Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

With better research, GE Arco will summon the Air Queen (or whatever) sooner. It's not just what you do, but when you do it.

GE is not "troopless" - it's just not the only good ability. I made good use of 5-6 Myrmidons with 6 extra cardaces and the starting force (and [cough] Shedu - but use Nataj or whatever you prefer), in conquering level 5 independents, for example. Only one died, and by the time the others had some afflictions, I had two priestesses and several times as many replacement myrmidons and fliers ready. I had much better luck with these than I did with regular Arco's Hoplites and Hypaspists, but then, I come from an Ulm/Mictlan/Machaka background, I guess, so my battlefield setup may be different from others'.

I would also tend to make some demi-SC's out of the wind lords by adding some items to them. Add a few Icarians for flying semi-fodder to give them the critical mass to overwhelm targets, and time to arrive at the same time as the infantry. Peltasts get Fire Closest orders, so they stay behind the Cardaces and Myrmidons, throwing javelins and usually not getting into enemy axe range.

Meanwhile Mystics accumulate elemental skills, and forge some Astral boost items (skullcap, banner ...) and research astral/magic boost spells, and/or use Astral pretender so that an Astral thug accompanies mage armies once enemies might use cheap astral duellers - then duels hit the strongest target, and either lose, or are taking a big gamble. Astral and various elemental magics do their things.

Use Pretender or site mages to provide other magic paths if desired.

Etc.

PvK

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well if independants were relevant, this might matter. It's pretty much expected that your army + pretender should be able to expand at 1 province per turn, regardless of theme. Certianly this can't compare to something like Utgard Jotunheim, where the starting 8 units can clear one province, and the pretender another... with no casualties at all. Comparing these two themes is almost comical. The giants get 2 free temperature picks, a better mage than the mystic (6 picks overall, common 3-astral and 3-death Versions). They have excellent blood and death summoning capability, as well as one of the best bang for your buck mages in the game (seithkona). Their army is superior in almost every way... it lacks fliers, but demons more than make up that edge. The only areas you can give the edge to arco are in healing and research... but the seithkona certianly isn't any slouch in the research area. While Jotunheim may not have the selection of pretender choices that arco does, they can use the GK and POD... which hardly leaves them lacking in this area.

Where standard arco can boast edges in more efficient infantry and trampling, giants versus chariots and myrmidons is laughable to say the least. GE has no edge in magic over the giants, certianly no advantage in summons, and forging is a wash at best. Somehow I don't see philosophers and engineers making the difference in a matchup like this.

[ June 23, 2004, 00:33: Message edited by: Blitz ]

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

My typical antidote to giants is superior numbers of cannon fodder and missile troops, perhaps combined with spells but no valuable well-armored troops. Both Arcos have Cardaces, which are good cheap light/medium infantry with a very low resource cost - I would expect them (supported by indy archers, for example) to do very well against Jotun giants in a war of attrition. I would leave the myrmidons at home but might use some Icarids to try to take out the Jotun mages.

That is, I think GE also has more efficient infantry, if the player doesn't waste myrmidons or Wind Riders against things that make their armor irrelevant, like giants. Use the Cardaces and/or Peltasts or other light infantry and archers (and/or mages) against giants.

Note that Arco not only has 50-gold/5-research philosophers, but their labs only cost 100 gold. When they are building Myrmidons, they tend to have gold to spare, so it's well worth it to build several labs and have them all cranking out cheap researchers.

PvK

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is highly debatable whether the Norna is superior to the mystic, since that requires you to make a judgement on whether a mage that is limited entirely to sorcery is better than one that has access to both elemental magic and astral magic. This is especially true when you consider that Jotunheim will never have a dozen or so mages that can cast astral fires.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why are you sending chariots, which gain their advantage by trampling smaller troops, against giants? Myrmidons can hold their own against giants, since you can easily have three times their number with enough cheap castles producing them. If you can't produce enough Myrmidnos, then use your cheaper troops, since Jotuns are strong enough to kill just about any human in one hit.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Forging is certainly _not_ a wash. GE Arco has access to almost every elemental item, and most of the astral items as well.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Philosophers give you a huge lead in your research ability, since they are both extremely cheap, and extremely efficient researchers.

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Aren't philosophers capital only?

