to rate the nation built-in strengths (and therefore weaknenesses). You have your right to disagree with me and to think that one of Bogarus strengths is its troops, and then we will debate about it if you please. But answering "have you tried 5fold angels" will not show how their archers and cavalry is on par with Man. If it's not (and i think it's not), then if Bogarus Early Game is 4/5, Man is 5/5. That would imply Pangaea is 6/5 and Vanheim is 7/5, which kinda screw the entire purpose of having a score based on 5 points.

I agree with you that style of play will make players to gravitate toward one or another nation. Players that tend to play in very big maps with a lot of players ussually will preffer late game powerhouses (such as Bogarus) over short term potences like vanheim. But that should not modify their own ratings of the nation. Bogarus still deserve a 1 or 2 in early power, becouse it is a bad nation for blitzes and early game, even if you like it becouse you like long term nations. Then rate it 2/5 EG and 5/5 late game or whatever. Not doing so, and allowing "general likeness of the nation" to permeate it's ratings will make some people who came here looking info, to try and choose the "wrong" nations for it's playstyle. Becouse if someone who likes what you have named "ulm style" tries to play Bogarus based on its alleged "4/5 early game score", he will be dissapointed. As much as a player that like magic, research, long term goals and late game will be if he tries Ulm based on some one's score of "ulm late game 5/5".

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

"Early Game" wasn't defined in this thread, I think.

Some people think it's the ability to rush and stop rushes directed at you (triqui?). Quantum mechanic said he thought early game happened before level 4 in research. Some people may think it's ability to conquer independents in an empty map quickly.

I don't think a nation has to be a good rusher to have strong early game.


I agree that 4 for early game strength may be too much for Bogarus, but that's why JimMorrison wishes to get more votes. It will average out. Give your own opinion about Bogarus, preferably about all the LA nations.

"Bad votes" are a necessity, because the community is so small. They can't be fixed afterwards, because that'd screw up JimMorrison's calculations. With enough votes, it will even out any way. One high vote might mean that Bogarus has early game strength of 2.45 instead of 1.45, but that still shows it's weaker than Vanheim or Man or whatever.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Fair point. We should ask JimMorrison to define it then, becouse it will be a bit absurd if someone rate "Bogarus Early game" based on rush (or rush survival) potential while other base it on indi expansion rate and some other base it on cuteness of their sprites http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif

Whatever definition JimMorrison want to use is the one we would use. If he chooses to rate "early game" by "graphics cuteness" then i will rate Bogarus 5/5 :p

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I actually did somewhere, but I type a lot. Let me reiterate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif


Early Game- Initial expansion phase of the game. This phase is overall dominated by the ability to rapidly and efficiently harvest indie provinces, and preferably to do so without overlooking the things normally associated with moving into Mid Game, like a couple of castles, and a bit of research ability. Indeed, without research capacity, there is no mid game, as I'm looking at it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif Rushing ability is definitely one potential component of the early game - but it can be especially misleading for the newer players that I am hoping gain the most benefit from this chart (if it ever gets enough input to be feasible http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif).

Mid Game- Development of first advanced strategies. You can look at it as 4 in a particular school, though for some nations and with some research goals, it may not be until 5 or 6 in a path, or 4 in two paths, or it may hinge primarily on your ability to shift production from cheaper troops to something more exotic. In any case, it's the point in the game where your strategies involve more than "Attack Rear". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif It also tends to directly imply the first real wars in the game, where people are not raiding or rushing, but taking these first big tools, and assuming that they will be enough to take someone else in a toe to toe fight.

