[Huzurdaddi]

What if I want to play a game on a huge map that doesnt become a clamming competition after turn 30-40?

Unless someone is playing Atlantis or is astonishingly competent clams don't really come into the picture until turn 60 or so.

And arent nations like Marignon and TienChi also solutions to devils? (any nations with high priests)

No. Preists are essentially useless against devils devils have very high MR. The solution to devils is usually either ( 1 ) wrathful or ( 2 ) a SC that can tank them. Best to combine ( 1 ) and ( 2 ).

While you might object to the speed at which this happens I do not see how anyone can argue with that delayed investment payoffs should payoff.

I have to say I totally agree with this point. My only objection is ROI on some investments ( IMO soul contracts ROI is a little too high).

In general it is all about ROI vs. the speed at which the game progresses. If you are in a game in which you can be over run in 5 turns then even a 10% ROI may not be sufficient to entice you to invest. However in a game where you would not be badly hurt after 20 turns of war even a 5% ROI would seem godly.

Eliminating long-term strategies would do nothing but take away from why this game is fun.

Totally correct.

I disagree completely with this, in small agressive games resources are better spent in more direct ways then clam hoarding, especially if you are in a war.

I agree. However water gems are not amazingly useful they have some uses boots of quickness, perhaps swords of quick, but in general they are not going to swing the war. Any extras might as well go to clams. I have to say I would love clams going to 2W1N.

About Vamps, I'd agree to remove them the Summon Allies skill. They can easily cast the vampire summoning spell.

That actually makes sense.

I don't know about it being created out of thin air but yes, there is inflation. That's a *good* thing, though. Every game has a natural life cycle and evolves through stages, otherwise research would not be a meaningful element.

That's just an EXCELLENT post KEI. I could quote the whole thing and I pretty much agree with it.

I still think that the ROI on all investment type strategies should be carefully monitored though.

There seems to have been a recent push of people who want the game to *not* evolve by discouraging the use of SC's and other mid/late game tactics, instead favoring the national troops that are more effective in the early game.

Again, excellent. I love the natural progression of the game. I do think that SC's are a *little* too powerful pretty early in the game. And I think that almost all of this "power" comes from life draining weapons. Without them SC's would have a hard time soloing huge armies but yet would still be awesome forces. But I don't think I totally want to get rid of life draining weapons since that is removing a choice from players. Probably a small tweak to the damage of all life draining weapons would be sufficient ( at least in my eyes ).

Abysya is very rushable. And is totally defenceless except a good pretender.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH! They have 1st rate troops. Please. This is not Miclain we are talking about here.

and that could cast fanaticism

Sermon of courage works dandy.

Short of a rewrite, I am in agreement with those conservatives that don't want to see the system dramatically changed. The game is clearly working, and has an extraordinarily large following, given it's non-commercial nature. To argue that the game is broken, or dramatically unbalanced is ludicrous. It flies in the face of the fact that so many smart people are playing this game, and so few can agree on what constitutes an optimal strategy.

Pretty much dead on. You can still argue though, that tweaks can be made on prices of certian units. Nothing major, just small changes.