Do people underuse mages?
 

So the last few months I've gotten back into Dominions after a year-long break, so I've been looking at the game with new eyes. One thing I've noticed in my recent MP games is that people rarely use mages in battles, even if those battles are important ones like the last push toward someone's home castle.

Several times, it really was a "if you'd had forty less troops but three mages with that army, you'd have won the war" kinds of situations.

I mean, for the gold expended you get more than enough kills to justify the cost. Is it just that people get drawn in by the big research goals?

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I know that i learned a rough lesson when 10 mages, some wolves, and militia tore up my otherwise undefeated army in single player mode... Even so, I tend to keep most of my mages safely near the labs so that they can create items and research...

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I find that communions of 16-20 mages work wonders :D

Then again I'm new here, and only really know SP :o

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I find that the decision of when and where to deploy mages, is a tricky one. Unless you are sending in a special purpose mage, to cast a single powerful buff like Fire Arrows, then a single mage is unlikely to have a profound effect on the outcome of the battle. So the tradeoff between uncovering more powerful magic (or staying in the arms race at all) vs making an army significantly more powerful, sometimes is very vague. Also, some nations have specific tactics that can make the use of mages a risky proposition unless you are strong enough to protect them adequately.

But like I said, it's tricky. Well used, a powerful cadre of battlemages can bring your armies to victory much more quickly, gaining you access to greater income, and more labs to rectify the temporary loss of research.


An interesting anecdote - the first time I tried to kill a player in MP, I was R'lyeh and he was Atlantis. My army crashed down onto his castle nearly unopposed (I had defeated his army 2 turns previous), and I sieged for a few turns, and then stormed. He had at least a dozen Kings of the Deep, and they flat out murdered my army. Regrouping, I sent the majority of my mages with my new army, with the belief that if I didn't kill him on the second try, the situation was moot (later it proved that the FIRST loss ruined my timeline, gotta love hindsight), and I arrived just as I completed research on Enslave Mind. Well, let's just say that I still had Kings of the Deep in my army at the end of the game. :happy:

The moral? Mages are only worth what they can accomplish. If you reach a new level of magical research, but lose the war..... well, those mages were worth nothing to you. :shock:

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I'm big on battle mages. Play against me some time.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I simply think of mages as big, scary super-archers. In groups tend to do far more damage to the opponent when placed, and used, properly then 200 archers would. So what you basically get is an extreme amount of power density. A lot of damage, from a very small source.

The only cavet is that you need to research to "turn on" your super archers. Once I've turned on my battle mages, I have no compunctions about destroying my own research to put them to good use.

Jazzepi

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Key spells need to be researched before it becomes "worthwhile" (a very subjective judgment there, to be sure) to switch them from research to combat. There's no point in sending 10 mages into battle only to spam Flying Shards :P

On the other hand, I sometimes like nations with expensive, capital only mages - plop down 500 gold for that Neifel Jarl or Dai-Oni for example, and it's hard to justify sitting him on his butt in the lab, just studying. Encourages you to get them out in the field doing bad things to your enemies...

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

i think the problem is people don't realise the effectiveness of lower lvl spells, heck with two lvl 1 death mages spamming frighten behind my lines i was able to rout an army twice the size of mine to allow reinfocements time to come.

offcourse the fun really starts when you get 10+ mages spamming panic making huge armies rout within 5 turns of battle but you need those mages pumping out spells early game.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I find it's partly a logistics issue. Mages aren't all that useful at the beginning without spells, so it's often better to keep them at home and research. Then once you've researched a decent amount, it can be time consuming to get them to the front. Many of the more powerful battle mages are capital-only and map move 1, so depending on how you expand it may be several turns to get them where they are needed.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I dunno who do you play with, but I think you should also remind that many n00bs like me have problems feeling as they are doing the right thing when stopping pumping out new recruits to build and 800 gold new fortress + 400 temple + 500 lab for 1 new battlemage a turn. That's money :p

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

There are plenty of cheap yet effective spells. My favorite tree for the first forty research points is always Thaumaturgy.

-As already mentioned (thanks Nikelaos), death one mages can immediately spam frighten against normal foes and dust to dust against the undead. That covers ~90% of most early game battles quite effectively.

-Communions can be had at this level as well. That doesn't sound useful, but a lot of astral factions have astral priests. Priests spells are free and effective in the early game. Don't have 3H priests? Now you do. If you're MA Ermor this becomes ridiculously effective, especially since you want your mages out in battles to reanimate afterwords anyhow.

-Horror mark, curse, and seven year fever won't immediately kill an awake SC pretender, but it will surely make them sorry.

