Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

I think those changes are all geared towards end-game in many-nations large games.
The only big change I think is ok is the restriction of sanguine dousing rods.

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

I understand the thinking behind those changes, but this is not the type of update to CBM I had hoped for to be honest.

The last CBM changed the game radically by removing gemgens, this was a good thing. And the big changes here might be too. But there is a problem with big changes, they need a long time getting used to and ruins lots of strategies.

I would prefer to put those big radical changes on hold for a while, and instead see a update to CBM with all the small fixes and non-controversial changes that has been discussed in the thread.

My suggesstion would be to release a less controversial CBM 1.6.2 while this one is tested.

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

lolwut? The champion item needs to make its user STRONGER, not weaker, which your 5 prot helmet would do in 99% of cases. In order to be an incentive to actually send capable commanders into the arena, rather than just cheap throwaways, the item obtained should actually be valuable. Mark of the champion encourages actually caring about winning the arena, and sending valuable commanders in with the chance of losing them. For a 5 prot helmet, it would seldom be worth it.

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

I didn't really type that well. It uses the armor flame helmet, which is a 20 prot helmet that also raises your base prot to (by?) 5. On top of this it has quickness.

edit:
I did a quick test, and the flame helmet will raise a unit from 12 base body protection to 16, so it's of use to units even with a high base protection.

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

And? so it adds some prot. wow. quickness and an attack. its still good, not amazing. not even close to overpowered

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

An interesting option would be something similar to Edi's piecemeal edition CBM 1.6, by making the most controversial changes optional.

For example, hammer uniques, it could be if certain players want the to have hammer allocation and planning in the game they can turn it on. Users could customize a game to what they want. Want a dumbed down minimal micro game? Hammer off, booster off ...etc

Though that might cause balancing descrepencies, say if some earth nations were adjusted and weaker thug nations getting forge ability (Eriu, TNN...etc) then you turn hammer on ... Or certain nation getting hammered with no booster access.

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

This is pretty easy to do already. Just spend 10 minutes with the modding manual and a text editor. You can remove the pieces you dislike, save it as a new document, and use it for your customized game.

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

(Almost) removing hammers is a radical move, but one which is perfectly in line with the concept of the Mod, I think: it removes an "obvious", no-brainer option that was almost mandatory for competitiveness.

As a major side effect, it decreases accessibility of magic items. My personal view, but this is very personal, is that spells were not competitive enough as an option to spend gems compared to items, so I tend to like this. But this is a "flavour" consideration, where I wished that magic items were really exceptional rather than produced at an industrial scale by chains of impersonal hammer-handlers.

So I think the hammer thing is a rather interesting one, in spite of the balance issues it raises.

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

i want to add to this discussion that in smaller games (which i tend to play only (6-8 players)) the hammer-micro doesnt feel burdensome for me at all. It means about 6-10 hammers to manage, and for me in these cases the raise in complexity and planning required (makes game more interesting for me) overweights the cost (moving the hammers back and forth between mages) (there are other costs too).

However removing the hammers not only lessens micro but makes items more expensive, i would really like to test it to see how it changes the game, as i like to use low-level summons, and perhaps it will make using them more optimal.

one aspect i like in this change (and in the SDR one) is that i dont have to wait until constr4 (SDR or earth boots or having enough hammers) to forge some items for my commanders and still play near optimal.

And one more: there is a kind of argument versus banning the hammers (the hammer-banner :) ): that people will use the same amount of gems for items, meaning removing the hammers will lessen the number of gems spent on not-forging. It is the same argument used against raising the cost of tartarians. And this type of argument can be used versus raising the price of gas, saying "people will buy gas into their cars anyway, so they will have less money for food". I'm not saying that its a false statement, but I'm sceptical.

The SDR change will affect nations with noncapital bloodhunters much less then the other blood nations, because the SDR could be viewed as a forgeable bloodhunter (with about a little more than 1 level in B). It will weaken all blood nations without doubt and will make low level blood spells more used, because it was seen an optimal way in most cases to not start hunting until SDRs and constr 4, and by this time the research tipically can jump thru the first couple levels in the blood tree.

All in all i personally like both of the hammer and the SDR change.

I'm not sure integrating the edm AND changing it a bit to fit your taste (u said u dont like easy magic diversity) was a good idea (it may not be only your taste tho). Regarding the changes: lessening the magic diversity of the new monsters strengthens the tartarians in their status (as they have diversity). It might turn out to be an excellent idea tho, im looking forward of the test results.

Thanks for the bold changes QM and updating the mod. I'm very curious of its effect on the game.

Re: CBM 1.7 released
 

I fully agree with this. Removing gemgens was a radical change, and it worked, but it does not mean that CBM needs as many radical changes as possible. EDM, hammers, SDRs - aren't there too many controversial and drastic changes for one release? Any single one of them would be radical enough.

On the other side of things, including Armor Revamp is great (well, I hope so, didn't test it yet), new E booster, Bane Blade change and Trelord boost are great too, Agartha and Machaka boosts are always good, same with Iron Angels for Ulm (the Forge thing... uh, I dunno).

But, to sum it up, this version has too few nation balance changes allowing us to use previously obscure units, spells, etc, too few obviously needed and non-controversial changes (like removing upkeep on Ghost General), and too many massive and mostly unnecessary changes. This is all only my opinion, of course.