Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Hi,

Last year I went through quite a few end game phases. Even now, I'm involved in a very MM intensive game - Asia Twist - in which the last turns take me more than 7 hours (I actually measured the time). Granted, I am quite pedant when processing turns and like to have every fine grained detail just so but still I estimate that end game turns are MM hell to every player who got there. Personally I find the end games painful, I can't avoid that, If I know that I can min-max I will do so and that results in extreme MM.

So, I'm looking to compile a list of mods and/or house rules geared towards the reduction of MM in end game.
I'm bringing this to discussion and once a general consensus is reached I personally have no intention of ever creating or joining a game that doesn't follow MM reduction guidelines.

EDIT: compile with current responses.
EDIT: Please note that the items are stated b/c of how they influence MM. It doesn't mean all games should adhere to them but rather that they are guidelines for creating games with lesser endgame MM. Consensus means that it is agreed that these items effect MM. Not that everyone wants to remove them from now on.
The mandatory items are one that I believe have such a drastic influence on MM and relatively harmless side effects that they can safely be removed from new games (that aim at less MM).

Guideline for reducing endgame MM that are generally acceptable:
1. No gem gens.
Note: Efforts are being made at modding for compensating gem gen reliant nations.

2. Determine an upper limit on map sizes, # of players and reasonable victory conditions. Consensus
10-12 players, 10-15 provinces per player, 40% capital VPs victory condition.
Note. MM is in direct relation to how many provinces one controls at end game. Worst case scenario (MM wise) is 2 powers each controlling 30-40% of the map making war.
# of players and victory conditions have similar effect.

3. No Diplomacy. i.e. RAND.
Diplomacy is not directly related to MM but cutting that part of the game results in faster turn processing. Plus, it allows for different patterns of gaining victory (no alliances, NAP turtling, dog piling etc) which could be refreshing on it's own right.


The list below are controversial ideas, they may work for reducing MM but can have side effects on game balance or feel.

1. Ban MM intensive nations. Like blood dom spreaders. LA R'lyeh.
Note that some nations increase MM for neighbors (LA R'lyeh)

2. Ban MM intensive spells. Like astral corruption and Forge.
Note, I consider AN, utterdark and BoT to be actually MM reducers b/c they end games faster.
AC causes everyone to go crazy with body guards and returning (and managing the astrals on mages) so contributes to heavy MM.
Forge caster essentially needs to forge and distribute 60 items per turn. In some cases a portion of the items needs to be sent to allies or investors. IMO, it's better if its removed from the table.

3. CBM increase gem cost of spells and items.
Note: I'd say increasing cost of tarts is a must. Not MM related - just boring same same end game every-time.

4. Low gem income (like LA settings).
Reason: more gems = more forge/rituals = more MM
In end game this gets to insane levels. You forge 50-60 items per turn. You summon lot's of tarts and other SCs. You equip and change equipment as needed. You cast and protect from artillery and assassination spells. Enormous amount of work.

5. Ban blood.

6. Ban dwarven hammers

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Wraith,

My Balance mod has following components

NoGen - removes Generators.
Boosters - makes boosters more expensive (things like skull of fire, thistle mace)

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I totally agree with point 1. because I don't think gem gens add anything good to the game and they can indeed promote and reward really tedious play style.

I also think point 3. is entirely sensible - I would never join a game on a map over 200 provinces. Even 200 provinces for me is a bit too big. With that size in the midgame I'd be hoping I wasn't doing well, so I wouldn't end up fighting in the 200 prov endgame. I realise I'm a bit drastic on this front, just personal preference.

Not sure about 2. because it seems further reaching than just reducing micro. Have you considered the other effects this would have?

The optional ones,..

1. If someone wants to play this nation, maybe they have a micro free way of doing it, or they can manage the micro - you don't have to worry about it too much do you? I guess LA Rlyeh itself causes other people micro due to the insanity, but then there are counters to that.

2. Yeah, seems reasonable in a mm reduction game. There are a few globals that absolutely dominate and also involve a lot of micro - I'm surprised at how often forge flies under peoples banhammer radar, given how nuts it is.

