Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Yeah,it was just the basic idea.Quite some fine tunining would still be needed.
But,lets say we make it at least 30 damage nostr,you then get the fear and the pillage bonus in addition.
Now if you do some slight alterings for the Att/def (thats the weak spot of the gate cleaver btw) it could get its niche/fun uses i would think.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

I agree with Mardagg's latest suggestions. Using the noStr tag could create some interesting weapons.

For another idea, what if we made the fire bola fill a misc slot instead of a weapon slot.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

I think fire bola on misc is a pretty interesting idea. I don't know if that would make it more usable, but it does make sense. Though then you could get a guy firing a bow and throwing fire bolas on the same turn, which would be slightly odd.

Using nostr on some weapons to make them a bit different seems reasonable. I also think there's room for more weapons to have the effect which creates soulless from stuff it kills - it isn't very powerful but it's pretty cool. Imagine if all baneblade weapons did that, for instance.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

I'd support no-str for some weapons, but not an axe. Using an axe is all about strength - i can't imagine how you'd use one without strength mattering.

nostr would be good for some swords though (probably one-handed...).

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

I agree with you in general,squirr,but on the implementator axe it seems fitting.
imagine a huge magic axe(maybe possessed by some kind of evil demon), doing all the combat damage and pillaging independent of its owner and as such causing fear in the hearts of all people:)

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

If you could get it to auto-pillage i could see a use for it. Pretty sure that isn't possible.

(I would totally pillage if there was a move-and-pillage action).

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

What are your comments one the below revised stats, of the weapons I earlier listed. Anything in parthesis is how much I increased a stat by. Mostly I made the damage for two-handed swords double that of the single handed version. The defense was made 3 higher then the single handed verion, and the attack is 2 higher.

Spears, as Sombre pointed out, should not increase defense in dominions. They should not do as much damage as swords either. So what I did is made them into high acurracy weapons, and gave them the bonus damage on first strike ability.

*********************
Single Handed Sword of Sharpness:
Damage - 8
Attack - 1
Defense - 2
Length - 2

Two handed sword of sharpness:
Damage - 16 (+4 from the orginal stat)
Attack - 3 (+1)
Defense - 5 (+2)
Length - 3
******************************

1 handed bane blade:
Damage - 6
Attack - 1
Defense - 2
Length - 2

2 handed bane blade:
Damage - 12 (+3)
Attack - 3 (+1)
Defense - 5 (+2)
Length - 3

******************************
Enchanted spear:
Damage - 7 (With bonus damage on first strike)
Attack - 3
Defense - 2
Length - 4


Enchanted pike:
Damage - 13 (+3) (With bonus damage on first strike)
Attack - 6 (+3)
Defense - 1
Length - 6

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

I don't like the two handers getting too high Defense bonuses. They already are longer and thus will be able to repel, and they are not IMO so "agile" that it would warrant an increas on Defence stats. I mean, you are not supposed to be as good defending with a two-hander as you are with a one-hander + shield, right?

I'd like to suggest letting the Defense numbers be as is, just fix the the damage and attack values (and the charge bonuses for spear type weapons, I like that idea).

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

There was some arguments earlier on giving the two handed swords higher defense, so I put it in. It is to make up for the fact that repel is not all that good. It simulates swords being made for parrying, and it being harder to get close to a person with a 2 handed weapon. The defense is still not nearly as good as what you would get with a shield, plus you don't get the extra benefits that you would get from the extra sheild slot.

But You make a good argument. We will see what other people say.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Well, the shields do tend to have extra effects that are the source of most of their actual defensive power. The air shields don't, the lead shield is the only one that's purely earth that provides an extra effect, and all of the other shields provide secondary effects that are arguably more powerful than the extra protection and parry they provide. Luck, vines, eye loss, lightning damage, fire shield or awe, etc. A two-handed weapon has to offer something useful in order to be as good as those effects.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

In comparing the defense values you would get with the stats I gave , to thsoe of a shield, I think Jarkko may right. You would get almost the same defense value with a shield, that you would with a two handed weapon. I think that at most the defense should be raised by 1 instead of 2, if at all. Note that those weapons I listed are all const-0. So they should only be compared to const-0 single handed weapon and shield combos.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

For a start, I like your changes.
Some general thoughts:

A problem with the 2handed Bane Blade weapon is,that its used by Bane`s and Bane Lords.

