The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

Well, theres an awful lot of spells availabe.... too many to learn in one go, or two, or three goes even. So, what are the good spells to research and develop for, and the spells to be avioded at all costs.

I've learned very little of spells in the several SP games I've played... little more than hoardes of hell is pretty lame, it takes a LOT of pale riders to do any good, and fire files is the very unpleasant result of neglecting to study evocation.

While I'm sure that preference varies from person to person, and varies a little from nation to nation, there is bound to be some spells that just deserve an award for how useful and great they are.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

Well, me, I'm a big fan of Wish: It's so awesome, and there's so much stuff you can do with it. I mean, even the name is awesome.

The alteration school contains a number of very nice spells, such as the battle buffs like Mirror Image, Mistform, Body Ethereal, Personal Luck....all of those are Alterations.

Fire flies is indeed the result of neglecting to study evocation. While there's a ton of spells which perform similar tasks and do better in similar roles (Blade Wind, Nether Darts), you certainly get what you pay for with Fire Flies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hordes from Hell is not as lame as you make it out to be, though: The cost is relatively modest, and it's a remote-summons. You can cast it at any target province, and the aforementioned hordes from hell will appear. While not powerful, you can shotgun them all over the map and drive your opponent absolutely nuts. It's not something you use against hardened targets, but it's not bad at raiding and generally raising hell. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

A lot of spells, including Pale Riders, have better effects when cast by more powerful mages. IOW, some spells won't seem as good when used by low or medium powered mages.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

With Caelum, I'm a bit disappointed by mages: they rarely deliver the significant punch that might turn the tide of the battle. I dont know if I ever have seen a single lightning bolt hitting an enemy (seen it hitting my units though, guess I'll have to produce more of these "Eyes of Accuracy". Friendly Fire is so realistic...)

Quickness, Ghost Wolves and Falling Frost are my Favorites so far...

[ March 15, 2004, 08:16: Message edited by: Chazar ]

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

A cloud-trapezing Caelum High Seraph with a staff of storm and knowledge of the spell "Wrathful Skies" delivers quite a punch though.

This spell can also be combined with the lightning immune wyverns, which are relatively cheap air summons (only drawback is that they are cold-blooded, but usually I compensate for this by striking deep into enemy territory).

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not sure what game you're playing then. Since lightning bolt is the single most accurate (other than prec 100) spell in the game with a precision of 7. Combine that with the precision of 12 on the high seraph, and the aim spell and it will rarely miss.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Bind Ice Devil.

Bar none, some of the most bang you'll get for your buck (or your blood slaves, rather) - especially if you can outfit them with some nice gear. They are supercombatants to the Nth degree, they can lead large armies (it's nice to summon IDs with Caelum - I have recently started using the Vampire Queen as my regular Caelum pretender for precisely this purpose - as most troops in Caelum have 100% cold resistance and won't be hurt by the constant Chill effect around the IDs, so you can let the IDs jump right into the thick of things).

Yes, I'd say that's one of my favorite spells so far. Also, I'd echo what Norfleet said - Hordes from Hell is not nearly as lame as you'd think, for raiding/harassment purposes. Plus, it gives you a devil commander who you can equip with fun gear, even if you ditch the imps entirely and have him lead something else.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, they're cheap enough that you can bring them in force...and then voila! There's your punch! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You're probably building dozens of them anyway, just for research purposes.

Never underestimate, too, the power of stealthy, flying, level 3 priests to push out your dominion to get everything (especially temp) in your favor prior to the battle. That's one of the huge strengths of Caelum, and it more than makes up for the offensive capabilities of their mages.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No doubt about that! I'm rather referring to lower level spells...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm, I should check that aim-spell, good hint, thanks!

I did not want to complain that much, but I just feel that a single high seraph will not deliver as much as I expected (as compared to 17 rear-attacking iceclads which cost the same amount of gold, as I usually do not care about resources but supplies). Maybe my main problem is that I'm lacking the understanding of range:

What does a range of, say, 25+ mean? 25 squares plus one square per extra path/gem? Does the range affect precision? Where do you place your mages then?

I think placing them among archers is a bad idea, as targeting enemy archers is one of my own favourite commands. So I place them a good way behing them. Maybe thats my problem why lightning always strikes invisible foe's...

[ March 15, 2004, 14:52: Message edited by: Chazar ]

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I usually fit them out with Amulets of Missle Protection or some other anti-projectile gear, as you've got easy access to that stuff in abundance with a nation like Caelum - and then I go ahead and stick them right behind my archers, or even in between two squads of archers.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Range reduces accuracy. 25+ means 25 if you exactly meet the requirements, and plus something per level above... it may be +5 squares/level, or +10% squares/level, but I doubt it is 1 square/level which would not be noticable.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

Hmm, I dont have the manual with me at work (which is a good thing, as I am already reading within this forum to much... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), but I recall that while melee was explained, it simply said something like ranged attacks are handled similarly. Well...