3. You mean, no research above level 5 or something? This seems a bit drastic. Especially if you're losing micro nightmare spells already.

4. Yep, RAND is good times.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

- So a no gens mod is mandatory.
- Less magic income makes for a different game. Where mundane armies are viable for much longer. In which spells are more rare (like GRR Martin universe). So more advantage besides less MM.

- 200 province limit sounds reasonable.

RE. optional ones

1. In RAND game a MM intensive nation may be assigned to you anyway. Better they be identified by name so they could be banned from games.

So, what are the MM intensive nations?
LA Ermor, LA R'lyeh, EA/LA Mictlan.
more?

2. MM Global list:
Forge, AC
more?

3. I meant like level 7/8.

4. yes. RAND can evolve into RMRAND :)

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Mandatory list:

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Maybe 12 nations is probably the upper limit to keep things sane on a normal map? What makes it ugly is if one nation doesn't manage to run away with the game: a battle between two powerhouses can go on forever.

Optional:

1. Do you mean to reduce micro for other nations, so they don't have to set up a bunch of temples/preachers? Or is it the blood hunting/slave buses micro? One thing you might want to do is eliminate all blood mage summons. Otherwise they are almost as bad as gem generators. Maybe make 10 unique Vampire Counts or something, and 6 unique Vamp Lords, and something similar for Mictlan's summons?

2. The killer globals can be good for ending games faster, in some cases.
Forge: painful for the caster, since he needs to micro a lot of forgers
AN: Good for ending the game faster (if you can keep it up)
AC: Painful for everyone, having to deploy bodyguards and/or script returning. But 10 earth attacks a month has the same effect.
Utterdark/BoT: Good for ending the game earlier.

3. How about making all mid/upper level summons, (even trolls and golems) unique?

4. RAND is great (I've only had a bit of RAND experience, as a sub, but I liked it), but no diplomacy (including no trading) might suffice. It's a bit easier to set up and the admin can play.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I am 100% sure I will not join a game with expensive boosters, because boosters are the only saving grace of many nations, otherwise worthless. Also, everything that diversifies your nation is fun. Less opportunities to diversify, less fun.

As for no gem generators, I have mixed feelings about this idea. It may tone down MA Pythium and Rlyeh, which is a good thing. It will also kill Oceania, Bandar Log etc. Good luck winning with your mighty ichtycentaurs and markatas.
Etc, etc. You wont be able to make clams and counter recruitable SCs with Golems, for example. One nation will have Niefel Jarls / Gadols / you name it, other nation will be reduced to one or two Golems and, well, combat evocations; good luck again.
And I wont even touch the blood magic issue. :)

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Well, 1 in 4 Yakshas can lay down some pretty nasty Gifts from Heaven, always a nice counter to Nief.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I have played dozens of Dom 2 MP games,won a few and went to end game hell there quite often.
Now, i just started playing Dom 3 several months ago and its pretty obvious to me,that this is even worse now,due to increased income/supplies/sheer size of the maps.

Imo the biggest problem however is,that the research system stayed the same while everything else has been geared towards larger battles.
That way the end game is reached much faster and Early game/mid game ,the most fun parts ,are of less importance/length.

Solution:
By making research difficult and on the biggest maps very difficult u can at least cut down the end game part by increasing early game/mid game parts.

no gem gens and less gem income obv lead to less micro,which is also good.U could also set the money multiple lower so that everyone will have less armies/mages= less micro.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

1. No Gem Gens - A definite. I do have reservations about how much it hits certain nations a lot harder than other, and the loss of the Earth booster is an issue. But I believe the downsides are far outweighed by the positives, and the downsides can also be addressed with modding.

Clam dependent nations, like Bandar Log / Kailasa for example could have the cost of their Astral heavy national summons reduced to compensate for the lost clam income. And the non-unique Earth booster could possibly be shifted to the Pebbleskin Suit (being trial-run in a game at the moment I think).


2. Low gem income settings - Not so sure about this. I know I spend a lot of time fine-tuning scripts and battle positions for any large armies I have, and any lack of gems just means the armies get bigger and the scripting/positioning will take longer due to the delayed transition to Thug/SC.