Also,its important to consider the constr level and the gem cost,especially when altering level 0,5 gem weapons.

Personally i would prefer to agree on the exact changes for the Wraith Sword first.Then we would have a nice and more expensive weapon to be compared to for balancing reasons.

Wraith Sword:

15 Dgems,Path 3D( 25Dgems,4D before)
Construction Level: 6

Damage- 16 (+7)
Attack- 4 (+2)
Defense- 5 (+2)
Length- 3

Partial Life Drain

overpowered?

@Jarkko

I thought the same about the defense bonis before,but Sombre had a good point about that.
I now think,some increase in def for the 2h swords,only the swords,are ok. Especially for the Wraith Sword,i think its thematic anyhow.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

About 2H swords.... I don't really think that doubling damage of the same 1H sword is a good idea. In such case 1H will do MUCH MORE damage on more unit than 2 hits by 1H swords because of game mechannics. And it will greatly change the game. SCs, who bet on protection will be much easier to fight against. I agree though that 2H weapong should be improved, I almost never use it now.

When we forge a weapon agains PD, we do AoEs.
The question is, when we will use 2H weapon?
It's obvious that mostly against SCs and nations with heavy protected units (if he will be lucky to get to them).

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Which context? In a duel or in line formation?

In line (ie, as a unit): I will note the swiss pikemen were the premier military unit for over a century following the introduction of the pike. So certain were they of their defensive advantages they didn't even wear greaves. Pikes certainly gave tremendous defensive advantage, and the poor excuse that is repel doesn't even begin to account for this.

Duel: A 2h sword is arguably superior to a 1h sword in a duel on the defensive. The 2h Sword is more maneuverable because it has 2 hands providing impetus, and capable of changing direction more rapidly. Especially as a well-made 2 handed blade didn't weigh anywhere near double the weight of a 1h sword. (Unless you want to talk about stuff like rapiers - but rapiers are rather past the tech levels involved, and useless against heavier armors). Parrying would have been a more effective and advantageous counter in a duel than blocking with a shield - in a parry you retain control over directionality (can direct your opponent's blade) and you don't give up line of sight to his weapon. Obviously, I'm assuming the person holding the weapon understands how to use it.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Dunno, two handed weapons should definitively IMO not have higer Defense value than the basic Short Sword. FWIW in a fantasy game, short swords were historical used exactly because they were good *defensive* weapons, while longer swords were better offensively put poor of defense (because even continents move faster...). With the suggestions above the whole historical (again, for what it is worth in a fantasy game) truth get turned upside down, and that feels very very odd.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Squirrel, assuming equal skill, the one wielding the more agile weapon wins. Which is why rapiers were the duellists weapon of choice.

Pikes were introduced as a defensive weapon against cavalry charge. In melee with sword wielders the pikemen always were at a disadvantage. When bayonets were invented and attached to guns, the pikemen disappeared fast, as they were simply no match for the bayonet charging infantry.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

One more difference between 2H and 1H - 2H has more reasons to be AP and AoE. Ideally, if 1H weapon could never be AoE at all. If we imagine AoE short sword, which does AoE by fire for example, it should be easy to damage yourself. On the contrary, its easy to imagine a big guy with a huge sword, which looks like AoE machine.

Also, there can be different aims of equipping your SC. And can giving him 2H, you take 2 slots from him. And that's painful, getting to account that for SC (which are frequently big and expansive, and some gems also could be invested) ,good shield can be MORE IMPORTANT than weapon, especially for units with no built-in shield. So, it 2H has either add some def to compensate it, or really should worth some strategy, which would make it really competitive against fire band+good shield.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

A rapier was an excellent weapon because (1) it was *long* and agile, so didn't give up reach advantage, (2) heavy armor was no longer worn, especially not for duels, during the rapiers time of predominance. So the rapier didn't have to deal with armor penetration.

A hand-and-a-half (bastard) sword has a substantial reach advantage over, say, a short sword, and given two equally skilled swordsmen i'd expect the bastard sword to win. Its also about the same weight per hand used. If the short sword user also adopts a shield, he's taking a weight disadvantage and a line of sight disadvantage. (The bastard sword, because 2 hands provide 2 possible fulcra, is also more unpredictable in where it strikes). (Edit: a bastard sword is pretty agile when used well. Think of a katana - certainly depicted as an elegant weapon - and a bastard sword is the same weight and approximate size).

