|
Casting first in defence + endgame spells
After having seen some battles like the castle storming I posted here :
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...o=&fpart=1 My conclusion is : I'd like a game mechanic to be created, making impossible to use any *instant* offensive spell affecting the whole battlefield in round one (like Master Enslave, Rain of Stones, Earthquakes, Bone Grinding, Arcane Domination, Undead Mastery, Unraveling, etc...) so the attacker has one round to cast army buffs (defender would still be able to use these spells first in round two, so the defensive advantage would not be reduced too much). * Continuous effects (like wrathfull skies, fire storm, astral tempest, etc) are not concerned, as well as even large AE spells if they have limited range -a well positioned force can always reduce their effects- Using mages AI it may be easy to implement (if a -10000000 value can be given to these spells during round one only, so they are overwritten if scripted) and I think it would make endgame battles far more interesting (real battles instead of round one victories for the defender if he has good mages and a sufficient number of gems for them -and even if attacker engage far more mages, unable to protect their army/themselves in round one they are worthless-) Your thoughts ? |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Twan, I watched those battles. Wouldn't the attacker have actually come out better if they had also scripted Undead Mastery? In your game, you as the defended would have taken control of Ermor's hordes only to lose them when he as the attacker "re-took" them over.
In that case, going 2nd would be an advantage it seems since the defenders gems and fatigue would be spent with little to show. Playing that out could lead to some cat and mouse psychology - perhaps the defender waits a round to let the Attacker go first, then casts theirs as a counter... |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
You can cast Undead Mastery and next mage can cast Antimagic to affect your new troops.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
I've done that. My opponent got mighty angry afterwards. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Even if Ermor had scripted such a spell, it wouldn't have been a sufficient counter as between my undead mastery and his action I had cast antimagic (+4 MR is an huge difference meaning he would have only re-enslaved one third or so of the undeads).
Also to cast a spell his mages had to be alive after my turn (actually only one or two of his human mages survived the rain of stones and attacks by the enslaved troops, when I saved all mine with fog warriors, mass protection and will of the fates -and I just used one rain of stones, when I could have cast several earthquakes too in first round-). Of course he may have cast with tartarians, summoned mages (ethearals or with numerous hp) or given armor to all his mages. But the cost to protect all mages (or use a sufficient number of summoned ones) is so huge it's not really an option. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Ahh..forgot about the Anti-Magic buff. That would make a huge difference.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
I think I agree with Twan. It's pretty annoying.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
I like the way it is. By the end game, human mages are useful only on the
defense. What's wrong with this? The defender must have an advantage. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
If you're so concerned about a defending force, use armor on some mages to soften them up. Use rituals to soften them up. Use assassins to soften them up. Use items that spread disease and damage their supplies to soften them up.
An enemy that's holed up is very little threat to you besides the rituals they can cast. Take a page from The Art Of War: meet strength with weakness. Meet weakness with strength. Flow around the enemy's strongpoints. You don't HAVE to attack an enemy at the height of their power. Be creative! |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
But system like that makes VP games really not fun. You can stack many domes, put a fort and laugh at every invading army.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Domes are currently not working as intended, if I've read the shortlist correctly.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Domes of the same type stack.
End-game though is really broken in dominions. It would probably need a huge rework as a whole. With many spells, summons and mechanics. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Heh. I was the attacker in question, and I'm still rather annoyed about the whole thing. (Not at Twan, note. At this particular mechanic.) I basically wasted untold hours of complicated end-game turns, because evicting Twan was so incredibly, unbelievably unlikely that I might as well have gone AI shortly after he took the island. Even destroying the rest of his territories would have taken so long that by the time I was done he would have had his nigh-impenetrable defenses up on the central island...
It all came down to the defender casting first. To answer some of the points brought up: spells cannot get past domes. Assassins and disease-spreaders cannot get past patrollers. Multiple attackers do not work against a castle. There was essentially no reasonable method, at all, of evicting him. Period. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Mm. I'm curious about several points, the primary of which is why the defender should have an advantage in battles. From a military perpective, the defender is generally seen to have a tactical advantage but an operational disadvantage. My concern is to how well this RL 'norm' translates into Dominions. If it is indeed true that the operational-level advantage normally held by the attacker is the case with Dominions, then retaining the defender tactical advantage sounds reasonable.
