Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Are sages necessary for competitive MP play? Am I completely screwed if I do not get access to a Library (or LoreMasters, etc.)?
Please state your viewpoint along with detailed reasons in a reply! The poll is merely there to provide a summary.

Let us assume a standard game setting (~10 provinces per player, 40% magic sites, etc.) as a base for discussion.

Why I ask and what I want from you:
I have an impression that access to sages is required for any chance to victory for most nations. Sure, a lot of luck is required to win an MP-game, but must things can be influenced by the player (i.e. willingly choosing between luck and misfortune influences the chances of a razed lab/temple in your captial; one is able to choose whether to send a non-immortal magic-skilled pretender into battle or not, etc). However, I cannot influence the chances of having a library right next door to my captial, especially in non-gigantic maps... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif This is bad in my view!

So I am wondering about other people's opinion on the impact of sages. I once asked about a mod to reduce the research bonus of sages by 2 points (Post#309766), but what puzzles me is that no one else seems to care at all, so I am looking for reasons why the existence of sages is balanced if not everybody can get them with a 40% magic site frequency or even lower. (I think a 50% magic sites ensures that there will be Library nearby for everybody.) What are reasons to use the mod? What are reasons against using it? Does research difficulty and map size influence the necessity of sages?

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

There will be sages somewhere. I will find them. I will make them mine.
Until then, I'll do okay with my nationals.
If some part of this plan doesn't work out, maybe I won't win.
Point is, there are lots of sites that give a huge bonus to their holder. The provinces in which they are located are important. This is a good thing - one of the ways Dominions is more interesting than checkers.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Ok, I should state my reason here as well: I think that one is screwed in MP without access to sages:

• I can't recall a successful game of mine that went along without masses of sages...admittingly not a good reason!
• Sages are not only efficient in research, they are pretty fast too: Compare Sages to Ctis Shaman for an example
  <font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
  Shaman (RP 4, cost 110 gold, upkeep 3,66 (sacred))
  Sage (RP 7, cost 80 gold, upkeep 5,33)
  </pre><hr />
  The Shaman is not only already a little less efficient than the Sage in terms of research per gold, it is slower as well: A single cheap lab allows me to produce a sage per month. Whereas two castles, two labs and two temples are needed to produce two shamen, which will yield a similar research. This is already a lot of time and money! For other nations, similar examples can be given. (I think the shaman is a good example since I assume that it was meant to be a good researcher.)
• Not all nations are (and should be) equally good at research. However, sages are available to all, which thus is a bigger advantage for nations which are bad at research in general.

I thus think that Sages are just better in all respects. I would like it much more, if sages would only yield 3RP as usual and would cost mere 30GP, i.e. 2gold upkeep. Thus they would still be more efficient in the long run, but would not also be as speedy as they are now.

I don't know it, but things that are better in all respects are no-brainers, no? And no-brainers are bad, yes?

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Hey, nice post Chazar!

I will give you some of my reasons, even though I am not voting in this poll. (I think you will need 4-6 questions with more choices to do it right, sorry.)

1. Sages are important to a number of nations in MP: certainly.
2. This fact is not entirely "bad" in the big view: It really makes it important when choosing scales.
3. Libraries are 0-level sites, so spies can find them quickly in provinces you havent captured and, of course, for those you do capture. When I play a nation with spies and which I feel benefits greatly from sages, I send them out looking asap.
4. I do not think high magic site frequency is the answer, nor nerfing the sage. I will probably never play another MP game with more than 40 or at the most 45% site frequency; I prefer 30ish or maybe lower. This gives equally bad chances to everyone.
5. *IF* you are indicating (and it is not clear what you mean) that *EACH* nation needs to find sages or they are screwed, then keeping MF low could help, OR there may just not be a problem at all. *IF* however you mean that only *SOME* nations will be screwed if they do not find sages (because these really need them), then I think that this may be a good feature: Nations which "need" sages may have other advantages that those other nations do not have.
So....
6. In general, I disagree with the very global statement "I am already screwed...", since
a.) if no-one finds them, I am not less screwed than they
b.) I may not need them -- in fact, I try not to rely on them when building my nation. (So yes, I choose bizarre builds sometimes.)
c.) In general, I do not find sages to be *that* much more game-winning than finding other really nice sites fairly early on (lots of gold, big gem sites, or bonus-to-cast sites).

