Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

But were we talking specifically about Mictlan? They aren't the only Bless nation here, and they play a lot differently from Neifleheim or Lanka or one of the Vans (to name a few of the nations who can field a viable Bless Rush).

And how many provinces in this map? How many players?

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

You are so wrong you have no idea.
Look the last game I won as Mictlan - I was fighting Marignon, starting turn 7. As mictlan you don't try to take fortresses - at least not at first - you have to destroy forces - demoralize the opponent. So I was raiding him for 10 turns or so. I attacked my second opponent around turn 15.

If you read any of my threads on mictlan - making a force that will *take* a province costs 235 gp. No more no less. For archers you tag on 3 slaves.

I'm not talking huge sparse maps. I'm talking maps where you have the standard 15 provinces per player.

Try it.

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

You said bless rushes aren't a viable strategy. I said I routinely expect to take 48ish by the end of year two with Mictlan (Ea/LA) or Lanka.

So yes, I specifically said mictlan and lanka. Blesses on xheims are for the most part not optimal.

Niefle has a bless strategy - and its a powerful one - but you can't call it a bless rush. Niefles strategy relies on a lack of attrition, and SC's to win. Fun - but not a bless rush. Plus the problem with his bless is capitol dependency - there are some very easy counters.

As for #of players - I dont care. ter/player - I don't care. Anything within the realm of normal play is fine by me. Stronger indie settings make bless nations work better. Smaller maps probably help bless nations more on average.

Map geography matters - lots of choke points makes for a very static game - not suitable to bless rushes.

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

Yeh, I totally want to trust you based on "that one game where I schooled everyone...."

I play Bless nations all the time. My experience is that on a normal-sized map the other players see your quick expansion and dogpile you before you can get any meaningful lead in provinces. My last three games as Lanka ended for me when 3-4 players attacked me at the same time. Sure, I averaged destroying one and crippling two others, but I did not reach the endgame.

And that's why it is not a game-winning tactic unless you play on a large map. Its a fine tactic for winning fights, but winning a game requires so much more and I'll put my eggs in some other basket.

It seems like you've been getting a free pass from the Dominions community if they are letting you expand on those maps, and I can't take account of "and maybe I get lucky and my opponents are chumps or buds of mine" in any tactical or strategic decisions I make.

On the bright side I now know why you think the way you do, so I don't have to keep arguing with you on the chance you have valuable insights. It's been fun.

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

Sure, attack the player, instead of the points.

*IF* you play bless nations all the time, you would know that it does not take until turn 7 for a bless nation to conquer 2 territories per turn.

You say its not a game winning strategy except on a large map.
Fine.

How about we settle this on a small map. Say.. Albatha. I'll take EA mictlan. You take any EA nation you want (except grossly unbalanced hinnom). Of course to make your point you'd logically not have to choose a bless nation.

Plain vanilla game.
Standard settings.

You say large benefits bless- I'm giving you small.
You'll know I'm starting with an f9w9 bless at the minimum - you can keep yours secret.
You're even a better player than I. Still won't matter.

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

Hilarious. Reread the thread, especially the part where I note where Blesses are game-winning strats on very big maps AND small maps with a single opponent.

So if you win, you prove me right. If I win, I am right again by proving that Bless rushes that lose their first battle tend to lose the war.

How about we just skip the middle part and just recognize I'm right?

Or even better, how about we just back away from any trials by combat and agree that our results have varied. I truly believe that you truly believe you are right and the only way you will change your mind is to have a run of multiplay games like I have had.

In all seriousness and semi-friendly jabbing aside, the last time I proved someone wrong about a strategy game by playing a public game with them he ended up in a hospital because he had a nervous breakdown the same day he received the turn where I did the killing stroke to his empire. I'm not going to claim credit for his personal problems, but from then on I decided that being proven right in public is not worth it, especially for a game that is supposed to be about fun.

Peace.

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

Even on small maps with 4 players, a strong bless can help a lot. With a good bless you can take out one opponent first and then turn on those two other players who are busy fighting each other.
Also, a bless strategy can go well into mid-game (EA T'ien Ch'i is a nice bless nation for that reason: demons of heavenly water nicely complement the warrior of the 5 elements by being tougher and summonable anywhere).

Also, a strong Fire bless doesn't preclude a late game strategy. I like F9S9 with Mictlan for instance. Since I pick S9 you guess that end-game strategies revolve around that rather than Death and I think S9F9 > S9D9 without compromising late game.

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

[quote=K;706473]I've played way north of 300 games of dominions.. more than 50 mp games... although only maybe a dozen here. Losing 3-4 games because you're gang banged can happen to any nation and doesn't prove the lack of validity of a bless strategy.

If you say the game averages 10 opponents - heck you rate to lose 9... losing three just proves bless is giving you an advantage =P

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

Maybe you play on very different maps than I have. Or maybe we're talking past each other. Obviously there's a difference between taking provinces and sending out armies. I find that becomes more significant later in the indy clearing phase. I don't think I've ever been in a game where, with a little planning I couldn't reliably find provinces to take with at least the 1st and 2nd armies. By the time they have to start back tracking the 3rd army should have targets to attack. And every other turn is slow for a uber bless nation.

From your original post:
I simply don't see how sending out an army at least every other turn can lead to progress like that. Sure there will be some backtracking and some indies you have to bypass or combine to take, but to do that badly most of those armies won't be attacking most turns. If you're that constrained by geography, skip the bless and just use regular troops. You should be able to do as well.

And as I said, you need more of a plan than just bless rush. I'm not disagreeing with that. But you're claiming an uber-bless is ineffective even at what it's good at.

Re: Fire vs. Death heavy bless
 

Actually K, from the opinions you've posted in this thread, it looks like a majority of games you've played are either against the AI or players that are giving you a free pass. Your claims sound so out of touch with the way a game with vets would run that I would find it time consuming to comment on every misinformation there. You are consistently just ignoring what people say will actually happen in lieu of a made up scenario where you claim will be true just to somehow back your hilariously incorrect statement that D9 is a better bless to take than F9.

Your impression that a bless strat is somehow worse off in a small map versus a big one due to "dogpiling" is ridiculous as any good player using an uber bless are able to fend off 3-4 non blessed nations early game without very specific counters easily while stomping them one nation at a time with strategic use of chokes and general good planning in expansion tactics. Bless nations are favored by several things, namely difficult research and lower gem frequency but more provinces is certainly not one of them! The moment a bless nation destroys a main expansion force of a neighbor, you not only massively set back his expansion rate significantly but you force him to wall up while you slowly take the ring around his capital. Once your siege sets in, it's leave and forget since the income from a capital shouldn't be underestimated on it's own.

People have given points on why W9/F9 or E9/n4-8 are effective. Your own actual point to back your d9 suggestion was the entirely silly "Rush for utterdark = game winning plan" when any nation without innate death/blood access is already at a massive disadvantage at any death gem stockpiling versus a death nation in this strat.

Then you posit this with a paragraph claiming that game winning strategies are "Building badass SCs ... Building a giant stockpile of Blood summons that costs no support and then unleashing them on enemies while you paralyze their troop production with ritual magic and execute armies with Horrors can do that..."

That whole spiel makes it sound as if you're playing against newbies, AI or players stuck in the stone age of research while you're hitting 9's. On top of the fact that your point of Arcane Nexus shows your inexperience since the spell is either banned or good players WILL dogpile you and significantly more so for casting spells like Nexus or Utterdark than playing a bless nation with an out of the gates province rate.