You are almost totally wrong on the pike.

Pikes were advantageous against cavalry, sure, but the swiss pikemen were the dominant military force for a century because they outperformed all other heavy infantry as well. No other weapon system compared to them until the introduction of mass gun formations.

At that point the pike became a cavalry defense system for gunners, because there was no such thing as dedicated melee assault troops anymore. Such a weapon system was useless because it was insufficiently fast to close under fire.

The pike was retired with the bayonet, not because the bayonet was better in melee, but because the bayonet was *sufficient* as an anti-cavalry charge weapon since cavalry was now using sabres instead of lances, and using bayonets let every soldier carry a firearm, thus increasing firepower without needing to increase manpower. Pikes would have massacred a bayonet charge, but withered under rifle fire.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Squirrel, a short sword would always be used with a shield. There is absolutely no way a man wielding a two hander would ever win a duel against a shield using soldier.

You are also exactly wrong on Pikemen :) The bane of pikemen were the rodeleros, the sword and shield wielding infantry. Please get your facts right :)

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Well pikes certainly didn't rise to dominance as an anti cavalry tactic. They were superb against infantry too, you only have to look at history.

This is a pretty major diversion from the point of the thread though. Pikes under cbm have decent att bonus and dmg, which actually does make them pretty good anti cav weapons, which is nice. I think the magic pike should be high att and high damage, really. I can't see what else could be done with it.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

...

Based on what? The shield-using soldier carries more weight and has worse line of sight. Shields are useful in a line, but in a duel they're mostly useless.

Um, no. Please read: Archer Jones. The Art of Warfare in the Western World. More citations available upon request.

Swiss pikemen being undefeated for 100 years is a matter of historical record, and undefeated means undefeated. Why the hell are you talking about a 16th-17th century spanish troops when the age of pike dominance was pre-15th century...

Sombre: with apologies, now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

- We can always decouple the 'weapon' used by the bane lords, with the bane weapon that we can construct. They can have different stats.

- What I am trying to do is raise the stats of the two handed weapon so that they are just as valueable as the one handed weapons. What should be asked is how the new statted two handed sword of sharpness compares with a single handed sword of sharpness used in combo with one of the level 0 shields. If with these new stats, people would always use the two handed version, then these stats are too powerfull. If people still almost always use the sword shield combo, even at construction level 0, then these new stats cannot be overpowered.

- I like your stats for the wraith sword. It seems about right.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

The rodeleros were utilised as anti pikemen units from early 16 century, they were used already in the Italian wars which was the golden age of swiss pikes. Later on pikemen, rodeleros and musketeers were combined to the spansih tercio.

Another question is of course why the romans, the archetype of short sword and shield troops, was able to beat the hellenistic spear and pike armies, as well all the barbarian invasions (the barbarians who used very mixed weapons, but are depicted by roman documents on many occasions to have used big two hander axes, swords and spears).

There is a reason why armies and duellists didn't use twohanded swords. They did suck if you wanted to stay alive. By making a twohander weapon as good as a one-hander+shield, something is going terribly wrong. Buff the attack and damage yes (the swiss pikes for example were very strong against other infantry when they attacked, but on defense against the rodeleros they were in serious trouble), but it doesn't hurt to have *some* realism in a fantasy game; two-handed weapons suck for defense, and that would be good to be given a thought :)

As for the suggested wraith sword stats, I think it is otherwise good except the defense bonus should at least not be *increased* from 3.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Hey sombre.. in defense for some of the new people it takes a lot more than 5 minutes to really get a handle on modding capability.

And there are probably better ways to get them interested - but as far as I'm concerned you're one of the best there are... to bad we can't have modding classes.

I always wanted to make a "light lance" that cast solar brilliance and had the #charge tag.
Can't do it. Wish there were easier ways to add spells to weapons, or tages to units.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

yes.
But i dont think thats a good thing to do.
Seems not thematic for a low level item.
I would prefer to slightly tone your ideas down there.Otherwise the already pretty cheap and good banes could be too useful as suicide thugs.
2h Bane Blade
damage: 11(+2)
att: 3(+1)
def:3(+0)

What do you think?
Generally,the decay effect,not bad for early game/Assassins, should be the main reason to build it anyways and is the problem here regarding 1h vs 2h regardless of the changes that are done.
Another idea could be,stats staying the same,but giving it the life after death tag,sombres idea here.Not too useful,but funny.

