.com.unity Forums - The next patch

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)

- - The next patch (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=18394)

Any rumors on when it will be released ?
(?sometime this summer... or... ?sometime late this year?)

Any new events, beings, magic sites ?

Re: The next patch

i dont want to know details about the patch, just an ESTIMATED release date would be good. 1 month, 2 month ? more, less ?

Re: The next patch

I hope the next patch brings some new modding tools. And i really hope that it will be released in few weeks.

Re: The next patch

I hope it fixes the most important bugs which are, in order of importance (in my view):

1. Server crashes
2. Utgard theme
3. Call of the Wild works in non-forest

Re: The next patch

I don�t want to read the whole Bug Threat, but what is the "Utgart Theme" Bug?

I think it is more important to make the AI better:
-Bulding Forts
-Building much more racespecific Units :-(
-Changing Tactics

Re: The next patch

Utgard theme bug makes Utgard theme of Jotunheim start with Abysian home site Smouldering Cone instead of their own site, and the Seithkonas are normal soldiers instead of mages... That is, you ONLY have the special mages of Abysia (and Gygja?)... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: The next patch

I tried it 10 Minutes ago... how can this happen:(

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by dzbabi:
I think it is more important to make the AI better:
-Bulding Forts
-Building much more racespecific Units :-(
-Changing Tactics

Two problems with the "improve the AI" thing. One is that is a SoloPlayer-only thing which kindof drops it on the list (personally Im 95% solo player but I can see that this is true). Although the fact that it would improve the demo and maybe improve sales might give it some points it still doesnt seem to hit the fun-to-do list. Something might get done but I dont think it will ever be as much as we SP's want.

The other problem is that while many say they want it improved, there is still very little work done by any of us to try and pinpoint specific suggestions. There is only one AI so it would take coming up with some specific rules on castles/national-units/tactics which are play-tested as though you were the AI (force yourself to play by those rules) and see if they hold up for just the one nation that comes to mind or for all nations. (there are a number of threads on this subject if you want to use the "search" to join in)

[ March 22, 2004, 13:46: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: The next patch

a misplaced comma or somesuch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Utgard gets skratti, warlock apprentices, warlocks, and demonbred. they can also build lava warriors, and have access to seithkona using Gift of Reason.
Not too shabby, IMO. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by dzbabi:
I tried it 10 Minutes ago... how can this happen:(

A small error in the code can have unforseen consequences. Anyway, the other Jotunheim themes work fine, so it isn't too bad.

I'm tempted to say that the next patch is already on the download page, it's just nonexistant and unknown, but That Would Be Evil. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dzbabi:
I think it is more important to make the AI better:
-Bulding Forts
-Building much more racespecific Units :-(
-Changing Tactics

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by splooger:
Well, I hope us single-player gamers don't get shafted again. I've seen this happen in too many games and I'm sick and tired of it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Dominions II was designed from the ground up with multiplayer in mind. The fact that there's a fun singleplayer component is just icing on the sweet, sweet cake.

Re: The next patch

Utgard should be all fixed up. There are a lot of other improvements as well. It'll be released as soon as everybody is sure there's not another problem like Utgard lurking in it, and since we've not been testing it for a full week even, that'll be a bit.

I can't talk too much about details, alas, but there are some heavily-requested things in it that should make people very happy.

Re: The next patch

Eeeeexcellent.
Support this good for the original was a major reason why Dom II was, if memory serves, the only computer game I've ever preordered.

Re: The next patch

I certainly don't see any signs they'll ever stop working on it. It is obviously a very fulfilling project for Illwinter and company. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Psitticine:
I certainly don't see any signs they'll ever stop working on it. It is obviously a very fulfilling project for Illwinter and company. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I agree. The only thing that worries me is that I have seen projects like this get blown off by too much negative feedback. Feedback is good but Ive seen Devs just drop off because it seemed like no one liked it, and then the Users are all saying "oh but we really felt that the game was 99% excellent". Or they would say after the fact that their harsh words over things "broken" were really just meant as wishlist suggestions.

There are more ways to "pay" for the things you enjoy and support efforts to get more than by just dollars. All in all though THIS board has been pretty good at balancing praise and criticism
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_17_11.gif

[ March 22, 2004, 20:05: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: The next patch

Quote:

The only thing that worries me is that I have seen projects like this get blown off by too much negative feedback. Feedback is good but Ive seen Devs just drop off because it seemed like no one liked it, and then the Users are all saying "oh but we really felt that the game was 99% excellent".

hehe, I would not worry about that. Indeed, there is so much positive feedback in this forum that we should consider to reduce it a bit or the devs will most likely go megalomaniac.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
hehe, I would not worry about that. Indeed, there is so much positive feedback in this forum that we should consider to reduce it a bit or the devs will most likely go megalomaniac.

Too late.

Edit: Also megalomania is a helpfull trait for godgame design.

[ March 22, 2004, 20:56: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: The next patch

Come on, this coming from a guy whose avatar is a big head?

Lets get realistic folks!

Plus I thought swedes were already megalomaniacs by geography ;P

[ March 22, 2004, 21:00: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: The next patch

One thing I'd like to see in the next patch is a 2nd visit to the races screen, after the map is chosen. It shouldn't be too hard to do, and you don't even have to allow any changes on this 2nd visit (open to debate but whatever), but just show us what changes the map selection has made to the race selections. This would vastly simplify the use of user-made maps and scenarios, especially for SP. Good for MP too - maybe you could choose a different race if you really didn't like the map they chose ....

CC

Re: The next patch

What I would love to see is some way of selecting which players you want to send message to. (like to everybody other than Ermor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). It is huge pain in the butt to typ the same long message 15 times, especially since there there are no "copy and paste" function avalable.

It's not only ermor of course, you often have few allies and you oftten want to send them similar messadge. as it is you have to type it again and again, which is vert frustrating and discourages dimplomacy in the game, unless you have unlimited time to retype your Messages.

Also as me and many other players have noticed, currently by the end of every medium and long MP games 99% of gem income comes from not from your provinces , but from stacked hundreds and hundreds of clams and fever fetishes. Many players myslef included think it is not how this game was intended to be played, with all these nice magic gem-producing sites , eetc. IMHO magic shold mostly come from the magical lands you control, not from 500 clams that give you astral to alchemy into everything else (mostly into water to make more clams). It would be great if the cost of clams would be increased to 15 or 20 and their would be moved to con6. That would still make them avalaible to people who really wants but it would make end game much more fun and strategic than current clam hording. Same (although to slighly lesser degree goes for fever fetishes). Btw the desease cost of them is not really a disadvantage, since you can just give two fetishes to the cheapest undeads asiting in your fort and and forget about them, since undeads have no deseases.