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

PS. I see you posted in the meantime.

You have a new argument.
Yes: No-brainers are bad.
A sage is not, however, always a no-brainer, although getting about 5-6 sages asap is almost always good. Sages are better at research than any national mage, period (although I am not sure about the Philosopher); that is their raison d'etre. But they can't do much of anything else. Having them boosts your research very quickly, if you have the money for the lab and for recruiting them. But they are certainly not no-brainers over other commanders; I have never played a game where I stop making my own commanders because I find sages.
Still, if everybody thinks that he who finds sages in MP will likely beat others, then I would prefer that their RP bonus be reduced from 4 to 3.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I agree completely! A poll needs a lot of questions and answers, but it is difficult to anticipate all possible opinions. Therefore I am only interested in the reasons, as you have posted yours! Thanks! I am interested in considerations about the topic. My small poll shall only give a rough overview for someone who may find this post later on: if the results would be 5 against 50, there would be no need to read the whole thread, since the topic would not be controversial, but merely a singular misguided perception of mine...

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

PS: It might help to be aware of the Dom2 Research Calculator by (?webpage does not name its inventor?)! With most settings, sages are among the top (except for Philosophers)!

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

It seems like its a gamble to rely on being able to get sages. Some people will choose &amp; design their nation based on finding them, some won't.

You do have a good point that if you find a library that you can protect, it is very rare that you wouldn't use them.

Anyways, I think you can mod away the 'sage factor' if you like...

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

They are really unbalanced. It's painfully clear. Most nations who do not find them for one reason or another have horrible research. Those that do find them have good research.

You can somewhat insulate yourself from the horror of not finding mages by taking magic-3 scale and playing one of the nations who has decent base researchers ( woe to he who plays Abysia, Nieflehem, or Ulm and does not find Sages). If you find one or two of these sites early in the game you can rest assured that all other things being equal you will do pretty well in the game. If you have not found any by turn 30 well you had better be kicking *** in some other phase of the game.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

A Theurg has 6 RP and costs 150 Gold , because he is sacred he costs slightly lower upkeep then a sage .
The nice thing is that a Theurg can be used in early-midgame as a quite good combat mage also and in lategame as a "fodder"mage .

A Seraph costs 100 Gold and gives at least 5 RP , so an almost as good researcher then the sage but also a very nice combat mage too .
Finally there is the generally more useful non-capitol only seithkona also .

All in all most nations really benefit from sages though and only for the 3 above mentioned Nations sages won't bring a big extra advantage , though you probably still build 1-2 sages even with these nations if you can afford .

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I voted no. Sages are certainly nice, but in no way a requirement for victory.

I play Vanheim, and it is arguably one of the nations that needs a bit of help with research. But I also play with magic 3, and on that setting, sages are not much better than quite a few other indies, for example, shamans or amazon priestesses. There comes a time, often as early as turn 20, where I start building mages for their combat value, rather than their research ability.

And, as an aside, I cannot recall a game in which I found no decent indy researchers. In my current game, I had found two sage provinces by turn ten, and on turn 15, I took a onyx amazon province from my first opponent. Two turns later, I stopped building sages - I thought I needed the amazons and my national mages more.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Gold/RP calculator gives these results (Magic 1, 50 turns):

1 Arcoscephale - (Golden Era) Philosopher 0.65
2 Man - Daughter of Avalon 0.75
3 Independents - Sage 0.80
4&amp;5 Tien Chi - Master of the Dead 0.85
6 Mictlan - Mictlan Priest 0.91
7 Pythium (Serpent Cult) - Serpent Acolyte 0.91
6-10 Other independents - Conjurer 0.91, Garnet Priestess 0.94, Jade Priestess 0.94
11-13 Various Tien Chi themes - Master of the Way´0.94
14-15 independents - Witch 0.94, Lore Master 0.95
16 Jotunheim - Vaetti Hag 1.01
17 Pangea (Carrion Woods) - Black Dryad 1.02
18 Abysia (Blood of Humans) - Newt 1.02
19 Pythium (base) Theurg Acolyte 1.02
20 Ctis/Indep - Shaman 1.03

From this, it seems that sages are one of the best researchers, but that there are lots of other options. However, the fact that nations/themes with the best researchers are often not played in competitive games seems to show that people rely they can find Sages or almost as good independents.