Yes, and i completely agree with the pike.
Astral is very precious in CBM anyways,so making the pike a better choice for early game is nice ,imo.
But,for the matter of the sword of sharpness...its like someonelse mentioned: low level shields dont offer much.
And 1h weapon + shield is 10 gems,whereas 2h is 5 gems.
Early game,Dwarfen hammers are also seen less frequent,so that difference isnt neglectable imo.

I would prefer to see here :
2h sword of sharpness
damage:14(+2)
Att:3(+1)
def:4(+1)

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Ah,on topic again:)
Yeah,thats the increase i am the most unsure about,too.
Thematically,though,i can justify it:
The Wraith sword is giving its wielder partial etherealness;)

Thats why i think,the Wraith Sword should offer pretty good Def compared to other 2h swords.
In addition,we got the Hell Sword already,for offense capability.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Hmmm.

Interesting points all around. One thing perhaps I could contribute to the discussion - it would take fractionally more material, more magic to make a two hand weapon than one. Perhaps it makes more sense that the bigger effects culd be shifted to 2 handed weapons.

I realize its a bit unsettling, and that it would be a huge change.

But can the brands be made 2handed?

So a fire sword - one handed.. a fire brand.. two handed.
a dustdagger one handed.. a shadow brand two handed..

This would change the nature of thugs, and change the balance of the game a lot ..

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Of weapon and item modding? I don't think so. Maybe to fully realise what you can do with all the existing weapons listed in edi's DB and clever tricks with secondaryeffects etc, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about basic limitations. Understanding that weapons and items aren't the same thing.


If you changed the description of the wraithsword to say it wreathes the user in shadows or whatever, you could certainly justify extra def. Depends what you want the wraith sword to be - to me it clearly isn't suited to being an anti SC weapon, since its defining characteristic is partial lifedrain, which is basically useful against chaff. Does added def make it better as a chaff harvester? High enough def would. It would all around boost it of course.

I kinda like the idea of the wraithsword getting 2 attacks personally, making the most of the partial lifedrain.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

I think we need to talk about longbows here too. Specifically: AP? Or not?

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Jarkko, I have a reproduction of a 16th century german dueling manual that describes the use of a 2-handed sword, probably a bastard sword, in a duel. I reject your notion that 2-handed weapons weren't used for duels.

The rodeleros were used when pikemen were already tied up with other pikemen, and thus unable to employ their pikes (eg, Battle of Ravenna 1512). They also seem to have been acceptable weapons against the Aztecs - of course, just about anything would have been. When facing an unengaged pike block they lost horribly, such as the Battle of Seminara (1495). All told, rodeleros lasted all of maybe 40 years, mostly against the Aztecs, before their use was discontinued. They seem to have decided one battle that involved pikes. Hardly the nemesis of pike formations.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

hmmm.
Very problematic with Quickness.
getting 2 times partial lifedrain is one thing...but 4?

25 dgems,not touching the stats and 2 attacks could be ok...maybe.

Maybe giving the Hell sword 2 attacks?
You gotta tone the stats down a bit though,for this to work.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

It would certainly have a lot more potential to do crazy stuff with 2 attacks, but that sounds pretty good to me. The weaknesses would be the same - no shield, not great weapon stats, expensive.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

To me,that sounds more like a (great) idea for an unique item.
Imagine what you can do with this if you got a 4handed chassis...

Will be interesting what others think about that.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Jarkko: I won't address the Pikemen vs. Rodeleros argument (Squirrelloid addresses that very well), but your conclusion in regards to Roman Legions vs. Grecian/Macedonian Phalanxes is fairly erroneous.