But if the aim is to increase the longevity of regular armies, then a gem income nerf certainly has that affect. But not convinced of it's MM limiting affect at all. I know for me it would probably result in an increase in MM on the army front. Although a lack of gems would indeed result in less MM on the forging/ritual front.


3. Upper map size limit - It would be a shame I think to see an end to all nations (from one era) games, which a 200 province limit would probably result in. Since I do find games that feature all nations (from one era) to be amongst my favourites. But there's no doubt more map provinces does eventually result in more MM towards the end. Maybe if the limit was 250 provinces, then that would allow an all-nations game based on a 10-12 provinces per nation ratio (less than 10 starts hitting blitz territory), while still being within a reasonable limit for the endgame MM to not reach insane levels.


Optionals

1. Ban MM intensive nations - I really don't agree with any nation ban what-so-ever for MP games, not even the regularly seen choices of Ashdod, LA Ermor/R'yleh. So I certainly wouldn't like to see a ban on MM intensive nations. Maybe this issue should be re-examined once the full effect of the other MM reducing options have had some actual MP feedback to work off.

Since the blood nations for example can certainly be MM intensive, but maybe that is only as a result of the blood work being heaped on top of all the usual MM work from gem gens, mass forgings / rituals, huge province counts etc. Once some of these are taken out of the picture, then maybe the MM from a blood economy won't seem that much of an MM problem. And I think this applies either to playing one, or facing the blood sacing effects of one.

So lets take things a bit slower if possible, and wait to see the effects a few changes makes to MM levels, rather than trying to make a huge load of changes in one go. As maybe banning MM nations will be an unnecessary step too far.

And an attempt to limit endgame MM by various nation (or spell) bans may accidentally kill off a lot of options, tactics, strategies etc. in this game, which would take away a lot of the games unique flavour. And could result in making the game more stream-lined and more repetitive, so probably less fun overall :(


2. Ban MM intensive globals - Not a fan of spell bans either, again for a lot of the reasons mentioned directly above.


3. Research Caps - I'd prefer a difficult or very difficult research setting to a capped one personally. Although there may be a need to address certain rush nation issues then. Especially if the map/province per nation size is getting reduced. Difficult research on a small map just says 'rush nations rule' to me. Maybe some of the popular Level 3/4 anti-rush spells could be reduced to level 1/2 for games with a difficult or very difficult research setting.


4. RAND - RAND games just rule for me at the moment. So nice to not have to deal with diplomatic issues every turn, and you get to live or die mostly due to your own abilities. Plus players are forced out of their "I must always take powerful/favourite nation each game. Then choose someone to rush, while NAP-ing all my other borders" comfort zone I often see happening in non RAND games.

Although at least for me, RAND games do result in a lot more thinking time being required, as instead of just asking your neighbour "Hey, are you going to attack me, or can we get an NAP?" you have to constantly re-assess every turn which nations may be attacking you that turn. So if thinking time is considered a part of MM, then RAND games don't always result in reduced MM.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Just FYI, there are 67 vanilla nations currently, between all 3 eras. So at 10 provinces per, that's a 670 (!) province map, assuming all nations are playing...

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

That's why I specifically said "all nations (from one era)" and not "all nations (from all eras)" or simply "all nations". As having just all the nations from a single era in a game should fit into the 250 province limit I suggested, regardless of the actual era. Although maybe I should have said "all nations (from just one era)" to avoid confusion.

An all nations, all eras game would be insane MM regardless of the settings.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I *really* want to see this mod. Harder research without the rush-vantage would be an ideal solution, IMHO. Ugh... Just what I need to start up my university studies, a modding project. Well, at least this one will be quite easy, just moving the spell researchlevels around.

Anyone intrested, keep an eye at the modding section, I'll start up a brainstorming thread within few days.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

But that is strategy at a macro level, absolutely not micro management. Macro level strategising isn't something anyone wants to cut back on.

