[Gandalf Parker]

Note what he said as far as

There are MANY nations and sub-themes, and the game is new. It's going to take a while to get a solid grip on what's good and bad.
That said... this is my gut reaction to the major nations/themes;

Keep in mind that this is a deep and balanced game. If there was an obviously strongest nation then it would not be a well-done game.

A) a nation is strong if it matches the players style. If you want to play like a tank-commander then take ulm. If you tend to prefer research and magic then try Arcosphale. If you like air-dropped invasions try Man. If you like CIA secret armys try Pangaea.

B) a nation is weak if its strong points are ones you dont really use.

C) it can be a rude awakening in your first few multiplayer games to discover that your "weak" nations are someone elses "strongest" nations.

In Dom1 we went thru a LONG and enjoyable process of declaring certain nations to be too strong or unbalanced, then discovering that the balance was already there but in another nation we hadnt played seriously yet. I think the Devs had a great time waiting and watching for us to discover these.

We started saying "if you THINK its too strong then search for the response" and also that "if you think its weak and worthless then get creative in how it might be used".
EVENTUALLY we did find some things that we just couldnt balance out and tweaks showed up in patches for those. But it was a long way off from where we thought we had found such things. Personally I think its abit early to judge.

Some specialize in testing the "too strong" stuff. I like to concentrate on finding something interesting about the "who would ever choose this" stuff.

But that was a great list. One persons list (dont like Pangaeas default huh? hee hee hee). But everyones list will be different. Thats the great thing about this game.

[ November 18, 2003, 15:20: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]