Late Game- Well, I think this is the most straight forward, as the most confusion really is just where the breaking point is between Early-Mid. But just to clarify, this is when people start casting globals in earnest, summoning SCs, forging artifacts, exploiting (pun intended) Battlefield Enchantments, and generally just pushing the entire game to the limit. By this point everyone has at least 1-2 schools at 8-9 research, and they are rapidly filling out the others to diversify capabilities beyond what they already focused on as their intended strategic focal point. That is to say, most people have reached the fruition of the primary strategy that they wish to employ to win the game - the rest is just insurance.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I preffer to set the "early" and "middle" game as hard-set turn limits, ie: first 12 months, or 18 months, etc. Becouse stating it as "when you reach lvl 4 in research" might mean that some nations or strategies have a very short "early game" (EA arcos focusing on buiding castles and philosphers with an awake Sage will be there faster than you can say "middle game", while a drain 3 pangaea might need 2 years). You might not "rush" into Middle game, but that does not mean the other players would not either. And that you dont have a single school of magic with level 4 does not mean the game is not in Middle Game status. Earth in Modern Era, even if some Amazonian Tribes are still in stone age. Those tribes would painfully discover so when they try to destroy a M1-Abraham tank with an AtlAtl.


However, i would use your recomendation and will rate a few nations myself, to contribute to what i think it is one of the best threads nowadays in the forum.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Early Age.

Tien Chi: 4-5-3-2-3. Strong expansion with either Dual Blessed W5E, or simply with very good Composite Archers (that dominate EA indy). Strong middle game (one of strongest imho) due to wide broad of choices in magic (that allow tailor-made strategies versus different enemies) and very good summonable sacreds. It's late game is not bad thanks to magic diversity, but it does lack true power on Blood, Astral or Death, they dont have access to good Thugs or SC and 9hp mages tend to die fast versus global damaging spells. Broad selection of choices make them hard to learn (and easy to make wrong decissions)

Lanka 5-5-4-4-4. A real powerhouse in the expansion phase with very potent sacreds and good archers. Middle game they have strong and easy "out of the box" thugs, they have worldwide recruitable potent sacreds, access to good middle game spheres (air, death) and excelent national summons. Late game they have powerful blood second to none, and enough death and nature to make them "natural" Tartarian makers, plus their own national blood SC. They are easy to learn to play correctly, and they do a lot of things and almost all of them very well done.

Niefelheim: 5-4-4-5-5. They can expand against regular indies using armies of ONE single sacred. They couple that with skinshifters and Jarls for one of the best expansion rates in the game. Middle game they have a wide magic selection (everything but earth and fire, most of it strongly tied), recruitable Super Combatants, strong troops, good stealthy thugs (the scout http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif) and access to powerful communions for evocations. Late game they have Blood, Death and some Astral, as long as 30 hp mages and recruitable SC. Their Astral might not be that high, but it is good enough to get started.

Middle Age:
Ermor: 5-4-5-5-5. Yep, they are that good. Powerful bless expansion with ethereal sacreds, powerful middle game with competent mages, decent infantry and excelent units, and awesome late game machine with high Astral and Death. I simply love this one.

Late Age
Marignon: 3-4-5-3-2. They have decent human troops with good morale, good missile and good cavalry. Coupled with properly done Awake pretender they can do nice enough in the expansion phase. They get a quantum leap as soon as they reach lvl 4 (flame arrow), and from that point forward, they only get better: Full access to all magic but nature (which is easy to get from indis), cheap and powerful blood, good national thugs, and the best SC chasis there is as a national summonable. They are trickyier to play properly than most nations though. My favourite nation in flavour so far.



Will add a few more later.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Triqui has been focusing on your valuation of Bogarus early game, and while I generally agree with him, I think the "problem" with these grades is broader. I see generally very high scores here Only one 2 and one 3. I wonder if, when you graded the nations you were most familiar with (which is perfectly okay, I did the same) you considered the other nations of the same age. Remeber these grades are very relative. If for example MA T'ien Ch'i has lategame of 5 (and I'm not saying they do not) that means that there are only a few nations as strong as them in late game, while most are weaker, even much weaker. The same argument can be made for all points of course.