Also I wanted to say that despite this the game is really fantastic and obviously work of love for developers, as well as pretty well balanced, I am enjoying it more than any otehr games during Last few years. That's why I am posting this - because I would love to see it a bit more balanced in the area where in my and many other MP players opinions it is still unfortuantly not very balanced.

With best regards,
Stormbinder

Re: The next patch

That's an interesting way of saying you and other people define something a certain way without having them speak for themselves.. I personally think the game is extremely balanced.

It has slight issues, most of which stem from certain nations but "not very balanced" is what I would consider an innaccurate statement.

Re: The next patch

Negative feedback in this case is simply ridiculous...this game is the FIRST game that beat Master of Magic. I didn't expect much when I downloaded the demo, but once I actually started playing and saw the sheer depth and detail of this masterpiece, I realized it was a MoM-killer. This is the end of the fantasy strategy genre...there's nothing else to make now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Zen:
That's an interesting way of saying you and other people define something a certain way without having them speak for themselves.. I personally think the game is extremely balanced.

I am glad that you feel this way. However, I never said I speak for *you* Zen, so your sarcasm is misplaced. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I only said that me and many other players, with whom I've spoken about it, feel this way, and this is true. If you don't like this statement, there is nothing I can do to help it.

Quote:

It has slight issues, most of which stem from certain nations but "not very balanced" is what I would consider an innaccurate statement. [/QB]

Me too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif However this is not what I said. If you read my post carefully, you'll find out that I've said quite opposite, that the game is "well balanced". However it doesn't mean it is perfectly balanced. And the point of my post was to try to bring attention to the particular areas, where I feel there is opportunity for improvement, like messaging system and Clams-hording.

Like I said, I am deeply in love with this game. However it doesn't turn me into "fanboy" who would say that everything is absolutely perfect in the game and there is no need to change or improve anything.

With deep regards,
Stormbinder

[ March 25, 2004, 04:53: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander Seil:
...this game is the FIRST game that beat Master of Magic.

I agree. I didn't expect this to happen in my lifetime, but it is true nevertheless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Quote:

This is the end of the fantasy strategy genre...there's nothing else to make now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [/QB]

Not even Dominions 3? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Also as me and many other players have noticed, currently by the end of every medium and long MP games 99% of gem income comes from not from your provinces , but from stacked hundreds and hundreds of clams and fever fetishes. Many players myslef included think it is not how this game was intended to be played, with all these nice magic gem-producing sites , eetc. IMHO magic shold mostly come from the magical lands you control, not from 500 clams that give you astral to alchemy into everything else

500 clams is 5000 water gems!!! I've never seen, in all my gaming experience, someone abuse those types of items.

[quote]Originally posted by Stormbinder:

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander Seil:
[qb] ...this game is the FIRST game that beat Master of Magic.

I never played MoM, but I never thought it was that great. (hence i never played it)

[ March 25, 2004, 06:10: Message edited by: Argitoth ]

Re: The next patch

I'd give the game more of a chance in "MP" me and people I play "MP" with think "this".

Truth be told, this game is massive. The level of depth requires alot to be known about it to even place a judgement of balance or what any ramifications mean.

Just as the "Clam" debate. Some feel it is overpowered, others do not, you have to take the full impact of what it does. What nations rely on the Clams before a 'hoarding' phase and if they are taken or switched, will they be 'in balance' as they were. Atlantis is a good example of this.

Just because you think something is 'out of balance' doesn't mean it is. And if you are still even learning the game what is your perspective of balance going to be? Someone uses something against you and you can't for some reason defeat it, suddenly it's imbalanced? If that is the criteria of balance then I'd much rather have the developers deciding balance. Just because I feel the developers have a pretty savvy grasp on the balance because they got it to this point doesn't make me any more of a fanboi, it does however stand to reason that if they see it pointed out enough they might have reason to look at it more. Try searching for Clams or SoS for an example.

This is especially true of what I consider a minor 'balance' issue as these.

Also messaging UI is covered by the general feeling of the current Developers willingness to do UI. That is not to say it is/will/willnot happen, but the priority of it and desire for it is probably low.

[ March 25, 2004, 06:32: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Zen:
Also messaging UI is covered by the general feeling of the current Developers willingness to do UI. That is not to say it is/will/willnot happen, but the priority of it and desire for it is probably low.

It's not my top priority but being able to send Messages to multiple people (not all) is something I also would really like to see.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Yossar:
It's not my top priority but being able to send Messages to multiple people (not all) is something I also would really like to see.

I wasn't saying it wasn't a part of the player's desire or priority. I was speaking of Illwinter's desire. I tried to hunt down the thread where JO put it very simply but I haven't been able to find it. Needless to say for those who do not already know, UI is not a favorite thing to program and thus has less importance to IW because it's not enjoyable for them to program. And being as IW doesn't have the resources to make programming their only endeavor, they are much likely to program what they enjoy programming as opposed to what they don't enjoy.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Zen:

Just because you think something is 'out of balance' doesn't mean it is. And if you are still even learning the game what is your perspective of balance going to be? Someone uses something against you and you can't for some reason defeat it, suddenly it's imbalanced? If that is the criteria of balance then I'd much rather have the developers deciding balance.

Quote:

Just as the "Clam" debate. Some feel it is overpowered, others do not, you have to take the full impact of what it does. What nations rely on the Clams before a 'hoarding' phase and if they are taken or switched, will they be 'in balance' as they were. Atlantis is a good example of this.

Sure, some nations are relying on clams more than others, but I've noticed that almost any nation once they get semi-decent water or astral income as soon as they able to start making as much clams as they can, using alchemy if they have too. At least this was the case in all MP games that I've played so far. I am sure you have seen it more than me, so I don't really have to tell you this.

Quote:

Just because I feel the developers have a pretty savvy grasp on the balance because they got it to this point doesn't make me any more of a fanboi, it does however stand to reason that if they see it pointed out enough they might have reason to look at it more.