The triumph of Roman Legions over Grecian/Macedonian Phalanxes had very little to do with their swords being far superior to pikes. The phalanx, by design, is a tactically inflexible formation: a massed, interlocking shield wall, the phalanx was designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: shock. In favorable terrain, a phalanx charge would put dozens of spear-tips on an opposing enemy soldier, and, with the right momentum, could easily sweep away the stoutest of enemies. This is the lesson of the Greco-Persian wars, and the conquest of Alexander the Great: that is, never, ever try to stand in the way of a fully formed, charging phalanx. Marathon, certainly, provides evidence of such, as well as countless battles involving the phalanx during it's heyday. The phalanx was also superior to other infantry (and cavalry) in a frontal clash, and can perform spectacularly on the defense. Thermopylae gives some indication of that.

The flaw, however, of the phalanx is not in it's ability to decimate opponents in a frontal assault (that is proven well enough), but in it's tactical inflexibility. Phalanxes are by their very nature inflexible, and incredibly difficult to maneuver. If attacked on the flank, a phalanx would be unable to respond, as turning a massive shield-wall-line on a dime would mean those on the very end would have to run miles. This is, of course, the lesson of Cannae (this was back when the Romans still used the Grecian phalanx system): with insufficient cavalry to defend the flanks, and the retreat of the Carthaginian center to string the battle-lines into an inward crescent, the phalanx loses it's linear cohesion, and is quickly surrounded and chopped to pieces.

Another fatal weakness of the phalanx was it's poor response to terrain. The phalanx, also by nature, requires good terrain to for it's full potential to shine. Nothing in the ancient (and pre-gunpowder) era was likely to resist a fully formed phalanx charging on even terrain with a slightly downhill slope: the frontal momentum would shatter the army. However, when terrain becomes uneven, hilly, swampy, whatever, the phalanx loses it's unit cohesion, and is unable to perform as promised.

So there we have the pros and the cons of the phalanx formation:
Pros:
Incredibly devastating shock factor, outstanding defensive capabilities, and well-nigh invincible frontal momentum
Cons:
Tactically inflexible/requires favorable terrain

Once you view a phalanx in such a light, everything else about the general composition of a Hellenistic army makes perfect sense. Light cavalry, peltasts (and other skirmishers), etc, were all designed to compensate for the phalanx's poor flexibility and vulnerability to flanking, and were the principle units used in terrain unsuitable for phalanxes, whereas other auxiliaries, such as elephants, etc., were there to bolster it's frontal shock in terrain where the phalanx was perfectly usable. The end result was a devastating army with good maneuverability and flexibility.

The Roman Legion system evolved separately from the Macedonian phalanx system (see above): the birth of the Roman Republic, set in hilly Italy, lacked access to sufficient auxiliaries to compensate for it during it's wars, the legion system began to evolve in a different direction. Thus, the manipular legion is born, and the phalanx abandoned all together, adopted from the Samnites in the Second Samnite Wars (after a series of Roman military disasters in the hills). The manipular legions were phalanxes-in-transition (it doesn't reach the cohortal legion system, with a pure emphasis on sword, shield, and javelin, but close), so to speak: the legionnaire were given javelins, the long spears were dramatically shortened, and the sword (a phalangite usually did carry a sword, although it was almost never used, and was fairly pitiful) was emphasized instead, along with the shield. In addition, smaller units were formed to give the legion far superior flexibility, and instead of massing along a giant shield wall, the legionnaires were spaced out. This gave the legion far superior performance then the phalanx in more difficult terrain, and is key to many of the Roman victories against the phalanx. The Battle of Pydna, for example (the only instance where a manipular legion defeats a Macedonian phalanx in a frontal clash) was won when the legion retreated over uneven ground, causing the phalanx to fall apart, and, thus, made it possible to halt their momentum and get up close. Originally, they attempted to hack off the spear-tips or dodge behind the spear wall, with little success. In addition, the Roman flanks were triumphant and were able to roll up around the sides of the phalanx, who promptly dropped their spears and resorted to sword/shield combat with the legionnaires (which ended horribly, owing to the Romans' larger and heavier shields and longer swords). The Battle of Cynoscephalae is another example of flexibility in action. Here, despite hilly, uneven ground, the Macedonians were able to form a phalanx and charge downhill, pushing the legions back on the Macedonian right. On the left, however, the Romans sent elephants crashing into the Macedonians (who were still in marching order and were unable to form a phalanx in time), which allowed them to roll up the Macedonian flank.

There are a number of other battles out there, which I can't quite remember the names of, but in all of them, Roman victories were not achieved by pitting the legion head-on against the phalanx, but by flanking maneuvers and superior use of terrain to maximize the potential of the legions and to minimize phalanx cohesion.