Remember that, as much as you might like to play all nations, some of them have to be 2's... (and lower)

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Yeah. From those that wrana said I think it would be rather:

LA Bogarus - 1 for early game, you just cannot imagine worse troops. Even EA Marverni may be better. Being able to take awake SC does not cout http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
MA TC - 2, max3, you just cannot expand fast enough with your troops
MA Shinu - probaly even 1, for their age. Flaming arrows is mid-game already. They have very bad starting army and good troops are very expensive.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Of course, you are perfectly free to post that Bogarus has 1 for early game. Though it would be nice if you also posted other stats for it... Maybe even with longer comments? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Considering Bogarus army I should point out that while their voi infantry are unimpressive - but these are MILITIA! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif In stats and cost both. And on militia duty, i.e., to absorb damage they perform admirably due to better armor. Their cavalry, on the other hand is something else again. Actually, they are the only nation afair that has horse archers with Pre 10... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Once you have massed these, the early expansion against indies is piece of cake. Rushing is something else again, surely, but to stop the rush, the same horse archers can be applied and their mobility allows to concentrate them. Maybe their early game isn't 4, but I already saw it being assessed too low... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Considering MA Tien Chi - I actually had the largest territory in the current game during initial expansion. Of course, part of it was due to SC Pretender, but few turns ago I have actually put him on research duty just to have something to do with my other armies... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif So it seems that I at least can expand with those troops fast enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif
Shinuyama has excellent Kappa which can be massed fast and excellent Dai Bakemono. Bandits/Bakemonon-Sho are excellent in absorbing enemy fire/lances. What else do you need? With Kappa I expanded through independents with hardly a scratch - and they can cripple enemy elites to stop rushes as well. THey are costly, of course, and Dai Bakemono, as I said, require time to amass.
To Amhaizair:
Yes, of course, I assessed the nations I'm better familiar with, including the ones I'm trying MP with currently. I'm not familiar enough with late game which is the reason for ?? there. As an aside, I would probably assess Agartha - especially MA - as 1-2 for early expansion, but I did not play it so may not know some tricks...

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Wrana:

We are talking about certain age. Do you think there are worse expanders than Bogarus in LA? IF not they deserve 1, someone should get there so we can put others in 2,3,4,5. We cannot give every nation 3, and some others 4 and 5. Of course they can expand, but they are worst at it.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Indeed. If the lowest score you give for anything is a 3, you may as well score on a 3-7 scale and I'll just manually subtract 2 from all your scores. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Not that it has to average out, that for every 5 there is a 1, that would be silly - but it IS a curve, 1 is the worst, 5 is the best. Everything else, falls in between. I think 5 is a bit restrictive, as there is a lot of grey area between "average" and "WOW" for 4 to cover, but it's all we have for it, so of course some will go in 5 who aren't quiiiite as strong, and some will go in 3 that are just a touch above the average.

Please also remember not to focus TOO much on whether or not they can defend against a rush, or how hard it is to play them to their strengths - MP readiness and SP intuitiveness are taken care of by the other 2 ratings, and people need to keep that in mind.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Do bear in mind that it may be perfectly reasonable for someone to not give low ratings in a specific area. Most here aren't rating all nations, just those they're most familiar with, so if they prefer to play nations with a strong early game, it's not unlikely all the nations they know well enough to rate will get a high score.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Well, it's possible, of course, that I rate some nations too high if I get the inpression I know how to play them. But I think that the nations I assessed are a good example of the "area between "average" and "WOW"" that you mentioned.
And I said that Agartha is an example of early game rating of 1-2 with their Pale One troops. Maybe EA Marverni is another such - I didn't play them and when I met them in MP, I advanced against them quite successfully despite being new in it. About EA Arcoscephales I don't know currently (didn't try them in MP - their infantry is worse than hoplites, but they have chariots, so maybe 3 for early game... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif
And if you want an algorythm to change my assesses, than it would be more like "subtract 2 than multiply by 2, subtract 0-1 randomly" - or you would get Helheim early game at 5, which is definitely NOT what I meant! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

For now I will only rate 3 of my top MA Nations. I am not rating ease of learning and ease of use, just the early, mid, and endgame strengths.(i will add others until it is complete)