Going only 10 turns introduces lots of other independents and some more national troops, including Harab Seraph, Initiate of the Deep and Seithkona. However, many of the national researchers from the top 20 of 50 turns remain in the list, and the very top doesn't change much. Sage is still great.


Without playing games but looking at these numbers, I would say yes. Nations that can research fast/economically aren't played as often as they should if the magic really rules the game, and sage is in the very top both in short and long time invervals (?).

So, I hope that is good enough explanation for why someone without MP experience voted on this. You should really add "I don't play MP but am interested in the result" for those like us that don't play multiåplayer... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I'm with thinktank on this. Sages are good, but you're not "already screwed", except by that very outlook.

Sages are not fundamentally better than other good provinces of many other types. Sages help research a lot, but they can be made up for in other ways.

Sage provinces can be taken from enemies, or fought over by multiple enemies who think they are super-important to have. They can also be hit by Fires From Afar, assassins, etc.

PvK

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I dont think sages are terribly unbalanced. But that said, I also like Chazar's suggestion to drop them proportionally from 4 to 3rp (and associated gold). It would allow them to keep thier place in the game but also more accurately reflect the differences in research abilities of the various nations.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Good idea.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I believe sages are terribly unbalanced. They are FAR too cheap for the massive research bonus they give you. In fact, they allow some of the poor researching (but powerful) races/themes to go 0 magic or drain and take a chance on finding a library or two. If they take this chance and don't actually find a library, then there is always the next game! So what, it's just a loss!!! This really takes away from the inherent advantages of themes like GE Arco, TC (all), Man (base), non-Neifelheim Jontunheim (?), and SC Pythium (only a slight advantage over base though). Without sages, these races/themes become much more attractive than they currently are.

Obviously, the other approach is to take Magic 3 for a poor researching nation like Yvelina with her Vanheim. It seems obvious to me that she does not want to take a chance on being required to find a sage (by using zero magic or a drain scale) to be competitive. I say this ought to be the only proper way to respond to taking a strong nation with poor researching mages. Why should sages save a player from making that tough choice like the game is typically played these days?

Were sages properly priced, like maybe 150 gold, then this would serve to greater reward the themes that give you cheap researchers. More game balance for the races, in my opinion. More options for selecting the lesser used themes. Better all around for the game.

Furthermore, without cheap sages, you would find people actually building the artifacts that enhance research. I had to do this in my C'tis Miasmi game because the sages would not live in my dominion. But why bother building those things when you are relying on the woefully underpriced sages to produce the brunt of your research for you?

Just my opinion, of course.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I wouldn't include Ulm there. Sages in drain 3 are only slightly more effective researchers than master smith's.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Aye. On the other hand, it might be helpful for the random magic, if we're talking base earth/fire Ulm. Death and Astral in particular are decent for bootstrapping since the divination spells only require one level and the first boosting items take two.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Very nice discussion! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif I now think that sages are a huge advantage, but not in a life-and-death sense (I guess I just exaggerated a bit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ).

I also realize that their gold/research ratio is indeed ok, but it is really their quick availability which bugs me. (Because I am convinced now that Lore Masters are ok.) Having them earlier will allow a nation to jump ahead way too quickly...especially in small-map games...since they can be built so quick!

However, changing them to a total 3 RP and 30 gold cost as I proposed earlier might be a bad idea either: the magic scale would then have a much larger impact on sages (drain3 rendering them usesless while magic 3 doubles their effectivity). I cannot decide whether this is good or a bad...??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif (Opinions?)
(I do not know if it is possible to make them drain immune, but I guess this would be too much of a boost either...)
(Maybe 4RP/50GP could be a compromise, but might be too similar to Philosophers.)