In short: the legion vs. phalanx argument is irrelevant (and beaten to death), as it really isn't about pike vs. sword/shield, at all. Really, it was largepikeshieldwallaverageshieldsandpitifulswords vs. decentspearsjavelinslargeshieldsandgoodswords.

Sorry, I felt the need to write a wall-o-text.

EDIT: To add to the pike vs. sword debate:

It really depends. In units, pikes are the way to go. Pike formations are all about putting as many spear-points on a single enemy soldier as possible, preventing them from touching you, and skewering them as you move forward. In single combat, swords are far more useful, as a pike is unwieldy and can easily be avoided (if there's only one). Not sure how that's going to pan out in game, but :shrugs:

What about halberds? :v:

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

This is not really true. A quick two handed weapon (mainly 2 handed swords and staves) is very effective at defense, due due to the reach advantage, surface area suitable to parrying, and the fact that they can actually be much faster than a one handed weapon, believe it or not. A decent sized shield IS superior, particularly if you have to fight in a line or absorb arrow fire, but a dueler with a 2-hand can be plenty agile and difficult to strike. Axes and maces, and especially flails are less suitable as defensive weapons imo, due to being less well balanced, heavier in general, and having less suitable surface area for parrying. A one handed weapon, in contrast, being shorter, lighter, slower, and carrying less force behind them are much worse for parrying and cover a smaller percentage of the body from attack, which is where the shield comes in.

So my personal take would be that two handed swords (and possibly staves) should in general have higher defense values than they currently have and make up a bit for the lack of having a shield. On the other hand, I do agree with you that they should not be as good defensively as a shield is. But considering just a plain old blacksteel tower shield, it would take a sword with a minimum of 12 defense on it to even approach the usefulness of it as a defensive weapon, not to mention a vine or gleaming gold shield.

I don't necessarily agree that the 2-hand needs to be as good as a 1-hand and shield (which would be very difficult considering all the nice effects some shields get), but it should definitely be an acceptable alternative for the cost. Currently I don't think that's the case.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Keep in mind forging shield+sword takes 2 mages (or turns), which means if I forge a 2-handed I can use the other mage to help reach a next research level or forge a another 2-handed weapon or cast a ritual or patrol or... etc.

In my current game, I wouldn't have the magic diversity to forge many of the good shields (10D5F, 10E5F, 5A5E, 5F5E, 10S5B) if it weren't for my pretender so there is a price to pay for that good sword/shield combo. A 2-handed sword that only requires 1 path shouldn't be as good as the good sword/shield combos.

I also think it's better to err on the side of caution, particularly as death magic is already powerful.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak. In particular, there are other good uses for death gems than forgings. Given that, if there are weak death forgings, that's just a guarantee that no one will ever forge them. You have to think about this from the perspective of a player with death gems. Is he going to use them on some crappy item or to summon tarts? Any use of death gems must be competitive with existing uses of death gems or it will not see play. As such, there being plenty of good uses for death gems already is a strong argument for death forgings to be *stronger*, not weaker.

Sure, you can consider it an advantage for nations that have death gems (but that's going to be everyone, since you need death for the endgame), or you can consider every 12d (CBM) spent on death forgings to be one less tart that player is summoning. Or 2.5 fewer liches. Etc... The only thing death being strong argues for is that death boosters need to be expensive or inconvenient (and they are - one takes 2 hands, ie no hammer use at the same time, and the other is 25d), since those are generally necessary forgings for accessing the good stuff, not optional forgings.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Looks like:

lantern shield: which can provide pretty cool decoy targets,
charcoal shield: good versus Markata in melee, what more could you ask?
Gleaming gold: because you ran out of N gems, and it's only 6, and what else is F for,
Accursed: when you really don't want people to hit you.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

You missed his scutata volturnus.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Could be a shield of valor.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

ahem, when i said 2.5 fewer liches i meant 1 fewer lich / 2.5 sets of 12d. lol

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

True, my bad.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

If you only use 10n shields then you've locked yourself into quite the little hell of a predictable box. Good is relative depending on what you're up against and what you have available.