I prefer RAND style (or at least no diplomacy) games because they reduce the horrible 'nap with neighbours, 2 on 1 the weakest guy, repeat' thing you get with diplomacy. Just as you described. I don't think it's so much a cut back on MM, just a way to reduce slightly turtley strats which all seem to lead right to MM hell endgames.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I agree with removing gem gens, but some nations will need to get compensation for that. Reducing the cost of Kailasa summons that someone suggested is a good idea. Other nations need similar boosts.

Banning some nasty globals like AN or AC is also a good idea.

A map for 12 players is the biggest I've ever played, because I never wanted to own too much provinces in the late game. A lot of larger games break due to players losing interest. I'd say 12 is a good upper limit.

With other things I don't agree. Low gem income is not a good idea. The problem is not in abundance of gems, but in the fact that CBM makes some spells too cheap.

Also, removing higher research levels would remove much fun from the game - bad idea. For the games where you want longer midgame, just set difficult research. Personally, I like the pace when games reach endgame sooner and finish sooner.

There is no need to ban any nation, unless it is considered overpowering. Just don't pick the nation you find needs too much MM. In RAND games, you should be able to give a list of nations that you don't want to play.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

vfb:
"1. Do you mean to reduce micro for other nations, so they don't have to set up a bunch of temples/preachers? Or is it the blood hunting/slave buses micro? One thing you might want to do is eliminate all blood mage summons. Otherwise they are almost as bad as gem generators. Maybe make 10 unique Vampire Counts or something, and 6 unique Vamp Lords, and something similar for Mictlan's summons?"
Reduce both the nation MM and the MM it induces on other nations.

Kuritza: I understand your sentiment. Nations that need gem gens to survive should be addressed in CBM mode or something. The MM hell they cause plus the income inflation loop-back with wishing is big no-no for me.

Mardagg: Yes difficult research instead of research cap.

Calahan:
"2. Low gem income settings - Not so sure about this. I know I spend a lot of time fine-tuning scripts and battle positions for any large armies I have, and any lack of gems just means the armies get bigger and the scripting/positioning will take longer due to the delayed transition to Thug/SC."
I think army mgmt is much less MM than forging/rituals. You can copy scripts and give in 10 secs complicated scripts to lots of mages in army.

"Maybe some of the popular Level 3/4 anti-rush spells could be reduced to level 1/2 for games with a difficult or very difficult research setting."
That would be great!

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Yeah, I much prefer high research level myself in games, but always wary of the huge bonus it gives to rush nations. Have picked up some modding skills myself (thanks to you Burns :)) so was going to look into this once my current high number of games dropped a bit. But would be more than happy to see a genuine modder undertake the project though.

Not that I want you to think I'd push you into doing that it in any way Burns ;)

[Calahan pushs Bursnaber very hard in the make "Difficult research with Anti-Rush spells tweak mod" direction]

I don't consider additional thinking time to be a part of MM either, but I am sure there are some player who would. Which is why I gave it a mention.

Since losing the ability to seal up several borders for X turns with a simple "Do you want an NAP" message, would certainly constitute extra work to some players. With "extra work" being incorrectly translated as meaning "extra MM".

You are of course correct saying it is a macro level decision. And Dominions is probably the wrong game for people if they don't like things revolving aroung making macro decisions.

EDIT:

ooohhh, I must be super anal on the fine tuning MM then. No wonder my turns always take me so long :) I'm always tinkering with individual mage scripts, mixing up casting orders every turn in case anyone seen my fights, tweaking placements to avoid opponents settings aimed against my last know placements. If I tried I'm sure I could happily spend half an hour just arranging 3 mages and 40 troops.

Knew I was obsessive about MM, but guess I didn't realise just how high my level was :shock:

And I find forging and ritual casting to be a lot easier MM wise by keeping notes each turn, and simply ticking off things as I issue their casting or forging.

[Wraithlord pushes Burnsaber in the make "Difficult research with Anti-Rush spells tweak mod" direction]

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

updated first post

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I also have a component called...

NoGenCompensation.

It boosts the nations most affected by the loss of generators - abysia, agartha, oceania, yomi.

Sorry haven't gotten to machaka or bandar log. I didn't think bandar were particularly bad.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I didn't read through posts here, so I will just comment what you made in first one.