I agree. That's what I am trying to do here - to politely point out to the issue of massive clam hoarding, which I think is a bit unbalanced as of now, and expalining why I think so. To do something about it or not is of course for the developers to decide, based upon thier own judgement.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Zen:

Just because you think something is 'out of balance' doesn't mean it is. And if you are still even learning the game what is your perspective of balance going to be? Someone uses something against you and you can't for some reason defeat it, suddenly it's imbalanced? If that is the criteria of balance then I'd much rather have the developers deciding balance.

No, it is not my criteria. In fact I am hoarding clams myslef in my current games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I am doing it because I have to do it to stay competitive in the long run in economic/gem race, but I don't like it. My main criteria as I said before is that I feel that the situation when 99% gem income by the end of the game comes from clams is not exactly what develepers had in mind when they designed this game. I may be wrong here of course, since I can't read developers mind, but based upon the fact that they put so much efforts into designing all these nice gem-prodicing sites and mechanism for searching for them, I don't believe that it was intended mostly for the begining and middle of the game, to jump-start mass clam-production.
<hr /></blockquote>How long are your games? Are you playing 4-player games on the World map, or what?

I mean, your initial gem production is 5/turn. Even if it's 5 Water, this means you get to make one Clam every 2 turns, initially. For even, say, 80% of your gem income to be item-produced, assuming your sites produce, say, 10 per turn (rather small), requires 50 gem-producing items. That's 50 turns of using your natural production (assuming it's all of the right types) to turn into items (500 gems), meaning those items will have produced roughly 1200 gems by that time. That's investing your whole production into them, plus 50 turns of a mage, plus (currently) 25 commanders holding the items, which you're not likely to send on the field as random kill-me commanders - which means "lost" upkeep.

Anything faster, means your current return is smaller - because the already-produced items will have produced fewer gems.

If, during those 50 turns, none of your opponents has taken advantage of your sinking gems into slow-return investments, your map is too big. Or maybe your playgroup is too focused on this being the only viable strategy, and isn't otherwise expanding/attacking fast enough.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Cainehill:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by magnate:
One thing I'd like to see in the next patch is a 2nd visit to the races screen, after the map is chosen. It shouldn't be too hard to do, and you don't even have to allow any changes on this 2nd visit (open to debate but whatever), but just show us what changes the map selection has made to the race selections. This would vastly simplify the use of user-made maps and scenarios, especially for SP. Good for MP too - maybe you could choose a different race if you really didn't like the map they chose ....

Quote:

An option on the race selection screen to randomize which non-human-controlled races are in the game would be rather nice also, especially with graphs turned off. Let it be a surprise as you come across the nations in the game.

I guess this could be interesting but at the moment thats a feature of the map controls. I generate maps daily on my site that randomize the AI opponents.

Re: The next patch

Wouldn't it be even easier to simply compile a list of the maps&scenarios along with which nations could play them?

Then you can just consult that during the God creation process. No need for UI changes.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by magnate:
One thing I'd like to see in the next patch is a 2nd visit to the races screen, after the map is chosen. It shouldn't be too hard to do, and you don't even have to allow any changes on this 2nd visit (open to debate but whatever), but just show us what changes the map selection has made to the race selections. This would vastly simplify the use of user-made maps and scenarios, especially for SP. Good for MP too - maybe you could choose a different race if you really didn't like the map they chose ....

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by PhilD:
How long are your games? Are you playing 4-player games on the World map, or what?

It takes about 50 turns to go from a 5 astral income with no water to having 100 clams, assuming that absolutely no other site searching is done. If any site searching is done, then this number quickly drops to 100 clams by about turn 30-40 or sooner. 100 pearls a turn is a game breaker, since all it takes is 10 wishes for "Armageddon" to wipe out 90% of the entire world's population. Then the person with the massive income just needs to wish for gold and food as needed.

They definetly need some other kind of balancing factor, since they and earth blood stones are currently the only long term production item that doesn't have such a balancing factor. Soul contracts and lifelong protections horror mark the wearer so that he will get eaten before it gets too out of hand. Fever fetishes require you to alchemize with a 4 to 1 loss ratio to both nature and death gems to exploit severely, and earth blood stones require blood slaves, which are not available through alchemy. There should probably be _something_ done to the clams as currrently the best use of water gems and water magic is to convert them all to astral.

Re: The next patch

Yes, I agree with the below posters that the biggest imbalance in MP is the low cost of clams. If you raise them to construction 6 and change the cost appropriately they would be much more in balance.

I'm REALLY not one to cry "nerf", but I honestly think that the clams are way out of balance for the power they bring to a player's economy. It is at the point that if you don't horde clams then you can't compete in MP on large maps.

It would be nice to be able to restrict magic items to a specific number per player. Letting each player only use, say 10 clams maximum would help a lot. I'm not aware of anyone bringing up a magic item limit before, but if so what do the devs feel about that? Do they want the game to be decided by whoever hordes the most abusive items?

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by sergex:
Do they want the game to be decided by whoever hordes the most abusive items?

Five bucks to the one who kills the hoarders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Five bucks to the one who kills the hoarders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

That would be a viable strategy except that a player with a large astral income can easily afford to cast and replace the various dome spells. There's not much point in trying even a flames from the sky if it only has a 7% chance of affecting the target province. Murdering winter is even worse, since 3 of the races are completely immune to it, and the other 4 heat races are almost always fairly safe.

Hoarding clams can be countered if you can find your opponent's holders before about turn 20-30. After that your chances of success become vanishingly small.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Hoarding clams can be countered if you can find your opponent's holders before about turn 20-30. After that your chances of success become vanishingly small.

I'm in a large game (Orania, 17 starters) which is approaching turn 70, and down to 5 active human players. One of those players is Graeme, playing R'lyeh. He has an Arcane Nexus and Strands of Arcane Power in play, so it's a fair bet that he's been exploiting clams and that, by his reckoning, he should now be unstoppable.

If he goes on to win despite being at war with the rest of the world, I'll join the throng declaring that this needs to be fixed, soon.

Re: The next patch

Even if he loses in a 4 vs 1 match-up it hardly proves that Clams are fine as they are. If it takes four non-Clam nations to defeat one Clam nation it can hardly be called balanced.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Even if he loses in a 4 vs 1 match-up it hardly proves that Clams are fine as they are. If it takes four non-Clam nations to defeat one Clam nation it can hardly be called balanced.