---

Another option which came to my mind could be leaving their research bonus and cold cost alone, but adding a resource cost of, say, 40 points. It might not be too thematic (you really need a lot of wood in order to produce all those thick books such a nasty sage uses up, you know... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ), but it might serve its purpose: Without a proper fortress, one could only produce a sage every other turn. Building a fortress would then snatch away resources from somewhere else, so it is a decision that one has to think about it (unlike now, where capturing a library means building a lab immediately! Miasmas excluded...).

Does this make any sense to anybody else? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Why would you consider to take part or not in a game with one of the above depicted mods in place?

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Why do you want to limit the options in the game? If someone wants to take a chance, that should be an ok option. Just like other players won't take that chance. Everyone gets to play their own way...

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Taking that chance pays off way too often. T'ien Ch'i has great researchers, but while using them is an option they are not needed because sages are available and easier to build (only lab, no frot/temple).

I think nerfing sages would take away one option (drain/zero-magic relying on Sages to research) and make lots of others resonable choices.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Once you include an Owl Quill (+3) and the +1 exp bonus you get after 10 turns or 2 battles, sages are not so advantageous.

Sage, 1 star, owl quill: 11 rp @ 90g
Generic 1-magic mage, 1 star, owl quill: 7 rp @ 60g

That comes to .55 rp/gold/turn versus .57 rp/gold/turn, which is trivial. I always give my researchers quills unless I have no access to air. Really, one of the big plusses of sages is that you get a random pick for only 90 gold, which is great for opening up new possibilities.

Edit: I can see sages going up to 100g or even 110g, just because they are such a nice combo of a research bonus and a cheap random pick. However, I think the game plays out fine without changing them at all. If I had a choice between a sage province versus a druid province versus and amazon province versus a bloodhenge druid province... it would probably be a toss-up.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Oops, double post...

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Hey, Saber Cherry is back! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Only some nations have that cheap mages. The thing is, the cheap mages should be a bonus, not something almost as useful as sages in their specialty and often less useful because their paths are covered by stronger mages.

Maybe sages are too useful with true random and research bonus 4? Would they still be as useful with Astral 1, res. bonus 3? Would any other path suit them better, so that they cannot be used as a magic duel fodder against Tien Chi/Marignon, or communion slaves?

some editing...

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Just wanted to make a few comments.

First, Sages are obviously one of the most efficient researchers in the game. As others have pointed out, the only better (as in, more efficient) researchers (generally) are the Daughter of Avalon and the Philosopher. These are both capital-only commanders for a specific theme. Thus, you could argue that the Sage is the most efficient commonly-available (with exactly how available subject to change) researcher in the game. The fact that it is available on a random basis tends to make me believe it is too powerful.

The other point I would like to make is that there is no price increase for a commander being sacred. If he has priestly powers, he is charged for them, but not for simply being sacred. I found this out when I calculated the projected cost/actual cost ratio of all the mages in the game.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Question for all: At what cost would you have to think twice about building sages in the first 40 turns of a game?

Like perhaps:
80 gold - Of course, build them by the boatloads!
110 gold - Probably build several when the gold starts coming in, for the research gets so much harder to make it to the higher and higher levels.
140 gold - Build a few because all you need is the lab to boost your research, but much prefer other choices.
170 gold - Never build one.

Any opinions?

They are still useful for the one random pick regardless of the research bonus. It is especially nice to get a blood sage when you are not a blood nation.

One other thing is that the other neutral mages sure seem FAR less common than sages. I would guess libraries have a higher probability to appear than other type sites.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Interesting last post (earlier ones as well, but particulary the last one).

Not less common, but library is not hidden. That makes a huge difference I believe. Hiding it would give astral nations a great advantage though.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

For me, it's not so much the gold cost as the research and the gold I have available. To answer that question 'properly', I'd have to say, 'If I were Ulm, A; if I were Pythium, B; etc.'. That doesn't really help.