Mandatory ones:

1. Gem gens banned - of course, it should be part of CBM really.
2. Why? It's nothing about map size. It's about number of players and victory conditions. I wouldn't join 200 prov map with 30 players. 15 provs per player is what I like. And reasonable victory - 30-40% caps.
3. No way. You want what? Bless nations only games? You cannot play difficult res without serious rebalancing. I will never join a game like that. Playing normal nation would be unfun. Playing bless nation would feel like cheating.
4. Sure, CBM needs more extreme tweaks, but they won't be popular. Like more expensive Mind Hunts and tarts.
5. Nope. Low magic settings are simply boring. Put here instead a mod to ban overpowered sites [discount ones]. Even banning dwarven hammers would make more sense.

Optional ones are well... just for those that like that format. I like diplomacy, but I love RAND too. But I would stop playing Dominions if I had to play only RAND games.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Wait, what?

Which problem? The problem of micromanagement? Which spells made cheaper in CBM increase micromanagement? I guess there are a few, a couple of the globals might force you to assign more bodyguards,...

Wasn't expecting CBM spells to come up in this thread as a problem.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Well, Wraithlord said: more gems = more forge/rituals = more MM (thinking about site frequency). I don't particularly agree with that, but CBM lowers costs for some spells too much, so it could be a part of the problem. Off the top of my head: devils and domes.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

@Wraithlord: Take a look at the rules for Momentum2 game

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

People always say that if you remove gem gens you have to compensate certain nations. I assume the reason for this is that those nations don't have a strong late game (if the argument is that they have a weak early game, well then clams aren't going to help them with that). But there's lots of nations that don't have a strong end game. Given that the end game is dominated by SCs, if you don't have recruitable/national summon SCs or get the Chalice/GoH you pretty much don't have an end game (maybe with the exception of someone like R'lyeh).

So rather than fix nations one by one, why not just have an SC that everyone can summon late game? In particular, I think the whole Chalice/GoH --> tart mechanic is broken so why not just have tarts as a normal SC summon? No afflictions, commander status. And if not them, then another unit. But I think tarts are a good candidate because you can't beat the efficiency of summoning an SC for 30 gems (27 CBM) - probably even if you have national summons. Basically I think there should be a default end game SC. Some nations will have SCs that are better and that's an advantage of that nation. But even if you don't have national SCs there should be something you can summon to have a fighting chance.

A word about RAND games. I think the no-diplomacy is a helpful idea but I don't think the nations have to be random. Calahan's point is a good one but if there's only certain nations you enjoy playing being stuck with a nation you don't like takes the fun out of the game. Anyway, I think settings like RAND or map size are separate from decisions about the mod contents. Guidelines could be helpful but it's easy enough to change that on a game-by-game basis.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Well domes probably do increase MM, yes. I don't have that much experience of domes in cbm but I believe the philosophy was simply to make the worse ones actually be worth the cost as a defensive measure. I don't think any summon you can stick on monthly cast causes big MM problems though, compared with forging etc.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I think this runs pretty much counter to the philosophy of, say, CBM, where the idea is to increase the breadth of strategic options, but it could definitely make for an interesting experiment in a game. I don't personally think the answer to the tart problem is to accept that the endgame /should/ just have 1 default SC castable by all - I prefer the route taken by llamabeast in his as yet unreleased mod which added a variety of SCs in different paths, to try and break the dominance of the tartarian and the necessity to pursue death and nature like crazy.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Here's another idea to reduce micromanagment. In my limited experience, the problem isn't the forging, moving guys around, hoarding gems, etc.; it's the fact that you have to do it in a million provinces!

Solution, shamelessly stolen from poker: raise the blinds.

After 40 turns (or whenever), reduce the provinces by half. Seriously, just mash them together. Do it again after 80 turns, and again at 120 if it goes that far. The big 400 province map, necessary when you started with 24 nations, is now a maneageable 100. Like in poker, the little guys get screwed, but that's kinda the point. ::D

Dunno if it's possible. There would be a large issue of merging sites, fortresses, units, etc.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

A very interesting idea. But at first glance Id be tempted to say its not possible. Of course then I immediately remind myself that impossible is just a technical term for "more trouble than its worth" so I will think about it abit.