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

[quote]Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Blitz:
[qb] ...

Quote:

Where standard arco can boast edges in more efficient infantry and trampling, giants versus chariots and myrmidons is laughable to say the least.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why are you sending chariots, which gain their advantage by trampling smaller troops, against giants? Myrmidons can hold their own against giants, since you can easily have three times their number with enough cheap castles producing them. If you can't produce enough Myrmidnos, then use your cheaper troops, since Jotuns are strong enough to kill just about any human in one hit.
... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wouldn't use Myrmidons, since the Myrm armor will do little good against giant-wielded weapons and hurled boulders. Practically the same effect can be had with Cardaces, who are 2/3 the cost and very low resources, so they are essentially disposable. The main thing is to have a lot of little worthless guys for them to busy themselves trying to squash with overkill weapons, while they get peppered with a combo of spears, javelins, arrows, and magic. Sending valuable (in gold or resources or gems) units against giants is more risky than is usually necessary.

And yes, the Philosopher and Skeptic are captiol-only. My mistake.

PvK

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't know which is more amusing, myrmidons "easily" holding their own against giants, or being able to mass produce them with any effectiveness. Obviously cheriots are bad against giants, that was the point.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On the surface, it might seem that arco has the edge, but when you consider that most players use elemental magic on their pretender (air/water/earth), and not as much sorcery, you will find that it's much easier to fill the forging gaps as Jotunheim. GE gets paths FAWES, while jotun get WSDNB. Their strengths are different, but there's no clear edge to Arco.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I hear this a lot. That advantage completely vanishes if jotunheim finds sages. It's an advantage to be sure, but it's a capitol only troop that dosen't do anything BETTER than the seithkona... it does it cheaper. GE can only recruit one per turn. Since jotunheim can generally expand faster than GE, often this advantage in COST seems more important than it really is. By expanding quicker, jotunheim has a moderately good chance of finding sages, and even without finding them, they can often make up the gold difference between a seithkona and a philosopher.

I guess the best question to ask would be this... would you rather recruit philosophers or seithkona? One does one thing better than any other unit... and slightly better than a sage. The other was the winner of my "Best mage under 100 gold" poll. Comparing the two seems silly.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm surprised you want to debate this, but maybe I shouldn't be. The norna is a better astral mage, and has access to level 3 death as well. She costs 220 to 180, but has an extra magic path. I'm a huge fan of the mystic, but if given the choice I'd prefer the norna. I imagine that's a matter of taste, but I think you might concede there's certianly no huge advantage to arco in magery... especially when you consider the Jotun Skratti, Norna, and Seithkona are available to jotun, compared to GE's single mage.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">GE will never have a dozen mages able to cast relief, drain life, or raise skeletons. I'd rather have a norna, but it's not a massive edge either way.

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Once you have 10 or so castles, then you certainly can produce myrmidons in fairly large numbers. They only need to hold for long enough for your mystics to kill the giants after all. Myrmidons are no worse at fighting giants than any of the other medium/heavy infantry that's available.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your pretender can only do one thing at a time, and you will almost always need fewer death items than the elemental and astral ones.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If given the choice between the two, then I would recruit philosophers until I had a need for Seithkona.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Druids and jade sorceresses are quite common, which can easily provide all you'll need for relief. Raise skeletons is a nice spell, but then normal arco doesn't get that either. Drain life s another spell that's good, but not necessary when you have mages that can cast all four types of elemental spells. It's quite difficult to get immunity to all of the elements without also leaving yourself open to soulslay.

[ June 23, 2004, 05:22: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe not dozens of reliefers, but certainly Drain and Skeletons is simple enough: Mound Fiends with staffs. It doesn't help that death magic can expand exponentially as long as you fuel it properly, and all forms of Arco can Acash for all gem types easily enough, so you won't be lacking for death gems. One Mound Fiend can summon other Mound Fiends, and it just goes on.

Re: Should improving Arcoscephale Golden Era be a priority?
 

On a more general note, I personally think that not every theme should be equally balanced. Sometimes people want a more challenging game, or particularly good players might want to level the playing-field somewhat when playing with friends.

Sure, you can always leave some points unused when you design your pretender, but the challenge you get from that is different than the challenge you get from an underpowered theme.