[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Wendigo:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
and the fact that your tastes lies in some particualar settings doesn't mean that everybody should play it, or that any unbalances that manifest themself outside of these settings does not matter.

You are not going to get a game with nations perfectly balanced for both the long & short term.

It may be true, but it doesn't mean that there should be no attemts to improve the overall balance of the game, even considering the fact that the ideal balance can not be archived because it doesn't exist. In particular case with clams, you seem to admit that they are very unbalancing in long games. If this is so, and if they are as uneffective as you claim they are in short games, than why not make them harder to forge as suggested earlier?

Short games that you like to play will not be affected in any signifcant degree according to you, and medium and long game where clam hoarding can be a big issue will definetly be improved. I see it as clear win-win situation.

I asked you specific question that you haven't answered - you were refering to some other strategies that were as effective/abusive as clam hoarding. Can you name any?

Check this one for example for another 'economic strategy':
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...=001570#000004

Others with a similar focus: Anything blood-slave related or concerning hoarding the Elemental kings/queens that produce free (and good!) troops-> It does not feed on itself as gem generators+ alchemy, but the troops provide gems+coin by giving you the provinces of your enemies.

---

I think you've answered your own question. These strategies that you describe with blood and King/Queens summons are just what you said - some free troops. But because none of these tactics, as you put it, are "feeding on itself" it's very different in its nature from clam hoarding as I think you reilize yourself.

In mathematical terms Clam hoarding is geometric progression. What you descibing are ariphemetic progressions. As you probably know they are very different.


The argument that using thess strategies will give you more provinces is not really relivent. So would any other good strategy, that allow you to conquer enemy territory and by doing this would allow you to become more powerfull. These are just efficient strategies, some of the many available ones. But because they don't have "snowball" effect ("feeding on itself" in your own terms), which is the main attribute of geometric progression, they are not abusive, but instead are just good valid strategies that can be countered with others equaly good ones - and that's what this game is about after all.

In the end, you should not forget that the game is won & lost by winning & losing battles. The economy is not everything.

True. But the economy matters a lot as well. And if one decent player have 10 times more economic resourses than the other, than he will very likely win even aginst expert opponent, not by superior tactic in battles but because of his economic might that will alow him to have 10 times more soldiers, summons, etc.

[ April 02, 2004, 22:57: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]