Personally, the fix I find for any irritating re-occurring actions in any game at all is the same. Every game eventually sees players come up with a way to automate boring micromanagement actions. Ive seen it from MUDs to WoW. A macro scripting software such as AutoHotKey will allow you to record your mouse moves and typing then assign them to a keypress such as Ctrl-Alt-A. I havent played with some of the fancy latest programs along that line but I do know that good old AutoHotKey works fine with Dom3 on WinXP.


Gandalf Parker
--
To some people, unlimited options seems to them to be zero options.
Without a menu of choices, they are lost.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

If you have national summons, but dont have the gems to summon them in sufficient quantities, you are still in trouble. A whole one thug wont save you. Even whole two thugs are often not enough. :)

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I'm surprised that this hasn't been put forward as a more formal suggestion. The hammer has a drastic multiplicative effect on the number of forging commands that have to be issued each turn. It also doesn't seem to me to really offer much in the way of strategic choices since it earns it's cost back faster than any of the gem producers (potentially in only a single turn).

The balance tweaking that would be required to eliminate it would be small in my opinion (although the strategy changes would be large, it would only be nations that depended on the hammer for early game success that would be disproportionately affected).

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Just catching up to this thread - pretty interesting!

However, I have to dissent on the issue of RAND. I think that it takes a lot away from the game to remove diplomacy. If its your preference to play without then thats fine. But to say that there is consensus that it should be used is crazy IMO. RAND/ND games, while being the new fad, are not the most common game, nor the most interesting.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Agree on 1 and 2.
3 just makes the games last longer and favors bless nations.
4. is going to make nations with recruitable SCs even more powerful
5. might be the same as 4. - make it harder to get enough summons to fight recruitable SCs when you are playing a human nation

I have a draft post on some of what I dont like about Dominions that involves MM, but also things beyond MM - maybe I will dig it up.

PS getting rid of hammers would save a lot of time - i like that idea.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I totally agree with IronHawk.
Every once in awhile I see someone saying that a particular game type or mod has become "standard practice". I always try to check just to be sure but I have rarely seen anything approach at MOST 50%. And thats usually on a specific server or a within a specific group of players. (so far Streamers and Standards seems to be the winner). I tend to put such comments in with the best nation, worst nation, game killer strategy, etc comments. Everyone seems to agree that they exist but there doesnt seem to be an agreement on what it is so it all seems to balance out.

On the other hand...
There is an interest at the moment in the RAND games. I have played around with the idea of an even deeper anonymous game. Since I do have my own server I could create a huge game called Anon and provide email addresses to each player. That and since it would be on my server I could monitor the connections and game logs to insure (as much as possible) that no multiple players and in-game messaging is going on. So far each time I come up with another way of monitoring it I come up with another way to get around it so for now its just a bunch of notes in the game-types folder.

Gandalf Parker

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Agreed, they are MM hell. Remember to remove gem gens from pretennders and sea troll kings too while you're at it.
I think that most games are played with too many players, and therefore too many provinces, to avoid late game MM. You're probably better off limiting the number of players to maybe 8 if you want to avoid MM and have room from a gut feeling, so that'd be more like 100-120 provinces imo.
I can't see why it should be mandatory. Just get smaller maps.
Don't like it at first glance.
I think it's just removing options.
No way. War is a side effect of diplomacy. Removing diplomacy from games is fun sometimes but unrealistic and unfun if it's made general. Forbidding trading of gold/gems/items is more interesting than forbidding any kind of diplomacy imo.
No. If people want to play them, let them do so. If you want a random nation, you just have to accept it when you get a bad one or you don't play full-random nations.
I miss the point about astral corruption.
Do you mean reduce research ability off some units? So Magic will become the best scale? No.

Overall, I'm sorry to say that I think the game is designed for less players than it's being played with often. 4 player games generally have all that you like: No late game MM, not much in terms of diplomacy. The issue is that, well, you don't reach "end game" and the game is over faster, which is exactly what your changes try to accomplish.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Well this thread isn't about how ALL games should be - the thread starter is just trying to assemble the needed changes to create games which avoid MM hell.