So I guess Precision is rolled against Defense with adding the usual open-2D6-roll, and Damage is exactly the same, i.e. Strength+WeaponDamage vs. Protection, +2D6 each. (Alhough most ranged attacks ignore Strength and have a higher Damage-value.)

Can someone add the Range value and the actual Range to the picture? Perhaps ActualRange-Range is used instead of Defense, but then, were does Defense from Shields kick in against missiles?


How do I advance flying mages like those of Caelum without a staff of storms? Attack one turn seems deadly to me with flying mages in good weather conditions, let alone the fatigue flying gives...

(at SaberCherry: Thanks for your comment, but my emphasis was not meant to be on the "+", but rather on the general range-mechanis as asked above now. - My fault, now that I reread my previous-post again.)

[ March 15, 2004, 16:11: Message edited by: Chazar ]

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

iirc, for missiles precision is only used to determine the square that will be hit, and the chance to hit someone in that square is 10+2d6* vs 10+shield defence+2d6*, tried against everyone in the square until it hits or runs out of targets, possibly in an order of size.

Observation to be made is that targets with v.high shield defence, ie nataraja with 2 weightless tower, are practically immune to missiles.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Unlike normal defense, shield defense subtracts from the chances of a missile to hit. And even if it does manage to hit, then the victim's full protection rating kicks in and the missile will likely do no damage at all.

In short, shielded targets are very hard to damage with missiles ... unless it's your own troops being shot in the back. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, like in real life, nothing is more accurate than friendly fire.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Do you mean that literally or really just roll-eyed? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I mean, this game is so complex, I would not even wonder if they had implemented a rule that shields only work in the direction the unit is facing!!!

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif Yes, I already noticed that!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Mages do not use gems if the opposition is (or rather seems) weak ... shouldnt Archers cease fire if the traget is already swarmed by friendly units???

I know that this "no-gem-usage-for-whimps-rule" annoys quite some people (or rather the definition of whimp is what annoys them), but this would also solve the missing "fire and hold"-command: Fire = Fire until no sensible targets. Propably it wouldnt even affect balance that much, since its the AI's choice when to cease fire...

(Besides: I'm still not clear about the Range-value then. It's the max range, ok, but how does precision and actual range influence the target square choosen...?))

[ March 15, 2004, 17:41: Message edited by: Chazar ]

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

When the spellcasting AI did not override gem use in dom 1 there was an awful lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over that, since scout attacks could deplete thr gems of spellcasters before a real battle toock place. I think most people that have played dom 1 and can compare the two much prefer the current system. As to what should be considered to insignificant to waste gems on, the chance that a formula will please everyone and be workable for the AI is rather slim. So while it might perhaps be changed in some small way, it will most likely remain pretty much the same.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think Dom II is a great improvement over Dom I in this Category - sometimes my mages actually have gems left over after a battle for the next one. This is way better than them spending all their gems on a scout attack and then having nothing left when they try to storm the enemy castle right afterward. Trust me.

There are times, though, when I would want them to use the gems and they don't. I think the best solution would be to have a checkbox for each mage so you could switch between 'strict orders' and 'lax orders'. i.e. the latter (lax orders) being the way the AI works now, and the former (strict orders) meaning that the mage must follow your casting instructions to the letter, with the consequences (however negative they may be). That way if you knew you wanted to cast a certain gem-requiring spell no matter what, you could do that - and reap the consequences if you made a bad decision. [obviously you'd need to add an alternate command so that if the mage is scripted to cast something that is out of range it would move forward instead, or something like that.]

however, even without this I'm pretty happy with the AI *most* of the time.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

Yes!Yes! I am very happy with the AI deciding whether the mages uses gems or not - please do not get me wrong on that! I like the way it is, and I do not need a checkbox.

All I was saying is, that I would like the AI to decide the same for Archers: A Squad of Archers should look at the target square and its surrounding 8 neighbor squares, and cease fire if the ratio between the number enemy units in these nine square towards friendly units is less than, say, 15%.

I guess that would be a huge improvement, as I loose many units due to friendly fire when the comabt is almost already over! (Fire and Flee is not an option as it scatters your units even in case of victory, especially if you invade the enemies back with flying units!)

[ March 15, 2004, 20:21: Message edited by: Chazar ]

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

I didn't play Dom1, so I can't compare. What was most frustrating to me in Dom2 is not knowing why my script was being ignored -- was I doing something wrong, was it a game bug? Some message like "your spellcasters are unimpressed by the opposition and will not waste their precious gems" would be very helpful.

In the pipe dream department, a slider ranging from "never use gems" to "always use gems" which informed the current AI might be the best compromise -- combined with the above message, players could at least attempt to tune the AI to their liking.

Re: The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Oops, sorry, I guess I've gone off topic because all that spell-precision talk got messed in my mind with the thread about "Fire when on guard". It related somehow, but it really does not belong here, sorry!