Pythium 3 5 5
Ermor 5 4 4
Ryleh 3 4 5
Shinuyama 2 4 4
Ctis 3 5 3

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Take your tim Xi. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif It seems this will be a work in progress for some time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

And Jeff, I do agree with that somewhat. But some people's favorites, they will still tell you to *always* take an awake SC because their early troops are awful. I'm not looking for people to just pick nations to bash to round out the curve, just to look at things fairly so that the numbers have relevance. Truthfully, I would like to see very few nations at 1 or 5. But with a 5 point scale, that's kind of sticky, originally I was going to do 1-10, and I think a lot of people's 5's would end up as 8 or 9 if I had done so, but I was convinced this would get more input..... oh the humanity! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

And Wrana, just bear in mind, a big part of that really is the Ease of Learning. Like Caelum for example, I think is very hard to learn how to use properly. At least for me, I tried them twice with such terrible failure, it took a third and very concerted effort, once I new the game a lot better, to finally tackle them and learn how to effectively leverage their strengths. And they're not even a nation like Yomi/Shinu where it's hard to discern where the strengths actually lie - you can see them, but making them effective is just not a simple thing.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Agree. You can subtract 1 from "ease of learning" for nations which caused such controversy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Actually, I'd suggest you do it routinely for nations causing much discussion - if there is that much disagreement, than they are surely not so easy to learn after all! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Good point. That is probably the best way for me to voice my pert peeve. Its not that the player is missing the point, its that the nation is not one of the easier ones to learn how to play.

Speaking of which....
in testing out things about PD I came across something I had not realized. Did you know that those stupid little monkeys that some people hate have a scout with +50 stealth? They are able to get thru PD of 125 (the max I can test easily by my present method). Most stealth troops are stealth of 0, most national scouts are stalth +10, Caelum scouts are +15, Pangaea +20, and Vanheim +35 (all early era).

For those who dont know, most of the things on a units info display will give more info if you click it.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I enjoy this thread very much but I also have difficulty myself in summarizing various nation's strength at different periods. I think there might be danger that different people mean very different things by their ratings.

For my part the greatest difficulty I have in rating these nations (aside from being relatively inexperienced in general and ZERO experience in MP) is that often one can make conscious trade-offs in the timing of a nations strength through different pretender designs.

Take Bogarus for example, most players will take an awake SC pretender to overcome its weak starting troops, at the expense of its late game strength - which it can probably manage without help from its pretender. On the other hand, few would take an awake pretender on nations with strong sacreds. So should one compare the early game strength of Bogarus with an awake Dom10 Wyrm with dual bless nations without the benefit of an awake pretender as opposed to a straight forward comparison?

It is even more complex for many of the nations in the middle. How one spend the design points and when the pretender awakes have major bearings on the strength of a nation at various periods and can be tailored by the player.

If the ratings are accompanied by some references to the Pretender choice it might clarify matters somewhat.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

The reason i gave top rating to Ctis in the Midgame, is their research and income are second to none. They should be the 1st nation to have banelords, constr 6 gear, shadow blast etc. to supplement their admittedly weak national troops.

Ctis mages are good early with skelly spam. Their main weakness is Wolven Winter that a prudent enemy casts before every battle with them.

Shinuyama is a 4 late game for me because they get every mage at every castle, and their mages can cast banefire, which has no resist. Ghost riders and earth attacks are easy for them as well.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Ming:

Of course not. We are talking about NATION strength. PoD will add +1 or +2 for early game for every nation. The fact that some nations must take one says a lot about their early game weakness.

JimMorrison:

Still, getting average rating seems like not a best solution. As I said we have many unexperienced players here. Some really outragous ratings should be ignored [or maybe even all ratings from people like that, so they stick to what they know], for example giving Bogarus anything over 3 for early game [even 3 is shady]. We want it to make guideline, especially for new people and we cannot pollute results like that.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Early vs Late game comparisons also come into play in other ways. Some of the MPers live almost entirely on small-map few-player blitz style games. While this can be a way to get a quick rating of whose strategy can beat whose, it can give a very focused view of nation ratings.