One way you could answer that question is to look and see how much 7 RPs costs, by the tabulation method given by Illwinter. That comes to 5 magic picks. 5 magic picks costs at least 110g (30+20+10+10+10 for the magic, 30 for the commander). (Yes, the Master of the 5 Elements is horribly overpriced, by this method.) A more reasonable 2/2/1 split comes in around 200g, IIRC.

Of course, those Mages are much more useful than Sages in a non-research role, so you couldn't cost him that high.

OTOH, you have the indisputable fact that you can recruit them at a lab-only province (no Fort needed) in their favor. In here you would also have to weigh the fact that they're not tying down your capital's commander production.

On balance, I'd have to say... 130g, probably. That puts in on about an even keel with most independent mages (site or non-site), while also charging something closer to the price of a mage that can research that high and do better magic.

Now, this means that the Wizard and Loremaster would have to have a commensurate raising in their price. But that is only fair.

Anyway, I hope that this answers your question.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

What about eliminating the Magic Level from the Sage, and give them strictly the research component? You wouldn't build 40-50 of them because once everything you want is researched they would be useless.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

In this event, I probably still would pay for them, because it gets me my spells quicker, and I can always dismiss/kill them to avoid their upkeep when I'm through using them.

Bottom line, if I have money I can spend to get a researcher, I'm going to use it, given any reasonable amount. More research is more research.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Hey, I like the no-magic Sage! That fits them as it fits Philosophers! In fact, their description could be changed so that they follow in the path showed by the ancient Philosophers of the Golden Era of humankind, when rationality ruled... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Nobody commented on my suggestion about just giving them 40 points resource cost so that they require a fort to be built each and every turn?! Is that too far off?

---

I do not see the problem with the random pick: It is incredibly useful for sure (allowing non-blood-nations to go bloody; making 1-path items in abundance, etc. --- BTW, which nations lack a native random pick?), but it just never felt wrong to me. However, as they are right now, I think I would still pay the 110 gold without much doubt, but I might stop producing them after the first dozen...rasing merely their gold cost would still allow to built up research at an amazing speed...

---

I also think that the Philosopher should remain a unique boon to Golden Era and not something everybody has good chance to have access to...

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Chazar: Giving the Sages 40 reource cost would be a little at odds with the rest of the game. Reource cost on uniits reflect their equipment, heavy armor high resource cost. So while giving Sages a high resource cost might make them somewhat scarcer it would be inconsistent with the other units. So unless you deck out the Sages in some enormously heavy armour or you start to assign resource cost to all mages, perhaps lab flasks etc takes resources that competes with weapon making resources, I do no think it is a particularily good idea.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Panther is right imo .
I can't think of a situation in which i don't build 1-2 sages a turn if i can no matter which nation i play .

Research is just so important and the sage and the loremaster are the two best researchers .

In my last machaka game with vh research i found 1 loremaster and 2 Sage sites and recruited 2 sages + 1 loremaster each turn and then had researched all important stuff for me on about turn 60 with VH research .
If i would have wanted i could have even researched everything on turn 60 in that game but i had other priorities , especially forging with forge up occasionally in this game .

Sages are a no-brainer atm http://www.si-games.com/forumshttp:/...s/wallbash.gif

But in Dominions 3 with the new feature age sages are probably already 80+ years old and die after around 30 turns so they are not anymore a nobrainer there i guess http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Hmm, how do you get all those 80+ year old sages if 12 turns are a year? So the conclusions is that a library burns out after a certain number of sages have been recruited, right? Now that would also limit the sages... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Edit: Clarification: The library runs out of recruitable sages because there are only people below 60 in the province left. Since 12 turns are a year, the population wouldnt age fast enough to produce further 80 year old sages anymore...I am joking!!!

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Well, I am pretty aware of that (see my post in this thread below/above), but I cannot think of any other reason why this would be a bad idea. I think this is similar to Kristoffer O's argument in the discussion about province size. So it's merely a task of coming up with a sound explanation if the game mechanics work out fine...