Sure, but I'm thinking he will probably win, removing any doubt on the matter.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by sergex:
Do they want the game to be decided by whoever hordes the most abusive items?

Five bucks to the one who kills the hoarders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>LOL. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Seriously KristofferO, you guys done terrific job in balancing everything in this game. Can't you please do something about clams? As you can see even in this tread many people feel that clam-haording gets way out of hand in long/medium games. And I would bet that many of those who don't feel this way just haven't meet with thier first addicitve clam-hoarder in MP game, or they would feel different. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Really simple and efective solution would be to raise cost and Con level of the clam, making it 20 water geams con 6, or perhaps 10 water and 5 or 10 nature, con 6 (it is a living thing after all, so nature gems used in construction would make good sense).

Or leave it as it is and like sergex suggested limit it to 10 per player. (it would take a little more coding than the first solution, but it can't be too dificult, right? After all you guys already have mechanisms in place to limit number of some items (Artifacts). Clams and fever fetishes could be named "Lesser Artifact" and have limit 10 or so per player.

So could you tell us what is your position about it? If you strongly feel that Clams are perfect the way they are now and should nbot be changed, than persoanlly I'll just drop this topic and will resign to living with current Version of clams, although I'll almsot certanly switch to short MP or SP Dominion2 games from now on. But at least I would stop kicking this horse if it is dead on arrival. I have no intensions on trolling on this board since I love this game dearly. Like other people here I am just trying to point out that I feel is really spoiling the end game for long/medium MP games. And like other said - I am usually the Last person to cry "nerf!", but I just can't think of anything that would fix it... ;(

[ April 02, 2004, 08:37: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: The next patch

[quote]Originally posted by PhilD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:

Quote:

Originally posted by Zen:
[qb]

How long are your games? Are you playing 4-player games on the World map, or what?

I mean, your initial gem production is 5/turn. Even if it's 5 Water, this means you get to make one Clam every 2 turns, initially. For even, say, 80% of your gem income to be item-produced, assuming your sites produce, say, 10 per turn (rather small), requires 50 gem-producing items. That's 50 turns of using your natural production (assuming it's all of the right types) to turn into items (500 gems), meaning those items will have produced roughly 1200 gems by that time. That's investing your whole production into them, plus 50 turns of a mage, plus (currently) 25 commanders holding the items, which you're not likely to send on the field as random kill-me commanders - which means "lost" upkeep.

Anything faster, means your current return is smaller - because the already-produced items will have produced fewer gems.

If, during those 50 turns, none of your opponents has taken advantage of your sinking gems into slow-return investments, your map is too big. Or maybe your playgroup is too focused on this being the only viable strategy, and isn't otherwise expanding/attacking fast enough. <hr /></blockquote>I am sorry but your math is completely wrong PhilD. Just few most obvious examples:

You keep refering to "initail production of 5 gems per turn". What it has to do with clams hoarding? Obviously you are going to search for avalailable water and astral sites _before_ you are going to start real clam hoarding. At can be done with water2/astral1 mages, for 2 and 3 gems, both easely available. And even few clams will will supply you with all astral gems that you'll need for Astral Probe spell, or for Archaic Records later in the game when you are swiming in astrals from your pearls.

The argument about "high upkeep cost" on commanders hoarding clams is even worse. First of all what prevents you from giving clams to your reseachers, as everybody doing in MP? Or to your bloodhunting scouts/whatever? This way you lose nothing on upkeep. But even if you do have to hire special commanders for it later on, what prevents you from hiring 20 gp scouts and give them 2 clams each? Each scout cost 1.3 gp per turn in upkeep, and it'll supply you with 2 astrals per turn. Clearly 1.3 gp is nothing comparable to 2 astrals every turn, so it shouldn't be even seriously considered when deciding if clams are unbalanced.

And I am not even talking about sites bonuses to forging, or having few dwarven hammers used to produce clams every turn. Yes, hammer is not cheap, being 20 earth gems, but it's a long time investment. By themself Hammers are totally fine and cool itme, but when applied to already severely unbalanced 10water gems clams, making them 7 water gems each...

Sure, there is no quarantee that you'll find site with bonus production, but they are not _that_ rare, and they means the return of investent on _all_ your calms is 8 turns now instead of 10, since obviously you are going produce all your clams only on that site now for 8 water gems each. And that's even without Dwarven hammers.

More arguments could be writen, but I think that should be enough.

[ April 02, 2004, 08:25: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: The next patch

IMHO you have not been at all convincing that Clams are broken.

You argument is essentially flawed, in that it assumes that the alternative to massive investment in clams is to do nothing with your water gems and forging mages, and that researching something other than Construction 4 early on has no value.

The true alternative is to use your income aggresively, and seize income and gem sources from your opponents. This gains you income immediately, and deprives them of it as well.

Needing 10 turns to recoup just your initial investment is pretty steep, and if you count oppurtunity cost IMHO it takes more like 15 turns before you begin to see returns. In games I've played half the players are typically out of the running by turn 30... I'd rather use my gems to try to stay in the surviving half, rather than invest them and pray I survive to the end game.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
IMHO you have not been at all convincing that Clams are broken.

You argument is essentially flawed, in that it assumes that the alternative to massive investment in clams is to do nothing with your water gems and forging mages, and that researching something other than Construction 4 early on has no value.

The true alternative is to use your income aggresively, and seize income and gem sources from your opponents. This gains you income immediately, and deprives them of it as well.

Needing 10 turns to recoup just your initial investment is pretty steep, and if you count oppurtunity cost IMHO it takes more like 15 turns before you begin to see returns. In games I've played half the players are typically out of the running by turn 30... I'd rather use my gems to try to stay in the surviving half, rather than invest them and pray I survive to the end game.

If you have read my Posts carefully you must have noticed that I was refering to medium/long games- I've said it several times. Obviously clams are not an issue if the game is finished or almost fininshed by turn 30 or so.

That also means that you have no high-level spells, no high level summons in your games, et cetera. There is nothing wrong with such games if it fits your playstyle, it's just entirely different type of game from the ones than me and Graeme, Sergex, Zapmaeser and others were refering to.