Even in test-games for the beta group this became apparent. Testing the AIs. I would run games with all of the nations on AI and auto-process a turn every few minutes for days. And then run the same games over and over to take into account factors such as which nation landed next to which other nation, and special events early in the game affecting outcomes. Eventually I could give a general answer as far as early death, early game leader, mid-game leader, late game leader. But map sizes (tiny, small, mid, large, huge, epic) also had a drastic impact. Not to mention other settings people like to alter in a games parameters.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Ah, but then who decides what is an outrageous rating? If you look just at the ratings that have been submitted so far you can see (for example) me giving EA Yomi an early game rating of one, and EA Oceania a mid game of one too, while QM gives both of those 3. I'd say the difference between average and abysmal is quite big and yet the veteran player and recognized balance expert QM soundly disagrees with my opinion. Now, I could go out on a limb here, and say that obviously QM had temporarily taken leave of his sences when rating those nations, but that seems a dicey supposition at best...

All right then, you might answer. There is indeed a big difference between 1 and 3, but let's rate it as 'barely acceptable' After all, we can hardly disagree with QM the balance guru, so I would like to discount your 1's, but you (that would be me, to keep things simple. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ) are starting to build a bit of a reputation of your own, so I can't just discount your opinion like I'd do if you were a newer player.

So here we have it, everything between 1 and 3 is then an acceptable rating. But then comes along another guy and he claims *gasp* that Dai Oni with a right bless are awesome expanders, not much worse than the best this game has to offer, and he rates the Yomi early game a 4. Now me, having rated Yomi a 1 for early game would obviously think that this guy has been smoking to much crack lately, and might feel his 4 should be discounted. But, says you, QM felt them worth a 3. (we're talking about the great QM here, remember. (not that I want to make him feel uncomfortable or anything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ) ) And if QM felt them worth a 3 it's only reasonable that some other random guy thinks them a 4, right? ...


I could go on being wordy for a while, but I think you might be starting to get my point by now... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Amhazair:

Well, one experienced player is not enough. I was rather talking about obvious examples. You just need a scale to fit all nations. And then you can discuss if that nation suckss or it can get to so-so or even average with appropriate tactic [no counting awake SC].

And if Yomi deserves 1 I don't know. You'd have to compare them to Marverni, I think they are the real ruler of 1 point for early expansion in EA. I don't have MP experience in that age, beside blitzes.

P.S. I should do smth else than spamming forums, heh, way too much free time recently.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Just my own opinion, but based on previous discussions all the way back to Dom1 I would predict that the result would be "we cannot agree". Which to me, is one of the most wonderful things about this game. There is lots of discussions about whats good and bad, whats a killer strategy and whats a worthless one. We all seem to agree that there are some but even after years we cannot seem to agree on what they are. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Great game!

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Well the intent was to get a large enough body of results to let most discrepancies average themselves out.

Also, fairest way to deal with anything really strange (besides scrutinizing that poster as potentially insane) if there are enough ratings on that particular nation, is to use Olympic style scoring, and subtract the highest and lowest rating before taking the average. So if everyone rates at a 1-2, and a single person put 4 (even if it is the astute QM), then their score might be tossed along with the 1. Obviously this is only meaningful if the disparity is large enough, either 1/4, 2/5, or 1/5, a spread from 1-3, 2-4 or 3-5 is not going to break an averaging.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I agree.... hah! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

But seriously, I do agree with your basic point, but that's why this is not a search for democratic consensus, but merely an attempt to statistically show a number that will be closer to most people's perception of each nation, than any other possible number. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Then a brief disclaimer at the top, and the average reader can peruse the list confident in the knowledge that they are less likely to be significantly dismayed with the rating than potentially any other method of finding out which nations will suit their playstyle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

With the side benefit that I didn't think of originally - people can say for example, "I really like EA Abysia", and then skim through the rest of the thread, and find the people who rated that particular nation the highest, and assume that there is a preferential bias, and see what other nations that they liked, with the assumption that there may be playstyle similarities they will appreciate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Well, you can consider to take weighted mean, for example. I.e., if somebody had consistently won with the nation in question, his estimate of it could be taken, e.g., double before averaging. Or, say, one more time for each time he won in MP with it (which can be checked in Hall of Fame). This will make more experienced players' opinions count for more (but if there are significant discrepancies with other estimates, you can lower their "ease of learn/use" score).