However, if the operational-level advantage is not realized, then I think that the defender's advantage should be mitigated. Note that I do not refer here to a specific situation (like the above points to). I refer to more general issues with the game. One way to 'fix' this would be to implement an initiative system. Each 'unit' (commander or block of soldiers) gets a move. How hard would this be to implement? |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Domes are not working as intended, because they're not supposed to make an impenetrable wall of magic defense. They're not supposed to stack.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Domes of different types are supposed to stack, the bug was being able to stack several domes of the same kind (what I've not done in this game, but my province was anyway protected by up to 4 different domes).
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
4 domes is not effective cover in the endgame tho, when your opponent can amass an array of gem-poor spells to toss at them until they fail. If its really true that domes of the same type can stack tho, thats a pretty huge bug. You should *definitely* not be able to do that - its way too big of an advantage.
As for the defenders advantage - I dont see it as a problem. I mean you guys are listing a way, way endgame case for the failure of a mechanic. But the truth is that it works fine for the other 90% of the game. I think that if the dome issue were resolved that the defender issue would cease to be a problem since you could pound any stationary force to dust with artillery and assassination spells. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Voice of Apsu as dome breaker is bug too.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Huh, I love me some rain of stones, and it's one of the few ways to keep astral magic on the battlefield from being even more absurd in the late game (Astral mages tend to be fairly squishy...astrologers and the like). Having 30 mages spamming soul slay and enslave mind with a light of the northern star up is pretty absurd to have to deal with if they're all lucky, misted and army of whatever'd, especially if you don't have any national astral (magic duel anyone?). I really really really like that the attacker has to be careful with their squishies.
As has been previously pointed out in this thread, if you're assaulting someone at their strongest point you're DOING SOMETHING WRONG. Force them to come out of their hole. If you're playing a VP game recognize that sometimes the game is effectively over before the last VP is capped. If you're running a race and someone's 5 feet from the goal and you're a mile back you don't get to complain that it's nearly impossible to catch him, even though the race isn't technically over yet. I love elegant solutions to problems though, and I'm not really one for the "stack my army til it's bigger than his army and let them pound each other" school of thought. I'd much prefer to lure in an enemy, decimate their mages and then have my way with their ground forces. That's strategy, not just having a bigger stick. This might be why I hate games once they get past the phase of having all the research done...armies get too big and the solution devolves into having one that's even bigger. Not my style. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Quote:
The problem is "endgame" mostly because most of these spells and counters are rather high level, but the rare cases where a nation can pull a round one casting destructive script in midgame (ie : chained earthquakes to kill your mages with body ethearal to protect his own) are as problematic IMO. ps : I'm not saying mages shouldn't be able to destroy entire armies. Simply if the opponent know what you will use and have mages able to cast the counter spells, a good script should allow him to survive, and it's not the case actually. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
This might be why I hate games once they get past the phase of having all the research done...armies get too big and the solution devolves into having one that's even bigger. Not my style.
--> this is like totally not so.. end game small forces can kill big armies and it's about how you use what you have. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Twan, the problem in your particular game was not the dominions endgame but the victory conditions of your MP game.
It was essentially, owning 1 VP for so many turns I believe. So once a nation was strong enough to get it, castle it then it was effectively game over. As the defending player could put everything he had into defending it for the limited number of turns you had to defend it. Culmative VP's are not a good idea, I speak from previous experience. Multiple VP's would have stretched your forces more thinly and given the attacker/s more chance. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Putting everything has nothing to do with it.