What I don't understand is this - why some people are so opposed to it? If clam hoarding is not an issue according to them, than it shouldn't matter to them much if requirements for the clams would raise a little? One of the person (no names here, but he haven't posted on this thread yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) who is a great player and whom I highly respect as a Dom2 opponent was strongly opposed increasing cost or reqs for Clams - and that despite the fact that he is notorious clam hoarder. (actually more likely not "despite" but "because" )

Now I am not suggesting that everybody who is against Clam-changes is the secret addicted clam hoarder. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif That would be way too much and I am not a conspiracy freak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But I know from experience that at least some of the most vocal ones are in fact using massive clam-haarding strategy again and again to great success, and they are objecting to any changes to Clams so strongly excactly because it would kill their favorite "I-Won" tactic.

[ April 02, 2004, 08:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
It takes about 50 turns to go from a 5 astral income with no water to having 100 clams, assuming that absolutely no other site searching is done.

No, it does not.... It takes 69 rounds http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif In 50 rounds you reach a mere 40 clams according to my astal calculator http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif (or 87 if you assume a 25% forge bonus).

The greatest limitations on astral clam abuse remain the need for sufficient water 2 mages and not using your gems for other purposes.

Personally, I think the other players have failed in a major way if one nation is able to survive without using a significant fraction of its gems each round but perhaps that is just me.

Anyhow, I must certainly agree with Graeme Dice that it is potentially abusive in a major way in long term games. Just look at this output from the astral calculator using a 25% forge bonus and a base income of 5 astral and nothing else whatsoever, if you are in doubt:

[Actually, there is a bug in the following, as it only costs 14 astral per clam due to the water price being rounded to 7 rather than 7.5 per clam]

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Astral Calculator
Calculating Astral Clam abuse based on 5 base astal income and a
25 forge bonus (15 astral per clam) wasting 0 percent of surplus per turn