Is there consensus that RAND helps avoid MM hell? That's the question.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I am personally fine with CB doing nerfs like this, however I think there would be a lot of resistance. And, on a related note, if anyone thinks some spells are made too cheap in the current CB, I'd appreciate the feedback in the CB thread

And on gem gens, yes they will be unique items in the next CB.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I don't think it does. Knowing you have NAPs and that you can buy some items rather decreases the time you spend on your turns. So I'd say that RAND style games increase MM [unless someone claims diplomacy is part of MM].

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

I agree with the CBM philosophy. The problem is that if you don't have recruitable/summonable SCs your only option is tarts. My suggestion was a quick and easy way to give nations access to some kind of SC and at the same time fix the tart problem.

But opening up other SC options through llama's mod is a much better option. It might be interesting to combine that with a mod adding national SCs to nations that lack them. With other options in place the cost of tarts could be made more realistic. As I recall QM didn't want to make them too expensive since it would make things even harder for nations without GoH/Chalice. With other options now available tarts could be priced accordingly (not necessarily on base CBM since it probably wouldn't include the new summons).

As an aside, I think at this point it is unlikely IW will be adding much content to the game (especially revisiting existing nations). If it seems like there's an interest in adding national SCs to nations that lack them I'd be willing to coordinate and put together the mod, but I'd need help with graphics.


With the removal of gem gens I'm not against adjusting the costs of some summons downwards. The last thing you want to do is give nations with recruitable SCs even more power. My point was directed more towards the fact that there are some nations that currently don't have an end game SC option if they don't luck into the Chalice or GoH. And towards the fact that tarts are out of line with other SC costs.


Interesting you should mention this. I had the same thought a while back but didn't see any way to implement it.

You know, there's a cap on how many units you can recruit due to upkeep costs. I wonder if a lot of the late game drudgery would be eliminated if summons also had an upkeep cost - paid in gems, not gold. This would limit the number of summons you could field. Having to make tough decisions on how to allocate limited resources is what makes the game interesting to me. But barring IW making that change that seems impossible.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Catching up on the thread. I must say I really like the sound of getting rid of Dwarven Hammers (by making them unique). As besides the MM relief involved, it could result in a lot of new strategies evolving for several nations if they no longer had to concern themselves during the build phase with how they are going to aquire Dwarven Hammers during the game.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

[shameless selfadvertising]

Concerning Research, I was working on a Mod that sets research output to a fixed number.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43679

I don't have the time to work a lot on it currently, but there is a "finished" version for SP EA games.

The features (beyond not having to mm your researchers) are:
Faster research in the early game
Slower research in the late game
Starting armies are out also, you could mod them in without commanders, but I haven't much bothered because with a few exceptions every nation has a way to get an acceptable start without awake SCs with the current settings.

At this point playtesting would be helpful

[/shameless selfadvertising]

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Indeed. :)

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Re: Banning Dwarven Hammers
This has a profound effect on strategy because it can severely limit how quickly a nation can diversify its items (by gem type), and thus makes it much harder to start forging useful items in magic paths you don't have easy access to site-searching spells for.

Yes, the hammer earns its gem cost back quickly. But if that isn't in earth gems then its not just an accelerator - its also a diversifier. I mean, forging RoW for full price is fine and dandy if you have astral mages standard, but if you don't getting to cut the cost down makes it much easier to get to the good magic items in that path. Effectively, lack of a hammer makes diversifying your magical paths on your pretender less viable, because you'll have a much harder time generating the gem income for him to do anything with it.

Removing hammers would also unfairly benefit some nations, because they have easy access to the paths which have the critical expensive items. Rlyeh with good Death and Astral strikes me as being high on the list of nations who benefit relative to others.

(Making hammer unique would be far worse - its good, but at least everyone can use it).

On why some nations need compensation if gem generators are removed:
Since someone asked...
The reason why some nations need some tweaking is that they rely on gem generators to be effective in the late game. Bandar Log, for example, needs to clam like mad to afford its national summons. Substantially reducing their cost would certainly help.