-If you are one of the rare nations able to cast the spell, far strike is actually a really good non-evocation evocation spell. Compare it to any early game elemental damage spell and you'll see that it wins every time. It does more damage, with greater accuracy, with greater base range, can't be blocked by shields or air shield, and can't be ignored with any form of resistance. Also, you can cast it all day long as it costs only 5 fatigue.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

not to mention the infamous skelly spam, thats 25 more undead on the battlefeild per mage.

other things to think about are stuff like slime for you water mages out there which has the niche usage of slowing tramplers and hideously early for it's effectiveness though perhaps a little later to get than others mentioned here is Legions of steel, the extra protection makes all the diference my friend.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I am not sure about the not blocked by shield part. In CBM, far strike is range 50 and 100 accuracy. Yet casted on Abysia light infantry, who has only 9 armor, it more often than not does no damage. It destroys most unshielded units just fine.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Interesting. I must test this some time.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

If you like to play with battle mages, try the mod "Gem Valley". It is replete with battle mages with high path but unpredicatable wild magic. :poke:

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I played LA Atlantis in a recent SP game, and I loved my mages. :D

For the early game, my supercooled heavy infantry dominated the battlefield. I always brought along at least one Angakok and a posse of Tungaliks, but they were mainly there to watch the infantry fight & die. However, I quickly learned that Frighten spam is shockingly effective against indies (as Nikelaos mentioned), so all of those Angakoks and Tungaliks started working for a living.

But then I researched Alteration 6....

New script: Frozen Heart *5, Cast Spells. I added a few more Tungaliks (recruitable at any fortress!) to each army, and the bad guys started dying more quickly. This spell was particularly effective against the heavy cavalry and knights that were so annoying. My infantry could breathe a little easier now.

And then I researched Evocation 5....

Another new script (for Angakoks only): Falling Frost *5, Cast Spells. Angakoks with a random pick in Air magic had the first Falling Frost replaced with Aim. Woohoo! More bad guys died before they could ever reach my infantry, and my troops rarely suffered any casualties worse than the occasional "social disease" from fraternizing with the locals.

And then I researched Evocation 7....

Forging Time! Each Tungalik paused to forge a Water Bracelet, which now made them Water 2 mages. Another new script: Ice Strike *5, Cast Spells. I also added a handful more Tungaliks to each army. At this point, the bad guys died before my infantry could even engage them. By the time my troops started to swing their icy weapons, the battle was already a rout.

Battle magic rocks. It's a little harder to use than the venerable "build heavy infantry and hit people with it" strategy, but it can be exceedingly effective. And I didn't even do anything very fancy! Just pick a decent spell, spam it all over the battlefield, and watch the carnage. :)

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Are you sure you're not thinking of the CBM version? The vanilla Farstrike has only Prec 5 IIRC, and I think only Prec 100 spells ignore shields.

-Max

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

This is one reason why I love LA Agartha and MA Ashdod. I love seeing huge AI formations of elite troops evaporate as 8 or 10 mages spam Banefire/Magma Eruption/Cloud of Death/Falling Fires/Gifts from the Heavens/Nether Darts at them. (Ashdod can do all of these! There is no such thing as a Zamzummite who isn't an arty mage, even unboosted.) You still need some cheap troops as cavalry blockers, even if your mages can skelly spam, but it costs zero gems and it's a lot of fun to watch.

Arty mages also synergize well with PD. Main army or SC takes territory, moderate PD + 1-2 mages holds it.

-Max

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

The AI builds "huge" "formations of elite troops"? I don't see that even while playing on Impossible with mods designed to encourage the AI to be more selective with its troop recruitment :)

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

And, yet another reason that Hinnom/Ashdod needs a nerf.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Mages, you say? Useful only in late game and with good equipment. My favorite MA Marignon with their powerful Fire/Astral mages are really brutal and I use them as fast as possible (Research Alt/Evoc/Thaum 5+ and go)...but if nation has no mighty mages (or mages aren`t have high specialisation), I see no way to use them as main weapon - it`s just a way to spend money. There are no really effective spells <3 lvl..and spam with fireflies-like spells against large mid-game or powerful end-game armies looks stupid

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

That's just not true. Nikelaos and AreaOfEffect have made some good suggestions for low-level magic right here on this very thread. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of both Frighten and the venerable skelespam.

Other early-to-mid-game options include:

• Fire! Fireball, Flare, and Holy Pyre can all be good choices for immolating your enemies before they reach you. These spells work especially well when your troops are fire-resistant or fire-immune, so that you'll suffer less from friendly fire.
• Air! Lightning Bolt and Thunder Strike spam. Especially nice to stack with Aim (also Air magic), because that makes your firepower more accurate.
• Blade Wind. Super-killer in Early Age, and still effective in the later ages. Oh yeah....
• Eagle Eyes + Vine Arrow. No, it won't kill too many people, but it will break up enemy formations and allow your troops to battle their foes piecemeal. Defeat in detail, anyone?
• Buffs! Body Ethereal, Luck, Legions of Steel, Protection, Regeneration, and more. Just the thing to take a really good unit and make it nearly unstoppable. Ethereal Elephants, anyone?

In the late game, mages can decide a battle all by themselves. In the early game and mid-game, their role is more support. Still, battle magic can be an impressive addition to any army, even if you've only done a little bit of research....