0: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 5 --> Produced 0 clams
1: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 10 --> Produced 0 clams
2: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 15 --> Produced 1 clams
3: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 5 --> Produced 0 clams
4: Clams= 1 Income= 6 Waste= 0 Store= 11 --> Produced 0 clams
5: Clams= 1 Income= 6 Waste= 0 Store= 17 --> Produced 1 clams
6: Clams= 1 Income= 6 Waste= 0 Store= 8 --> Produced 0 clams
7: Clams= 2 Income= 7 Waste= 0 Store= 15 --> Produced 1 clams
8: Clams= 2 Income= 7 Waste= 0 Store= 7 --> Produced 0 clams
9: Clams= 3 Income= 8 Waste= 0 Store= 15 --> Produced 1 clams
10: Clams= 3 Income= 8 Waste= 0 Store= 8 --> Produced 0 clams
11: Clams= 4 Income= 9 Waste= 0 Store= 17 --> Produced 1 clams
12: Clams= 4 Income= 9 Waste= 0 Store= 11 --> Produced 0 clams
13: Clams= 5 Income= 10 Waste= 0 Store= 21 --> Produced 1 clams
14: Clams= 5 Income= 10 Waste= 0 Store= 16 --> Produced 1 clams
15: Clams= 6 Income= 11 Waste= 0 Store= 12 --> Produced 0 clams
16: Clams= 7 Income= 12 Waste= 0 Store= 24 --> Produced 1 clams
17: Clams= 7 Income= 12 Waste= 0 Store= 21 --> Produced 1 clams
18: Clams= 8 Income= 13 Waste= 0 Store= 19 --> Produced 1 clams
19: Clams= 9 Income= 14 Waste= 0 Store= 18 --> Produced 1 clams
20: Clams= 10 Income= 15 Waste= 0 Store= 18 --> Produced 1 clams
21: Clams= 11 Income= 16 Waste= 0 Store= 19 --> Produced 1 clams
22: Clams= 12 Income= 17 Waste= 0 Store= 21 --> Produced 1 clams
23: Clams= 13 Income= 18 Waste= 0 Store= 24 --> Produced 1 clams
24: Clams= 14 Income= 19 Waste= 0 Store= 28 --> Produced 1 clams
25: Clams= 15 Income= 20 Waste= 0 Store= 33 --> Produced 2 clams
26: Clams= 16 Income= 21 Waste= 0 Store= 24 --> Produced 1 clams
27: Clams= 18 Income= 23 Waste= 0 Store= 32 --> Produced 2 clams
28: Clams= 19 Income= 24 Waste= 0 Store= 26 --> Produced 1 clams
29: Clams= 21 Income= 26 Waste= 0 Store= 37 --> Produced 2 clams
30: Clams= 22 Income= 27 Waste= 0 Store= 34 --> Produced 2 clams
31: Clams= 24 Income= 29 Waste= 0 Store= 33 --> Produced 2 clams
32: Clams= 26 Income= 31 Waste= 0 Store= 34 --> Produced 2 clams
33: Clams= 28 Income= 33 Waste= 0 Store= 37 --> Produced 2 clams
34: Clams= 30 Income= 35 Waste= 0 Store= 42 --> Produced 2 clams
35: Clams= 32 Income= 37 Waste= 0 Store= 49 --> Produced 3 clams
36: Clams= 34 Income= 39 Waste= 0 Store= 43 --> Produced 2 clams
37: Clams= 37 Income= 42 Waste= 0 Store= 55 --> Produced 3 clams
38: Clams= 39 Income= 44 Waste= 0 Store= 54 --> Produced 3 clams
39: Clams= 42 Income= 47 Waste= 0 Store= 56 --> Produced 3 clams
40: Clams= 45 Income= 50 Waste= 0 Store= 61 --> Produced 4 clams
41: Clams= 48 Income= 53 Waste= 0 Store= 54 --> Produced 3 clams
42: Clams= 52 Income= 57 Waste= 0 Store= 66 --> Produced 4 clams
43: Clams= 55 Income= 60 Waste= 0 Store= 66 --> Produced 4 clams
44: Clams= 59 Income= 64 Waste= 0 Store= 70 --> Produced 4 clams
45: Clams= 63 Income= 68 Waste= 0 Store= 78 --> Produced 5 clams
46: Clams= 67 Income= 72 Waste= 0 Store= 75 --> Produced 5 clams
47: Clams= 72 Income= 77 Waste= 0 Store= 77 --> Produced 5 clams
48: Clams= 77 Income= 82 Waste= 0 Store= 84 --> Produced 5 clams
49: Clams= 82 Income= 87 Waste= 0 Store= 96 --> Produced 6 clams
50: Clams= 87 Income= 92 Waste= 0 Store= 98 --> Produced 6 clams
51: Clams= 93 Income= 98 Waste= 0 Store= 106 --> Produced 7 clams
52: Clams= 99 Income= 104 Waste= 0 Store= 105 --> Produced 7 clams
53: Clams= 106 Income= 111 Waste= 0 Store= 111 --> Produced 7 clams
54: Clams= 113 Income= 118 Waste= 0 Store= 124 --> Produced 8 clams
55: Clams= 120 Income= 125 Waste= 0 Store= 129 --> Produced 8 clams
56: Clams= 128 Income= 133 Waste= 0 Store= 142 --> Produced 9 clams
57: Clams= 136 Income= 141 Waste= 0 Store= 148 --> Produced 9 clams
58: Clams= 145 Income= 150 Waste= 0 Store= 163 --> Produced 10 clams
59: Clams= 154 Income= 159 Waste= 0 Store= 172 --> Produced 11 clams
60: Clams= 164 Income= 169 Waste= 0 Store= 176 --> Produced 11 clams
61: Clams= 175 Income= 180 Waste= 0 Store= 191 --> Produced 12 clams
62: Clams= 186 Income= 191 Waste= 0 Store= 202 --> Produced 13 clams
63: Clams= 198 Income= 203 Waste= 0 Store= 210 --> Produced 14 clams
64: Clams= 211 Income= 216 Waste= 0 Store= 216 --> Produced 14 clams
65: Clams= 225 Income= 230 Waste= 0 Store= 236 --> Produced 15 clams
66: Clams= 239 Income= 244 Waste= 0 Store= 255 --> Produced 17 clams
67: Clams= 254 Income= 259 Waste= 0 Store= 259 --> Produced 17 clams
68: Clams= 271 Income= 276 Waste= 0 Store= 280 --> Produced 18 clams
69: Clams= 288 Income= 293 Waste= 0 Store= 303 --> Produced 20 clams
70: Clams= 306 Income= 311 Waste= 0 Store= 314 --> Produced 20 clams
71: Clams= 326 Income= 331 Waste= 0 Store= 345 --> Produced 23 clams
72: Clams= 346 Income= 351 Waste= 0 Store= 351 --> Produced 23 clams
73: Clams= 369 Income= 374 Waste= 0 Store= 380 --> Produced 25 clams
74: Clams= 392 Income= 397 Waste= 0 Store= 402 --> Produced 26 clams
75: Clams= 417 Income= 422 Waste= 0 Store= 434 --> Produced 28 clams
76: Clams= 443 Income= 448 Waste= 0 Store= 462 --> Produced 30 clams
77: Clams= 471 Income= 476 Waste= 0 Store= 488 --> Produced 32 clams
78: Clams= 501 Income= 506 Waste= 0 Store= 514 --> Produced 34 clams
79: Clams= 533 Income= 538 Waste= 0 Store= 542 --> Produced 36 clams
80: Clams= 567 Income= 572 Waste= 0 Store= 574 --> Produced 38 clams
81: Clams= 603 Income= 608 Waste= 0 Store= 612 --> Produced 40 clams
82: Clams= 641 Income= 646 Waste= 0 Store= 658 --> Produced 43 clams
83: Clams= 681 Income= 686 Waste= 0 Store= 699 --> Produced 46 clams
84: Clams= 724 Income= 729 Waste= 0 Store= 738 --> Produced 49 clams
85: Clams= 770 Income= 775 Waste= 0 Store= 778 --> Produced 51 clams
86: Clams= 819 Income= 824 Waste= 0 Store= 837 --> Produced 55 clams
87: Clams= 870 Income= 875 Waste= 0 Store= 887 --> Produced 59 clams
88: Clams= 925 Income= 930 Waste= 0 Store= 932 --> Produced 62 clams
89: Clams= 984 Income= 989 Waste= 0 Store= 991 --> Produced 66 clams
90: Clams=1046 Income=1051 Waste= 0 Store=1052 --> Produced 70 clams
91: Clams=1112 Income=1117 Waste= 0 Store=1119 --> Produced 74 clams
92: Clams=1182 Income=1187 Waste= 0 Store=1196 --> Produced 79 clams
93: Clams=1256 Income=1261 Waste= 0 Store=1272 --> Produced 84 clams
94: Clams=1335 Income=1340 Waste= 0 Store=1352 --> Produced 90 clams
95: Clams=1419 Income=1424 Waste= 0 Store=1426 --> Produced 95 clams
96: Clams=1509 Income=1514 Waste= 0 Store=1515 --> Produced 101 clams
97: Clams=1604 Income=1609 Waste= 0 Store=1609 --> Produced 107 clams
98: Clams=1705 Income=1710 Waste= 0 Store=1714 --> Produced 114 clams
99: Clams=1812 Income=1817 Waste= 0 Store=1821 --> Produced 121 clams
100: Clams=1926 Income=1931 Waste= 0 Store=1937 --> Produced 129 clams</pre><hr /></blockquote>That was scary! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Let us make it less so. Assuming that 50% of all astral gems stored above those needed to make a single clam are "wasted" on other types of magic and that no Dwarven hammers whatsoever are made (utopian, but let us assume it for a moment), we get (still based on only the starting income and nothing else)

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Astral Calculator
Calculating Astral Clam abuse based on 5 base astal income and a
0 forge bonus (20 astral per clam) wasting 50 percent of surplus per turn