Do you always resort to strawmen? Even on your 1st response to new posters in a thread??? I would be curious why you find all death forges weak, but if your strawmen are any indication of your level of civil discussion then nevermind and goodbye. In short, I never said that.

Hey lets make Stygian Paths work like Astral Travel, because that means 1 less Tartartian too! I'm not convinced by your argument that death is very strong so lets make it even stronger via diversity. In fact by less nature gems spent on shields you can GoR more Tartarians (since now you have your "just as competitive" 2-handed sword). And conveniently, you apparently see the advantage of gaining 1 mage turn (no shield forge needed) as insignificant since you ignored that point.

Thanks for your opinion Squirrelloid, but your ideal CBM with death being awesome at everything just because it is awesome at many things doesn't sound appealing to me.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

The wraith sword might as well be removed entirely with it's current price and stats. A standard of the damned costs just as much, does more damage to anything that has good defenses and gives a fear aura.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?

The next best shield is arguably Eye Shield.

Where's the strawman? Strawmen reach a faulty conclusion because they depend on a mis-characterization. I made a factual claim: death gems being already useful is no reason for another use to be worse. And the logical conclusion: worse uses won't see play. Look, death gems have a value. That value is set by their best uses. Any use whose value is less than that is not going to get played. This isn't a strawman, its basic economics.

(Now, value can vary depending on situation a little bit, but something that has very situational uses and thus is unlikely to be used more than once in that fashion still has a pretty low utility. Wraithsword currently has *no* situation in which its worthwhile).

I didn't say all death forges were weak, I said no death forge should be weak because it won't see play. So if any death forging is weak it needs to be improved or it might as well be removed from the game.

Now, whether you interpret that as a direct rebuttal of your urge for caution remark is up to you. It doesn't change the factual nature of my statements.

Now who's using strawman arguments?

Stygian paths may need a little buffing, but hardly needs its functionality changed. Possibly needs to be made a little cheaper. It certainly sees occasional use at present (unlike wraithsword), and has niche uses (its one of the few ways to move a Sphinx, for example), so there are times where its situational value is high enough to warrant spending d gems on it.

I would still take a single-handed weapon + vine shield over the proposed wraithsword.

It is insignificant. When you have 50 or 100 mages, what's one more mage turn?

Early game its an issue, but very few nations are equipping piles of thugs/SCs in the early game (and those nations generally really want shields - ie, vanheim, eriu, etc...).

Well, ideally i'd prefer if the value of all gems was equally high, but CBM is not going to make sufficient changes to the game to make water gems as valuable as death gems. The game, even as balanced by CBM, does have implicit values for every gem type, and barring significant rebalancing to change those values, there is no point in assuming anything but the existing values. Basically, when making small modifications to the game, you're a price taker in terms of the value of gold, gems, and resources. If you deviate from the value already dictated by the game, either your changes are overpowered or will never see play, depending on which direction you deviated.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

"Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?"

This is not true. Shield utility is highly situational. Char shield is better if you're running into skel spam or air magic summons (especially these, with 0 prot and 1 HP), since you need them dead, not entangled, to get to the mages at the back. Awe is better to stop damage from lance charges since the vine shield doesn't work until after you get hit. Higher parry shields will stop magic bows or massed crossbows from owning your face. The better damage soak and parry values on many of the larger shields also help your defense out more than the vine shield.

Oh, and there's certainly a counter to vine shields, I believe it's MR based on my testing with some eriu thugs. They have crap strength but don't get tangled often.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

It'd be fun to have sailing items for commanders only :)

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

:rolleyes:Fine be predictable and I'm sure your opponents won't mind either. Micah covered many other points well enough.

You said, "Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak" in response to my post. No one ever made "an argument for death forgings to be weak," so there was no reason to mention that. Regardless, I accept your revision of, "no death forge should be weak" because it won't see play as that doesn't imply anyone is making "an argument for death forgings to be weak."

Wrong. Even when CBM first started the vanilla 10D Tartarian was one of the best use for death gems (especially since it didn't even have shattered soul yet). CBM didn't change everything and base it off the overpowered vanilla 10D Tartarian (that's ridiculous)... instead it nerfed the Tartarian.