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Recently beaten by Amhazair as Yomi, I can agree that they are perhaps not very strong (when confronted with LA black centaurs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). The kingmaker setting might be a problem since LA nations are not supposed to meet EA one. But centaurs are there in both eras. I might blame my scales as well. I imagine they were not optimal. I dislike optimal scales. But i got some early money events that enabled me to get additional dai onis. Dai Onis are good vs indeps, but not that strong vs high morale blessed troops. I imagine it would have gone better if I had not chosen to attack Amhazair. My other choice was ashdod, and I didn't want a giant-daioni matchup, and I dislike peace http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I would probably place Yomi 2 early game, since they are a bit unflexible at start. They have the dai oni, but everyone knows that and they can be countered by clever players. Troops etc are also inferior vs human players. Banishment is not used by indeps to the same extent.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I was surprised to find that Yomi scouts are stealth 0.
The only stealth zero scout Ive found so far.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I agree with Zeldor. Bogarus with an awake dom10 wyrm spand faster than with a rainbow. Still, that does not change the fact it has a weak early game, it does indeed confirm it: it "needs" an awake SC to expand. In the mean while, a skinshifter vanheim with a Dom10 wyerm will still expand twice as fast if not faster.

I think Yomi is not that bad expanding as maverni. They have a very cost effective archer, which in EA is enough to take down most indis thanks to low level armor. However, _IF_ we rate "early game" as "expansion+rush or rush defense" then they probably deserve a 1, 2 at max. Becouse before you can cast Flame Arrow, bakemono archers wont stop a dual bless nation by any means.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

And marverni has slingers for the same purpose! So what?

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

So slingers have a much shorter range than shortbows and are a much weaker weapon?

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

triqui:

I can somehow maybe agree to put flamin arrows use into early game if they have natural F3 mages, not small cahnce to get them. But even with that, Flaming Arrows are enchant4, a bit far...

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Yep usually when you get to 4 in some magic school, you start to consider yourself in mid-game, as you can start putting on the battlefield some real magical tactics to support your troops http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

And triqui about slingers I heard many say that they are useful against some kind of troops, I don't think I can give you a complete answer about what those troops are, but I can tell you as the sling takes only one hand, some slingers have slings in addition to a melee weapon and a shield! If set to fire archers or attack archers, they can shoot them with their slings, suffering much less from the return fire of archers' arrows as they can parry them with the shield, and when they end ammunitions or reach them just start bashing the archers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Slingers are useful against trrops with glamour, just like markatas are.

You don't care (so much) about glamour. You want a cheap and effective way to get rid of glamour - and a hit - any hit will do it.

You want to divide your resource allocation between cheap troops that can dispell the glamour - and reasonably troops that can, one the glamour is gone, kill them.

All at a cost equal or less than the unit cost for vanheim's/tir's troops.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Yep, that's why i said they have low early game, because i think flame arrows is middle game (and therefore it's not useful against an early rush). They have a very strong middle game, and their army is not bad in their middle game (thanks to massive armies of flaming archers). In early game they tend to suffer against rushes, just like maverni does. However, they expand faster than maverni, becouse Shortbows bakemono archers expand nicely (in Early Age at least)

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Slingers have their niche. However, they are SIGNIFICANTLY worse than short bows, specially for early game expansion.

Yomi Short bows also happen to have stealth, which means they can set up some kind of decent raiding ability

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Markata are quite useless against most units with glamour. You dont need a hit, you need a hit that *does damage*. and with a whooping 5 damage weapon you will have a hard day to properly remove glamour.