What I really want, similiar to what I said with a twinkling eye a post ago about the aged sages, is that one could only recruit one sage every other turn, or maybe only one sage per season.

Maybe there are even more troops that can only recruited in a certain season anyway (some sacred units can only be recruited at a certain festival point - equinox, solstice, moon position,etc.)

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

You get them because they start at the age of e.g. 78 years when you recruit them ... .
Once they are then e.g. 80 years old ( = 24 Gameturns ) they have each turn a 5 or 10% probability to die of old age http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Another idea a bit off topic but concerning slightly unfair stuff would be that AQs and other powerful creatures serve you for 10 turns when you summon them but after that in order to keep them serving you they demand resources .
AQs would e.g. be free for the first 10 turns , demand 2 Airgems per turn for the next 10 turns of service , then 5 Airgems for the following 10 turns of service etc. .
And they would keep the equipment .
Would also make the Uniquesummoning more interesting because you can try every 10 turns out of the blue a summoning and get maybe a fully equipped AQ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.
If the AQ gets killed you get only an empty AQ though .

What do you think ?

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Just to be clear, I don't think there is any reason to nerf sages. That said, they're basically lazy academics who want to sit around in library lounge sofas all day. They're probably old and frail, and have a lifetime of resentment from being picked last for the sports teams in school.

...so, to be "nice and thematic", give them 6 HP, 15 base encumbrance, 2 AP, and a new weapon, "Feeble Slap" (-4 damage, -2 defense, -2 attack). And make them a little confused in chaotic situations - randomly swap the order of their spell scripts for combat. And last but not least, since forging smacks of "real work", give them a -50 forge bonus=)

0 strat moves might be interesting, too.

"Sir, Ermor is invading! Their ghoul hordes will eat you alive! We have to leave now!"

"Ehhh... what's that you say, sonny? Don't play soldier in the library, you hear? Now let me finish this book."

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Sages should be priced in the 100-120gp range. At that gold cost it will no longer be a *complete* no brainer to take them. They would be on par with the lowest level mage available to a lot of nations, which prompts the question: Do I want a pure researcher? Or should I recruit a mage who can research some, but also be deployed for combat should the need arise?

Certainly at that cost most nations will still buy many sages. And thats fine - the Library was placed in the game to be a research booster. But 100-120gp will make for some diversity of choice in play. In addition, they will have the desirable effect of making high magic nations more alluring without completely crippling the tactic of playing a magic-poor nation and gambling that you will find libraries.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I voted, of course, no. Some of my reasons:

1. Sages are only marginally better, as researchers, than many other indies.
2. Sages are rather common and available to everyone.
3. Sages are rather underwhelming in combat.
4. Sages are quite vulnerable to pretty much anything.

Sages of course have their good points - they are useful for death and astral
searches, low level item forging and blood hunting. And of course, they can
provide a nice early boost in research.

But do sages decide games? Hell no. I save all my turns. Here is what sages
did in my last three big games (more than four people)

Game number I (Pythium)
I built a total of 14 sages, between turns 15 and 22. I was rolling for blood.
Theurgs are close to sages for research, and make awesome combat mages in mid
game... as well as in late game, if you can build enough slave matrices.

Early sage provinces - turn 7 and turn 12.

Game number II (C'tis)
No sages. Shamans are better researchers, and they are more useful in combat.
They do not get sick in miasma, either, but that was not an issue, I had
Gift of Health running most of the game.

Early sage provinces - turn 8.

Game number III (Abysia)

Here is one game in which I was glad to have found sages. The game is only on
turn 56 right now, but I can say that I have about two dozens sages, and that
they do not account for even half of my research. I have not built any for
about 20 turns, because I prefer recruiting fighters as opposed to bookworms.

Would I have been dead in the water without sages? Absolutely not. On turn 8
I found a lizard province. By turn 20, I had found mages that give me 6 RPs and
cost only 60 golds to recruit. I also have a druid province. Had I needed to,
and had my neighbors left me the time, I could have also taken a blood druid
province or an amazon one.