0: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 5 --> Produced 0 clams
1: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 10 --> Produced 0 clams
2: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 15 --> Produced 0 clams
3: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 20 --> Produced 1 clams
4: Clams= 0 Income= 5 Waste= 0 Store= 5 --> Produced 0 clams
5: Clams= 1 Income= 6 Waste= 0 Store= 11 --> Produced 0 clams
6: Clams= 1 Income= 6 Waste= 0 Store= 17 --> Produced 0 clams
7: Clams= 1 Income= 6 Waste= 1 Store= 22 --> Produced 1 clams
8: Clams= 1 Income= 6 Waste= 0 Store= 8 --> Produced 0 clams
9: Clams= 2 Income= 7 Waste= 0 Store= 15 --> Produced 0 clams
10: Clams= 2 Income= 7 Waste= 1 Store= 21 --> Produced 1 clams
11: Clams= 2 Income= 7 Waste= 0 Store= 8 --> Produced 0 clams
12: Clams= 3 Income= 8 Waste= 0 Store= 16 --> Produced 0 clams
13: Clams= 3 Income= 8 Waste= 2 Store= 22 --> Produced 1 clams
14: Clams= 3 Income= 8 Waste= 0 Store= 10 --> Produced 0 clams
15: Clams= 4 Income= 9 Waste= 0 Store= 19 --> Produced 0 clams
16: Clams= 4 Income= 9 Waste= 4 Store= 24 --> Produced 1 clams
17: Clams= 4 Income= 9 Waste= 0 Store= 13 --> Produced 0 clams
18: Clams= 5 Income= 10 Waste= 1 Store= 22 --> Produced 1 clams
19: Clams= 5 Income= 10 Waste= 0 Store= 12 --> Produced 0 clams
20: Clams= 6 Income= 11 Waste= 1 Store= 22 --> Produced 1 clams
21: Clams= 6 Income= 11 Waste= 0 Store= 13 --> Produced 0 clams
22: Clams= 7 Income= 12 Waste= 2 Store= 23 --> Produced 1 clams
23: Clams= 7 Income= 12 Waste= 0 Store= 15 --> Produced 0 clams
24: Clams= 8 Income= 13 Waste= 4 Store= 24 --> Produced 1 clams
25: Clams= 8 Income= 13 Waste= 0 Store= 17 --> Produced 0 clams
26: Clams= 9 Income= 14 Waste= 5 Store= 26 --> Produced 1 clams
27: Clams= 9 Income= 14 Waste= 0 Store= 20 --> Produced 1 clams
28: Clams= 10 Income= 15 Waste= 0 Store= 15 --> Produced 0 clams
29: Clams= 11 Income= 16 Waste= 5 Store= 26 --> Produced 1 clams
30: Clams= 11 Income= 16 Waste= 1 Store= 21 --> Produced 1 clams
31: Clams= 12 Income= 17 Waste= 0 Store= 18 --> Produced 0 clams
32: Clams= 13 Income= 18 Waste= 8 Store= 28 --> Produced 1 clams
33: Clams= 13 Income= 18 Waste= 3 Store= 23 --> Produced 1 clams
34: Clams= 14 Income= 19 Waste= 1 Store= 21 --> Produced 1 clams
35: Clams= 15 Income= 20 Waste= 0 Store= 21 --> Produced 1 clams
36: Clams= 16 Income= 21 Waste= 1 Store= 21 --> Produced 1 clams
37: Clams= 17 Income= 22 Waste= 1 Store= 22 --> Produced 1 clams
38: Clams= 18 Income= 23 Waste= 2 Store= 23 --> Produced 1 clams
39: Clams= 19 Income= 24 Waste= 3 Store= 24 --> Produced 1 clams
40: Clams= 20 Income= 25 Waste= 4 Store= 25 --> Produced 1 clams
41: Clams= 21 Income= 26 Waste= 5 Store= 26 --> Produced 1 clams
42: Clams= 22 Income= 27 Waste= 6 Store= 27 --> Produced 1 clams
43: Clams= 23 Income= 28 Waste= 7 Store= 28 --> Produced 1 clams
44: Clams= 24 Income= 29 Waste= 8 Store= 29 --> Produced 1 clams
45: Clams= 25 Income= 30 Waste= 9 Store= 30 --> Produced 1 clams
46: Clams= 26 Income= 31 Waste= 10 Store= 31 --> Produced 1 clams
47: Clams= 27 Income= 32 Waste= 11 Store= 32 --> Produced 1 clams
48: Clams= 28 Income= 33 Waste= 12 Store= 33 --> Produced 1 clams
49: Clams= 29 Income= 34 Waste= 13 Store= 34 --> Produced 1 clams
50: Clams= 30 Income= 35 Waste= 14 Store= 35 --> Produced 1 clams
51: Clams= 31 Income= 36 Waste= 15 Store= 36 --> Produced 1 clams
52: Clams= 32 Income= 37 Waste= 16 Store= 37 --> Produced 1 clams
53: Clams= 33 Income= 38 Waste= 17 Store= 38 --> Produced 1 clams
54: Clams= 34 Income= 39 Waste= 18 Store= 39 --> Produced 1 clams
55: Clams= 35 Income= 40 Waste= 19 Store= 40 --> Produced 2 clams
56: Clams= 36 Income= 41 Waste= 10 Store= 31 --> Produced 1 clams
57: Clams= 38 Income= 43 Waste= 17 Store= 37 --> Produced 1 clams
58: Clams= 39 Income= 44 Waste= 20 Store= 41 --> Produced 2 clams
59: Clams= 40 Income= 45 Waste= 13 Store= 33 --> Produced 1 clams
60: Clams= 42 Income= 47 Waste= 20 Store= 40 --> Produced 2 clams
61: Clams= 43 Income= 48 Waste= 14 Store= 34 --> Produced 1 clams
62: Clams= 45 Income= 50 Waste= 22 Store= 42 --> Produced 2 clams
63: Clams= 46 Income= 51 Waste= 16 Store= 37 --> Produced 1 clams
64: Clams= 48 Income= 53 Waste= 25 Store= 45 --> Produced 2 clams
65: Clams= 49 Income= 54 Waste= 19 Store= 40 --> Produced 2 clams
66: Clams= 51 Income= 56 Waste= 18 Store= 38 --> Produced 1 clams
67: Clams= 53 Income= 58 Waste= 28 Store= 48 --> Produced 2 clams
68: Clams= 54 Income= 59 Waste= 23 Store= 44 --> Produced 2 clams
69: Clams= 56 Income= 61 Waste= 22 Store= 43 --> Produced 2 clams
70: Clams= 58 Income= 63 Waste= 23 Store= 43 --> Produced 2 clams
71: Clams= 60 Income= 65 Waste= 24 Store= 44 --> Produced 2 clams
72: Clams= 62 Income= 67 Waste= 25 Store= 46 --> Produced 2 clams
73: Clams= 64 Income= 69 Waste= 27 Store= 48 --> Produced 2 clams
74: Clams= 66 Income= 71 Waste= 29 Store= 50 --> Produced 2 clams
75: Clams= 68 Income= 73 Waste= 31 Store= 52 --> Produced 2 clams
76: Clams= 70 Income= 75 Waste= 33 Store= 54 --> Produced 2 clams
77: Clams= 72 Income= 77 Waste= 35 Store= 56 --> Produced 2 clams
78: Clams= 74 Income= 79 Waste= 37 Store= 58 --> Produced 2 clams
79: Clams= 76 Income= 81 Waste= 39 Store= 60 --> Produced 3 clams
80: Clams= 78 Income= 83 Waste= 31 Store= 52 --> Produced 2 clams
81: Clams= 81 Income= 86 Waste= 39 Store= 59 --> Produced 2 clams
82: Clams= 83 Income= 88 Waste= 43 Store= 64 --> Produced 3 clams
83: Clams= 85 Income= 90 Waste= 37 Store= 57 --> Produced 2 clams
84: Clams= 88 Income= 93 Waste= 45 Store= 65 --> Produced 3 clams
85: Clams= 90 Income= 95 Waste= 40 Store= 60 --> Produced 3 clams
86: Clams= 93 Income= 98 Waste= 39 Store= 59 --> Produced 2 clams
87: Clams= 96 Income= 101 Waste= 50 Store= 70 --> Produced 3 clams
88: Clams= 98 Income= 103 Waste= 46 Store= 67 --> Produced 3 clams
89: Clams= 101 Income= 106 Waste= 46 Store= 67 --> Produced 3 clams
90: Clams= 104 Income= 109 Waste= 48 Store= 68 --> Produced 3 clams
91: Clams= 107 Income= 112 Waste= 50 Store= 70 --> Produced 3 clams
92: Clams= 110 Income= 115 Waste= 52 Store= 73 --> Produced 3 clams
93: Clams= 113 Income= 118 Waste= 55 Store= 76 --> Produced 3 clams
94: Clams= 116 Income= 121 Waste= 58 Store= 79 --> Produced 3 clams
95: Clams= 119 Income= 124 Waste= 61 Store= 82 --> Produced 4 clams
96: Clams= 122 Income= 127 Waste= 54 Store= 75 --> Produced 3 clams
97: Clams= 126 Income= 131 Waste= 63 Store= 83 --> Produced 4 clams
98: Clams= 129 Income= 134 Waste= 58 Store= 79 --> Produced 3 clams
99: Clams= 133 Income= 138 Waste= 68 Store= 89 --> Produced 4 clams
100: Clams= 136 Income= 141 Waste= 65 Store= 85 --> Produced 4 clams</pre><hr /></blockquote>As far as I am concerned, that just means that nations with easy access to both water and astral magic must be hammered frequently to force them to use their astral for other things than astral abuse - for the numbers are potentially scary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ April 02, 2004, 10:50: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
It takes about 50 turns to go from a 5 astral income with no water to having 100 clams, assuming that absolutely no other site searching is done.