Some other nations, like MA Oceania, have nothing else going for them in the late game except they are prime candidates for forging boatloads of gem generators. I'm playing MA Oceania in Water Total War right now, and while i've taken steps to help me have a real endgame, let me tell you the lack of clams is severely hampering me. (In particular, EA Rlyeh totally outclasses me in combat magic, and while there are some things I could certainly have done to have improved that last attempt at storming his fortress, it would have been a difference of number of units killed. I need something to answer his astral battle magic, and water/nature doesn't really have it - summons are the only real way for me to diversify my casting base.)

Re: Diplomacy leads to ganging up on weaker players
Only if the players in your game allow that to happen. Two things need to happen to stop this. (1) Binding agreements are stupid, except for agreements of trade (and even then, not necessary). It leads to situations where a player in a poor position can't bargain his way out because his opponents are locked into NAPs or similar. (2) Weaker players need to sell their survival as an advantage against a more powerful rival, or at least that the threat of the rival is great enough that he needs to be taken down a peg now rather than later. (Being able to break NAPs without warning makes this more possible, because chances are the weak player is trying to turn one assailant on another one, and they likely have an NAP agreement).

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

In the game Bloodless, I limited MM by
- eliminating blood magic altogether (well, spells items and sites)
That of course reduces the number of playable nations, and we are playing in MA
- removed gem gens, some bonus sites, some rituals (AC, AN, UD, Forge) and Tartarians
- limited the number of players (starting with 6) therefore the number of provinces.
We increased magic site freq though.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43298

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

If you want to decrease forging for thug/SC equipment, decrease the need a bit. Equip more of the summons/recruits with some basic equipment (ench sword, shield, armor and helmet) so one would not need to spend 40 clicks to equip them (like 7-8 clicks per item).

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Nice idea, but I don't think the game engine would count this as magic weapons/armor so someone would hit you with Armor of Achilles and you'd no longer have any armor.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Hmm. Interesting question that. I wonder if that's true.

I think you're probably right and it checks where the item is coming from - inherent or via item.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Can you just make them spawn with an item?

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Nope.

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Yes, without clams it's much harder for Bandar to afford its national summons. But it's harder for every other nation without recruitable SCs (or the Chalice/GoH) as well. And in any case, isn't a Bandar without gem gens still in a better position than Man, who has no national summons at all? My point was that we shouldn't be concerned with just compensating clamming nations for the loss of gem gens as with trying to give each nation some kind of end game. No, they don't all have to be equal but there should be some kind of SC summon available to everyone.

So I'm not against adjusting the cost of national summons. If the cost of Bandar's summons is inflated on the assumption that the player will clam then that's an argument for reducing them. But I would just like to offer something to the nations that don't even have national summons. And, honestly, some of the nations that are mentioned as needing compensation if gem gens are removed (for example, MA Abysia) just don't make sense to me.

But I think this is getting off topic so let me throw out a more on topic idea. A not insignificant part of micromanagement is moving gems around. I know you can't eliminate the game mechanic of using gems to boost effective level and in some cases you'll want to have a spell use gems (i.e. touch of madness), but what about eliminating gem requirements for almost all combat spells? It seems like not having to drag around scouts and restock every mage's gems each turn could make combat planning less tedious.

I think CBM may have already taken some steps towards this (the elemental protection spells perhaps?).

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

This is true. Armor of Achilles/Destruction/Iron Bane/etc. destroy all inherent armor, leaving only armor which comes from forged equipment.

-Max

Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
 

Why? In an ideal world, you merely want some type of endgame strategy potentially available to anyone, but it doesn't have to be SCs. In my limited experience, SCs tend to dominate the endgame mostly because they're more mobile than armies or summons (slap on a pair of boots and/or cast Teleport) and because they're good at taking out PD and unsupported armies--but serious battles always come down to the mages anyway. National summons along the lines of Iron Dragons/Ophanim/storm demons would be an acceptable substitute for SC access in my opinion, provided you had enough possibilities to make it nontrivial to counter (i.e. preserve flexibility). Either you send them out raiding or you use them as blockers while your mages rain down evocations--the same as you would do with SCs.

-Max