Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

Sorry, noob here. Just wondering how to dispel The Wraith of God.

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

Cast the Dispel spell, or cast Wrath yourself. If there are already 5 globals active (including the enemy Wrath), then casting any other global ritual will have a 20% chance to replace the particular global you are conncerned about.

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

There is a spell called dispel (enchantment 5 iirc) that takes an astral-3 mage to cast.
Research it, and set your astral-3 mage to cast it. When casting it asks how many extra gems you should use, when casting the Wrath of God, the enemy had a similar dialog, and to succeed in the dispel you have to use more extra gems than he did.

You have no astral-3?
There is an item called starshine skullcap, takes construction-6 and an astral-2 mage to produce. when you give it to an astral-2 mage, he becomes astral-3.

You have no astral-2?
Tough luck.

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

If you have no Astral 2 mage but you do have Nature 1 - Astral 1 mage (Lizard shaman are good for this) you can Summon Couatl at Conjuration 7 or something. It costs 40 nature gems and is Nature 3, Astral 3, Holy 3 mage.

Also, Robe of the Magic raises all the magics its wielder has by one, so you could try that if you have Astral 1 mage... Blood 4, Air 4 and Construction 6.

Or then 30 gems for Empowering Astral 1 mage to Astral 2.

Globals also disappear if the mage that cast it dies. There might be bug that leaves it in place if he isn't killed but vanishes, happens only if you kill that nation by preaching it out. If you have assasins, use them. Other good ways are Seeking Arrows, Earth Attacks, Vengeance of the Dead if he gets kills from Wrathful Skies and some more...

Just realized that there is one summonable assasin: Succubus! So... If you can summon one, and she manages to seduce that mage, you either get the control of Wrathful Skies or a mage that can overwrite Wrathful Skies with your own Version... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 13, 2004, 11:23: Message edited by: Endoperez ]

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unless the enemy caster was a pretender. Pretenders are immune to seduction.

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's totally random which one gets replaced? I thought I read somewhere that it automatically replaces the one with the lowest amount of extra gems added.

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's totally random which one gets replaced? I thought I read somewhere that it automatically replaces the one with the lowest amount of extra gems added. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I came to believe it's random. In my current game i have 4 enchantments up with 300 extra gems each and still dispel one of my own when casting a fifth. I doubt the AI spent 300 extra.

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">One trick I found useful is to stair-step your enchantment casts: The first GE I'll cast, I'll ram a solidly excessive 800 into it. Then the next one I throw up, I'll only toss in maybe 650, then 500, then 400, etc.

The fact that the subsequent enchantments you throw up are weaker than previous ones will make sure they're probably too understrength to be able to push out your existing ones, so will overwrite the AI's instead. The AI won't throw enough weight into anything to outgun this, so this will nearly always work.

In MP, take all of the figures given above, and do the following: If score graphs are visible, then do an eyeballing on your gem income vs. the enemy's gem income, and then use more than your opponent will likely have. If his gem income is better than yours, then don't bother pumping it. You'll get dispelled if he wants to no matter what you do.

If score graphs are disabled, take the above figures I gave (300-800), and multiply by the following formula base*(sites / 75.0) * (turn / 25) * players/3.

So for your first launch, in a sites-55 game on turn 38, with 6 players, the amount of gems you should use is equal to 800*(55/75)*(38/25)*2 = 1783 gems.

Too much, you think? Then you must not care very much about your enchantment sticking. Don't bother pumping it at all, then. Hell, don't even bother casting it, if it's going to harm anyone. It'll just get dispelled. If you're gonna go, go all out. Anything worth doing is worth doing with excessive force. Do it the right way. Do it the Norfleet way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

Number of provinces in the world has gotta be a part of that formula too. It's a lot easier amassing gems on a larger map.

If it's random which one gets knocked out when you cast a sixth enchantment and not based on gems added why would you add any gems? If I can knock out Norfleet's enchantment that cost him 1783+ gems with one of mine that just cost the base amount then there was no point in him adding all those gems.

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is already subsumed into the turn-time calculation. A larger map runs for a larger number of turns as well. To include world map size in the calculation would double-count this factor.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's random which one will get knocked out, IF one is knocked out. If you can't overpower ANY of them, they'll all stick. That's my theory behind doing it in reverse, DECREASING costs, by putting the strongest FIRST, so that it reduces the pool of enchantments which CAN be knocked out. It seems to work against the AI. I rarely have to squabble with humans over the global slots, to the same extent, though. Usually a human player will put a lot of gems into it, and when I blow his out of the water using my generally superior gem income, it goes down in flames taking most of his gem investment with it. Such is the price of not following my formula. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 13, 2004, 19:45: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

Side note: Rigorously following the formula can make you a little predictable, if your opponent knows what it is: It's helpful to prioritize your enchantments, and make the first-cast one, the one you put the most gems into, the one you REALLY want to stick.....then follow by throwing up a decoy enchantment in a few turns, one which he will probably find more distressing, and then let him tear it down following my formula, depleting all of his energies on a decoy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Also, when in doubt, double the numbers. Anything worth doing, is worth doing with excessive force. Admittedly, the formula I've given *ALREADY* includes an excessive force multiplier, but like I said: If it's worth doing, it's worth doing with *EXCESSIVE* force. Obviously, if excessiveness can be so easily quantified, it's no longer truly excessive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

Say there are five enchantments with 500, 400, 300, 200, and 100 gems added. If I cast an enchantment and add 350 gems, what you're saying is that it will randomly knock out one of the Last three?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is already subsumed into the turn-time calculation. A larger map runs for a larger number of turns as well. To include world map size in the calculation would double-count this factor.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I guess map size doesn't matter. Ratio of players to independent provinces does, though. Once you get your share of independents, your expansion is usually going to be a lot slower.

Re: Global Enhancement Dispelling
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unless the enemy caster was a pretender. Pretenders are immune to seduction. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know that, look at the wording. But even in that case, an assasination attempt would happen... But pretenders generally are not that easy to kill, so the odds are that wouldn't work.

Anyway, that might have gotten someone confused. Thank you for reminding!