Dominions II is full of options, but it is very shortsighted to think that any
strategy is a game winner/breaker. Yes, you will lose if you neglect casters,
castles, research, mobility, hoarding, supercombatants, diplomacy... but neither
of these will garantee you a win. And yes, you will also lose if the RNG takes
a dislike to you. If your temple and lab burn on turn 2, you prophet gets nailed
by a random event assassin, and your pretender gets decay'd by an indy, you are
toast. Not finding any independant mages is a drag, but it can happen. As for
having a pretender design that requires sages, sorry, but that's your problem.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

Interesting post, Truidy, and food for thought. It just so happens that I have recently played those same three races in MP and behaved nearly exactly like you did:

1. Pythium. This is one of the races that simply does not need any sages. I think I built maybe 10 sages in my game by turn 40, mainly for the random pick. Normal research meant a zero need of sages for me.
2. C'tis Miasmi. I never built a sage. They die to disease and I always would rather have another shaman instead of a dying sage. This was set on hard research, but I still didn't need any sages to be the third nation to finish all research (Pythium was first, Caelum second to complete).
3. Abysia - I built sages by the boatloads from two libraries. I must have built 80 of them, probably more. I quit building them for a while, lost some to fires from afar, and then started building some more. But this game was very hard research and I really, really wanted to get to ghost riders after getting the blood 9 research done plus my needed construction and evocation research. The cheapest Abysian capitol-only national mage was much too busy with blood hunting to waste time on mundane tasks like studying.

Also, there is 4: Atlantis. I have built maybe 20 sages (turn 68) and only because of the very hard research setting. Otherwise, my 60 gold amphibous acolytes work just fine, thank you very much. Capitol only is a drag for the acolytes, though.

One thing is for sure, the need for sages is strongly dependent on your race and theme selection as well as the hardness of the research setting. The real problem with sages is that it evens out the research ability of the various nations and they take away the sting of hard or very hard research.

The drawback to nerfing sages is that it would just make the strongest race even stronger. Pythium is already too powerful as is and does not need any help by hurting the other races through limited sages.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

@Tuidjy &amp; The Panther:What were the map sizes and magic site frequency in the examples cited?

I really doubt that for lower magic site frequency (&lt;= 40%) on smaller maps (50-120 provinces with 5-10 players)!

In my last game as C'tis Miasma on Inland map with 7 players, I built shamen with highest priority, but had no chance to compete in research and got swarmed by summons. Well, admittingly my fault was that I realized to late to go for construction and lightless laterns, but at least that gave me the feeling to catch up a bit... And, I have to admit that as well, the shamen where quite some fun on the battlefield as my nation got steam-rolled... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

---

Well, I am not on a crusade to nerf the sages! I just feel that there is something wrong with them under the settings I depicted above - and I am still wondering how to fix this problem with a mod for myself, for I am not aware of any way to fix them that would make me really happier about them right now! I am thus contemplating some ideas here to mod sages, and ask whether people would think that those are fair. After all a mod is only useful if I can convince my fellow players to accept it...