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cainehill:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by magnate:
One thing I'd like to see in the next patch is a 2nd visit to the races screen, after the map is chosen. It shouldn't be too hard to do, and you don't even have to allow any changes on this 2nd visit (open to debate but whatever), but just show us what changes the map selection has made to the race selections. This would vastly simplify the use of user-made maps and scenarios, especially for SP. Good for MP too - maybe you could choose a different race if you really didn't like the map they chose ....

Another good alternative to this, and easier to program, would be to have map selection come -before- race selection. That way you know how many provinces, how much water, whether there are a recommended number of races, restrictions on which races/nations that are played, etc.
<hr /></blockquote>I really cant see this. I tend to create a new game with more of an idea of what nation I want to play than with what map I want to play on. To choose from ALL the maps and then find out that my nation isnt a choice seems less desireable than to choose the nation then find out that all the maps are not available.

Its not that hard anyway to just hit ESC and back up to make a change the way it is now.

Quote:

An option on the race selection screen to randomize which non-human-controlled races are in the game would be rather nice also, especially with graphs turned off. Let it be a surprise as you come across the nations in the game.

I guess this could be interesting but at the moment thats a feature of the map controls. I generate maps daily on my site that randomize the AI opponents. <hr /></blockquote>Cainehill - thanks for that - I suggested it a while ago, before I found this thread (which has been totally dominated by a single issue), but I changed my suggestion in order to appease those, like Gandalf, who want to choose their race first. This way it's minimal change to the status quo.

Gandalf - you seem a little dismissive of the alternative view. It *IS* painful to Esc back up to the races screen, check/change all the selections and then reselect the map. It's tedious and, if the map has specific settings which override your choices, frustrating. Having a second visit to the races screen after choosing the map would simply and precisely alleviate this problem. It would cost you one single extra click on "Ok".

At the moment there is no alternative but to know quite a lot about the map you want to play before you choose the races (ie. how much water, etc.). It would make the game more user-friendly if you could browse the maps before *finalising* the race selections. I don't mind a trip to the races screen first as well.

CC

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Wendigo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 20: Clams= 10 Income= 15 Waste= 0 Store= 18 --> Produced 1 clams

I am with Jasper. I am far from impressed by the above numbers, and those are a 'best possible' scenario for an astral power: Construction research for clam forging + 1 dwarven hammer already forged available both from turn3, which is basically impossible.
<hr /></blockquote>Well, that is going too far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Remember that THAT projection was based on ONLY using a starting income of 5 gems without using any gems gained through finding water or astral sites - which is a quite unlikely scenario; it just happens to be a scenario that is easy to calculate the results of. In other words, it was not the "best possible" scenario, it was the "best possible using only the gem income from your own capital" - which is a very different matter.

Anyone who goes for a dedicated clam of pearls strategy is very likely to get better than 5 astral and 0 water/round from ordinary sources within a dozen rounds or so, which kickstarts the process. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ April 02, 2004, 14:36: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

Re: The next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Wendigo:
Even if it was, forfeiting the gem income from 20 turns (100 gems!) to get a +10 gem income is far from impressive. On standard settings I am pretty sure I could get a better income with half the investment by just casting a few search spells.

Who says you won't cast search spells? You must remember that water magic is essentially useless other than for quickness, so it's not a particularly big loss to convert all your water gems to astral ones. It does only take about 35 turns to get to 100 clams once you have a decent income in other gems, as that's exactly what I've done with R'Lyeh.

Quote:

Even so, it's disputable that a clam strategy would be a better investment than an early casting of Voice of Tiamat on every sea: Sacrifice 10 gems for a 1 gem income, or 8 gems for a 2+ income?

No reason you can't do both. But once you've searched all your water provinces, there's no reason not to make clams.