To cast master Enslave (without losing communion slaves) you need 6 mages (one casting LoNS, 4 slaves, master with S5 and matrix). To cast Undead Mastery you need the D7 guy summoning your tartarians. You need one more S mage for antimagic. To cast Rain of Stones you need one rare indie mage (adept of metal order) or one tartarian titan with their most common paths, or any E3 mage empowered A1. To cast something protecting your mages against rain of stones you need one E4 (army of...) or one A4 mage (fog warriors). To block ennemies in castle gates you need 20 or so heavy infantry or living statues, and a storm to make fliers useless (staff on one commander or cast by a mage). Total : the fight would have been exactly similar with just the 10-12 mages with the needed paths + say 30 hoplites. It's far to be "putting everything" a nation has in endgame (the only difficulty is gathering mages with the good paths). I remember games where I could have defended half my forts with that at the same time. My additionnal mages have only dammaged my own troops (one casting wrathfull skies on my non-shock resistant army), and my SCs never reached the ennemies. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Micah already said most of what I wanted to say but I'll add that I don't think the counter to these spells is to give attacking armies a free pass (a chance to buff before the defender's spells take effect) but to use a different force to attack (in fact, I'd say these spells are the counter to large armies/squads of mages and are working as intended). The decision of whether to attack and with what forces is just as much a part of the strategy as unit placement and scripting. Just as a solo SC may be met with an SC-killing squad so might an army be met with these spells. I don't see any reason why they should be guaranteed a chance to buff. It's like saying you have one tool and you want apply it to all situations as opposed to using something better suited to the job.
It is also worth noting that the changes you propose would have different effects on the direct damage spells vs. the MR resist spells. I think army of gold will reduce the effectiveness of rain of stones or earthquake to a greater degree than antimagic will the death/astral spells, especially since you can increase your penetration through boosters or adding mages to the communion. As Micah noted the net result might be to make astral nations even more powerful. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Instead of butting your head against a strongpoint, outmanoeuver them. If someone sits on a province and defends it, then take other provinces. They can hardly flourish without gems, income, and so on.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Yeah I concur with Micah and Valerius. The defender does get the advantage by attacking first but this by no means makes them invincible - you just have to use a different army configuration.
Agema: in the listed example, outmanuerving was not an option since the fort was protecting a key VP. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
I think some people get really offended that the late game is dependent on magic, and I can't really sympathize.
If Rain of Stones kills your human mages, then you should have armored them. If your armies get taken by Master Enslave, then you should have sent in high MR troops like thugs or SCs. Basically, the endgame is a wild place. Mere force of arms is a losing tactic. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Strawman.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Quote:
I've critiqued the core of your position, which is not the same. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
K... See post #602646. What you've said has already been suggested, and the answer already is here. You're 1 page late.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
It's a straw man because I critic an (insanely big in my opinion) advantage given to the defender and you answer like if it was a critic of the power of magic in endgame in general.
With an initiative system making round one casting not so absolutely reliable for the defender I would have nothing against extremely powerful battlefield offensive instant effect. I just think these spells are not good for the game due to the actual initiative system. I also know there are some champions of theoryminion here, who have counters for anything in thought, I even seen theories countering the Mist of Deception + BE combo, so I tend to prefer to consider real games experiences to things supposed to work (or even "working" if you forget to compare the costs, like forging armors for 60 mages to counter a 1 gem rain of stones) . I'm totally fine with about 90% of the (endgame or not) spells and game mechanics, except they are not actually balanced against offensive battlewide instant (cast by a defender in round one). Why bothering to cast niefel flames, shimmering fields etc... or use mass elemental resist spells if the ultimate defensive tactic is to kill attackers in round one with chained mundane dammages or to enslave them ? What's the point of all expensive continuous dammage BE like fire storm, wrathfull skies, etc, and all mass +/- fatigue spells, if instants should decide the outcome of big battles in round one and allow to destroy/enslave everything but a bunch of SCs ? Why the placement and script system if no matter how the attacker position his troops/mages all is decided by spells touching them everywhere before they have done anything ; and no matter how the defender use this tool too, the only way to destroy him is with rituals ? What's the point of havink 1K+ different units in this game, if all become useless except a dozen of SC chassis and mages-in-defense-only ? Now I must admit I'm a little biased because I like to watch the replays before looking at the result, and see interesting battles with some suspense and brillant tactics involving thought for the two sides, in both army position and 5 full rounds of scripting, rather than being sure that I've won when I see that my ennemy attacked a defended province, or seing wars decided in a text saying a lucky spell has gone through a dome, without even something to watch. And in my opinion, allowing one round of buffing, if not the perfect solution (= a good individual initiative system with only small defensive advantage, and/or the most powerful spells needing several rounds to be cast), would allow to see as interesting battles in endgame as they already are in midgame, with more varied combos involving all kinds of elemental dammages / resists, fatigue management, importance of troops, mages and SCs placement, eventual ping pong control of low MR units via astral spells, etc... Nothing reducing the power of magic, but making massive endgame battles the pinnacle of the game they should IMO be. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
The problem with this defensive advantage only occurs if you can't outmaneuver strongly defended provinces. Which means it's mostly a VP game problem. Can such a situation reasonably happen in late game for a provinces victory for instance?