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I've replied no to the poll. Before the poll I haven't even realized that sages are that important. While being efficient researchers, sages are not particularly good at other tasks. And in general research capability is somewhat overestimated. I often could research something nice, but I wouldn't have enough gems yet to benefit from it. For example, here's a bunch of my past games:
1) Jotunheim Iron Woods - no sages (didn't find them until very late, and then there was no point buying them). Instead I've found adepts of gold and iron order - that's nice for Jotuns - won. Key to success was early successful conquest.
2) Jotunheim Utgard - no sages (didn't find any). The only indies I've found were azure mages and shadow seers - about the last thing Utgard needs. Game crashed when I was one of the top contenders and in a good position to win. Key to success - diplomacy and finding Mount Chaining.
3) Pangaea default - no sages, until late (something like turn 50). I've bought some sages (because my research was still really low at that time), so they've been useful. I've passed that game to another person who has proceed to win (that other person was Norfleet though). Key to success - success in early wars resulting in a large empire plus diplomacy. Sages were somewhat helpful.
4) Caelum. Found sages, bought several (for random picks, rather than for research - I didn't have other indies with randoms). Won - the game was with very hard research and tough indies and that's very much to Caelum's advantage. Key to success - choice of nation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
5) Caelum. Found sages (turn 20-25), bought very few of them for random picks, but few turns later I've found enchantress and stopped buying sages. Won. Key to success - successful early war, found enchantment+30 site, found Shamen and Druids early.
6) C'tis. Found sages early, bought plenty of them (around 2 dozens I think). The game crashed when I was in good position to win. Key to success - found crystal mages, sages and many good site in the early game.
7) Pangaea (default). No sages. The game crashed when I was in a good position for alliance win. Key to success - successful early conquest.
8) Pythium (default). No sages. Was top contender when the game stopped. Key to success - nation choice.
9) Machaka. No sages. Allied win. Key to success - early conquest.
10) Jotunheim Iron Woods. No sages. Win. Key to success - early conquest.
11) Pangaea (default). No sages. Win. Key to success - early conquest.

I've listed here the games I won or where I was in a good position to win when the game stopped (omitting those I've lost, where sometimes I had sages and sometimes I didn't, but the reason for the loss were various)

Only once sages has played really big role, in few other cases they only played a minor role. In half of the cases, I didn't use them.

The most important (though not necessary) key to success seems to be an early conquest. Doubling the size of your empire (including gold and gem income) really negates research benefits of sages, because you have twice the gold you can spend on mages. Finding some good sites (like Mount Chaining) can also turn the game. For many nations, finding indies with missing paths (like for Jotuns finding adepts of golden/iron orders) is much more beneficial than finding sages. So in my book, finding sages is a good event, but it's not the game decider. Starting position (which includes who are your neighbours) and finding great sites and indies fitting to your nation is more important.

Of course, my statistics come from a certain play style. I don't take drain scale, my usual magic scale is +1 to +3. I haven't played all nations equally and all my wins were with strong nations, sages or not, Ulm or TC is hard to win with.

Nevertheless, my point is that you can have strategy that won't crumble if you don't find sages and win with it.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

It was 50% magic sites in all four of my games cited above. The first two games were on a crowded Karan, a smallish map in which sages are not overly important because libraries are harder to find for everybody.

My Abysia game was on Cradle, and I had 83 provinces (more than twice the number anyone else had) when the game crashed. My need for sages in that game was extreme because of the very hard research setting. Plus Abysia is one of the races that most benefits from sages, as the cheap capitol-only mage has much more to do than research.

My Atlantis game is on the huge Faerun map. That map is so big that sages are not a big deal. I simply found a library and started recruiting a sage every turn with my infinite gold income just because I felt like it and I wanted Niefel Flames (very hard research setting). That game is using the scale mods where growth was changed to 0.5%, which is definitely too much. Using growth 3, my income is now gigantic (5K per turn). I have about 50 provinces and am in second place, I believe, though so many people have quit or gone AI that the game is mostly busted now.

But had I not found those two libraries in my Abysia game, I would definitely not have been leading the game when it crashed. The sages allowed me to get both Blood 9 and Conjuration 9 far earlier than would have otherwise been achievable on the very hard research setting.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

That's a silly thing to say. One could just as easily argue, say, fire nations have a great advantage because of, like, the High Temple of the Magii.

But even so, you could just make it less common but still level 0.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

No he's quite correct. If it was hidden and you needed ( for example ) astral-1 to find it then sage sites would be a huge advantage to astral nations.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

I have finally discovered exactly why libraries seem much too common. Other then the copper/gold/silver/iron mines, there is exactly ONE site which is:
1. Level 0
2. Common
3. Available in ANY terrain

Yep - the Library.

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

How did you check this ? What about the Arena e.g. ?

Re: Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!
 

The Arena is, I believe, not available in all terrains (water provinces, swamps and the like), while the Library is available virtually anywhere (I haven't seen one in a swamp yet, but I seldom bother with swamps to begin with).