Quote:
Twan said:
It's a straw man because I critic an (insanely big in my opinion) advantage given to the defender and you answer like if it was a critic of the power of magic in endgame in general.
|
It seems like you are critiquing the power of magic in the endgame.
For example, you complain that armoring your mages is a huge cost.... I don't see it as that. Sixty mages is a giant force which it is unlikely that you are bringing to a battle, but if you were it is 300 gems for amror for them all (180 if you use hammers, which is the same cost as three or four summoned mages). Armor will actually prevent a ton or AoE and battlefield spells, but also arrows, flyers on attack rear, and a host of other ills.
You are also ignoring the fact that your opponent has spent more than 1 gem for Rain of Stones. He has either expensive summoned mages who can survive several Rains of Stones(like Air Empowered Troll Kings), or he's armored all his mages(spending the same amount of gems as you should have), or he's one the few nations who can do this specific tactic (Vanheim). Whatever the reason, your enemy has invested heavily in this one tactic and it is proper that they should profit from it.
On the same note, an enemy who can cast Master Enslave on round 1 has either invested in a powerful Astral pretender or Crystal Matrixes and Slave Matrixes for all his communioned mages.
And all of those considerations still are still small considering that you could have attacked with an SC or thug army (which is the only real way to fight masses of mages).
All of these factors are part of the late game and the way that magic and gem expenditure take a greater importance and recruitable troops become simple chaff.