I'm not objecting to a change for the wraithsword, however, another problem with applying your "best uses" theory to all items/spells is you're further widening the power gap (well chasm) between the weaker/stronger gems and making death heavy nations even stronger. Additionally, your deliberate neglect of the research tree by comparing Conj9 Tartarians to a Cons6 item makes them not a valid comparison and makes your "value" to the death gem wildly inappropriate for balance.

I can agree more with the above because there's a big difference between "it needs to be improved because it sees no play" and some of your other outrageous statements.

You don't like the taste of your own medicine? Good.

I was being sarcastic.

It always keeps coming back to the 10n shields. If every 2-handed weapon (and eventually shield) gets compared to the 10n shields then perhaps it's your precious 10n shields that are too cheap/overpowered.

It's 1 mage turn if you only make 1 shield every game regardless of the nation and game settings. Even IF one's imagination for the mages is limited to research then the cumulative effect adds up and could mean hitting a research level sooner to turn the tide of battles or get a unique first. It's easy to ignore since it's not easy to witness.

And everyone sees those values differently, which you demonstrated quite well for me. As you yourself said spell/forge value can vary depending on the situation (the individual, the nation, game settings, game rules, etc). That further suggests it's better to be cautious so things remain more constant and fewer things become overpowered under different situations. The item can always be revisited again later. I would rather have CBM err on the side of "these 11 were changed, but still don't see play according to many players so perhaps we need to look at some again" rather than "well the last CBM version made the following 3 items/spells overpowered... while we try to correct those lets also make these other 11 more powerful to make sure they get some use now."

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Very well, if it cannot be done, the aesthetics of it is rather moot.

Looking at the axe, it really does not seem that bad in itself - fear is a reasonably powerful effect. It seems to me that at least part of the problem is that the Horror Helmet is available at the same level of construction with path requirements that make it likely that anyone able and willing to craft the axe, could craft the helmet instead. Perhaps bumping the helmet up to construction 4 would help.



Now regarding the general situation of 2-handers vs 1-handers and shields, I want to reinforce that cost is important. Sure, you usually build a number of top SCs in each game where a couple of gems here or there does not make any big difference, but at least for thugs, the same gems do matter. If you make a 5-gem 2-hander just as good as the combination of a 5-gem 1-hander and a 10-gem shield, the 2-hander is going to be built in the vast majority of cases.

Also it seems to me that a good number of the 2-handers discussed here are decidedly low-level. And in the early game, a mage turn is a lot more expensive than it is later, relatively speaking. And the number of gems needed is even more critical.

In the end, a construction 4 item should probably see use more often in the game once that level of construction is researched.

If you compare a 5-gem level 0 item to a combination of a 5-gem level level 0 item and a 10 gem level 4 item, the latter should be better in most situations.


Off topic:
I am sorry if my question rubbed you the wrong way; that was not my intention.

If you do not think relevant or want to answer one of my questions, just ignore it. I am not quite so self-centred that I regard you or anyone as having a duty to answer a question just because I ask it.

It also seems like my wording threw you off and you took my question a bit too literally. In my defence I will say that it never entered my mind that anyone would interpret my words so narrowly as to think I meant using the newweapon-command and adding the ability directly to the structure (hope that was clear enough).

Admittedly I have done very little modding and most of what I have done has concerned monsters, but all the more reason to ask when it comes to magic items, in my opinion. Quite a few things are not exhaustively covered in the modding manual and among them is what items hide at construction 12. For all I know, there could be a number of nifty single-ability items there that could be used on occasions such as this. From your response, though, I gather that this is not the case.

Again, I am sorry if I offended you with my question.

Re: Magic Items under CBM
 

Why would you nerf the situationally useful horror helmet? It isn't like it's overused and eclipsing balanced items. It's often useful as is, whereas the imp axe generally isn't, so boost the imp axe. Not rocket science.


It didn't but your apologies don't read as sincere in the slightest anyway.

If it never entered your mind, why are you assuming that's how I interpreted it? I just said it isn't possible. Which it isn't, with the caveat that anything is theoretically possible if you're willing to go to ridiculous lengths or accept a messy solution to do something basically pointless.

For instance you could turn Horror Helm, the item, into a replacement for imp axe which wouldn't have the pillage bonus, if you accepted that you'd be losing horror helm just to remove an attribute no-one cares about. Same situation with construction 12 items, if there was even one that just granted fear, it would be a less messy solution to the 'problem' (imp axe having pillage).