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
On a map with choke points (like most), or everytime you know where the ennemy will attack, a big yes.
People tend to see these tactics as only possible with static forces but it's ignoring mages have not to start the turn in the province (nor end it there). If I know your big army is going to one of my provinces I can teleport 7 S mages, enslave half your troops before you can do anything, and use a vortex of returning to bring my mages and slaves back to my capitol lab if I want. As well the fog warriors / rain of stones combo involve air mages probably able to cloud trapeze where you are going to attack. And, as moves to friendly provinces occur before ennemy moves (another big advantage for the defender), even mages not able to use a movement ritual, can with flying boots be sent to any friendly province in a 3 provinces radius where they will cast first in defence, except if you attack in magic phase. There is one turn of vulnerability against assassination rituals if you send mages to a non domed province (only if you have not used vortex of returning because you wanted to keep that province), but if your rain of stones killed 50 ennemy casters, or your enslavers took control of half ennemy soldiers, who destroyed the other half, it's usually worth the eventual sacrifice of the 6 or 7 needed mages. ps : of course some provinces victory conditions may mean the game never reach endgame, or someone can win just fighting indies or sending small forces to a lot of provinces at the same time, making mass spells not worth the effort, but I think this kind of game is an exception more than common rule |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Quote:
For example, you complain that armoring your mages is a huge cost.... I don't see it as that. Sixty mages is a giant force which it is unlikely that you are bringing to a battle, but if you were it is 300 gems for amror for them all (180 if you use hammers, which is the same cost as three or four summoned mages). Armor will actually prevent a ton or AoE and battlefield spells, but also arrows, flyers on attack rear, and a host of other ills. You are also ignoring the fact that your opponent has spent more than 1 gem for Rain of Stones. He has either expensive summoned mages who can survive several Rains of Stones(like Air Empowered Troll Kings), or he's armored all his mages(spending the same amount of gems as you should have), or he's one the few nations who can do this specific tactic (Vanheim). Whatever the reason, your enemy has invested heavily in this one tactic and it is proper that they should profit from it. On the same note, an enemy who can cast Master Enslave on round 1 has either invested in a powerful Astral pretender or Crystal Matrixes and Slave Matrixes for all his communioned mages. And all of those considerations still are still small considering that you could have attacked with an SC or thug army (which is the only real way to fight masses of mages). All of these factors are part of the late game and the way that magic and gem expenditure take a greater importance and recruitable troops become simple chaff. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
I agree with K. Late game is very, very complex. But as the number of factors to take into account multiplies so does your resources - if you lead a good mid game. I say use to resources to actually kit out your army, it helps - alot.
|
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
You don't need slave matrixes to cast in round one in a communion, just one crystal matrix for the master, and him to be after his slaves (but of course to efficiently enslave, he probably need penetration gear).
And defender can protect all his mages and troops against rain of stones for 3 or 4 gems (army of gold or fog warriors), he don't have to make armors for each. Then I agree SCs/thugs are the only thing usable to take a province against teams of mages able to cast endgame spells (no need of an army of mages, as explained above 10-12 are sufficient to cast all the spells in the example). But considering the defender can use some SCs too, and has no problem to have his normal troops surviving first round, you really need a thug *army*. |
Re: Casting first in defence + endgame spells
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.