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Buffs useful only on high levels: spend lot of money for weak buffer...only if you have no choice - weak Mictlans, small armies of Niefel, sacred but damn weak White Centaurs and other
Fire...I think, some rods in hands of your commanders looks better. They don`t require upkeep, can`t be cursed/diseased/killed - but delivers really good damage
Spam of skeletons - you think it`s good idea? In VERY early game may be, then flying units or archers can easily take down your "spammers" before they can change situation on battlefield
All mages become useful only when you research powerful combat spells. It takes time, right? Even with "Very easy research" and nation with powerful researchers it takes about 30-40 turns before you gain access to 5+ level spells in Alt/Evo/Thaum. I better research Conj/Const line with summons and artefacts - it will add me more power, than mages

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Sorry, but you're wrong. I could go into more detail, but if you have a nation with good researchers (like MA Marignon, who has several kinds of sacred mages) and planned for it, you can probably reach level 5 Evocation on turn 15 or so - on normal research - while still having conquered a good amount of provinces. In addition, when you reach level 5 in a single school, your research capability is powerful enough to reach level 2 or 3 in other schools in a turn or two.

I haven't tested this in a long time, but focusing on research can pay off really fast. I'm not sure if it's possible to reach level 5 by turn 15 and can't test it because I don't have Dom3 at this computer, but that's what you should strive for. Level 5 research isn't "middle or late game", it's when early game ends.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Ehm, skelly spam has been quite proven to be a good idea. At all stages of the game, the only thing that really changes, is how many spammers you need to get the desired effect.

Granted, there are counters to it, but almost every tactic has an easy (though not necessarily obvious, or intuitive) weakness.

I'm not going to do a thorough breakdown of everything that you said, but I'll just say that if you accept you can be that wrong on that point, perhaps you might look at the usefulness of other buffs and such.

Oh and one other thing, if you wait too long, all those fancy toys (well, most of them) won't be all that effective against decently built SCs, so you'll have missed a lot of the good active lifespan of many very functional spells.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Thunder Strikes, Shadow Blasts, Pillars of Fire, Falling Frost, Falling fires.

Those are the artillery I tend to use. Even a few mages can make a difference with those. Arrow Fend is important as well.

I just saw a fellow player of mine really spam thunder strikes and Pillars of fire with Lvl 2 air and fire (indies too, illusionists and fire lords) by having them first cast booster spells and then go at it. Half a dozen Pillars of fire and 4 Thunder Strikes can really mess up the opposing army's day.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

It depends on the nation, obviously. In my current game, I'm using Edi's BI mod v2, and Helheim for example will throw 100 Hirdmans and 40 Longdead Horsemen at me. EA Arco will send in 300 troops including two ~80 troop wings of Myrmidons.

Also, I sometimes test my troop formations by inserting "phantom" troops into easy battles (w/ Ctrl + 'U')to see where the weak points in my formations are, and I usually pick elite troops for that.

As for the comment that this proves that Ashdod needs a nerf, well, I don't play MP so I don't know. I can tell you that "fun" != "overpowered". Ashdod battlemages are great fun, but in MP I suspect you'd let those mages do research and thug out recruitable commanders as much as possible instead. Certainly MP players don't seem to have much problem with playing the nations that I loathe, i.e. without decent recruitable-anywhere mages--and isn't that what this thread is about? Apparently battlemages don't get used much.

But Ashdod is tremendously flexible and fun in SP.

-Max

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Also, the battle AI is aware of friendly fire (tries to avoid it), so if your troops are resistant or immune there's a better chance of targetting the dense formations of enemy troops battling your own troops close by instead of scattered formations that are still moving further away. Precision depends partly on distance to target. Thus, immunity to friendly fire helps maximize effective precision, target density, and kill rate.

-Max

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Probably the biggest factor on the AI troop mix is the number of castles it builds and/or discovers by site search. The castle build rate appears to be based on a very low probability dice roll.

If the AI has only one castle, which is very often the case, then no matter what mod or version you play, the AI will have to fill out its forces with indys and the low level summons the AI uses. If you use Edi's BI (any version), then because of restricted choice the AI will be better. But these will never be as good as national troops it can get from a castle.

I've made mods where AI castles were the lowest cost one on the list for 1/2 the nations of a circa 40 nation game. The castle build rate between the two groups was the same, indicating that castle cost does not enter the AI decision making process.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Other than very early on, I rarely see the AI not build castles.

Often they build more than I do. They may not build them very strategically, but they build plenty.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Epaminondas, if I recall correctly, you said you were exclusively an EA player. If so, how is the EA computer opponent mod working in that era?

I'm a MA player and have never given the EA version a lengthy evaluation.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

Which mod are you talking about? I've only used the one that eliminates chaff independent units, as far as mods designed to enhance AI performance go.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I thought you were referring to the Improved computer opponents mod. My mistake. Sorry.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

You should put it to your sig or something. It'd be much easier to find it that way.

Re: Do people underuse mages?
 

I've found in many games against the AI I don't build *ANY* castles. I end up taking enough that I don't need to.