Quote:
Beorne said:
Quote:
Meglobob said:
Can I second this.
So many people complain about 'balance' and this usually results in a unit, spell etc... being nerfed, made vastly inferior than it was. This happens time and time again until eventually the game does become 'balanced', in such a way that noone plays it anymore, cause its boring. I have seen so many good games spoiled this way.
|
I can't understand. All the nations are unabalanced, it is not a balanced game (and we love it for this too) but there are very very unbalanced nations, that would be in the "normal unbalance range" with very small tweaks ... and someone (all single player, I think) oppose to this. I can't understand the reason, seriously.
|
I agree that if you zoom in on 1 nation vs another nation you will find inbalance between them. However, take a step back and look at all the nations in a particular age, you find its very, very cleverly balanced overall.
My MP experience has shown this to be true. For exmaple in MA, Bander Log can destory MA Ulm very, very easily, but MA Agartha can destroy Bander Log easily. Another example EA Helheim can destroy EA Marverni easily but struggles badly against EA Atlantis who in turn struggles against EA Oceania. If you take the nations overall there is a balance.
This was discussed on another thread and in Dom3 you have 'face hugging' (think Alien the movie, attacks the nearest thing straight away), nations such as EA Helheim, MA Ermor, every era Mictlan vs the non-face hugging nations such as EA T'ien Ch'i, MA Arco etc...
Other factors also have a big effect, a face hugger will do well on a small map, a non-face hugger will do well on a large map. Also low gem sites will favour a face hugger (who does not rely on magic as much), well high gem sites favours a non-face hugger. Same with easy to hard research.