Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaminondas
AreaofEffect,
If that post was directed to me, you are already preaching to the (half-) converted. I acknowledged as much in my response to Kristoffer. He introduced an angle I did not sufficiently consider before.
Nonetheless, if you are trying to go to an immoderate lengths with the argument and simply say that cross-national comparisons ought not be made, period--well, then, I can't agree.
|
Don't get me wrong. I am not against making comparisons between nations in general. Nation-to-nation comparisons are always good in my book. What I'm saying is that unit-to-unit comparisons aren't very helpful. Also note that I feel even more strongly about this when the two units being compared fill completely different niches. Comparing a size 6 trampler to a sacred mounted unit and a standard bearer with awe against an ice giant are rather drastic comparisons to make.
My opinion is that you should make comparisons for the sake of game balance. However, those comparisons should be made by taking in the nation as a whole. Regular units, sacred units, commanders, province defense, priest power, magic paths, starting gems, pretender selection, national spells, extra dominion effects, castle types, and temple costs all have to be considered. It's not an easy comparison to make.
The purpose in the post is to express my concern that some comparisons were being made rather hastily and incorrectly. That comparisons were being made in a manner that didn't reveal much insight.
I'm glad you are half converted on this issue. I guess that means that I don't have much else to say. I just wanted to be clear that nation-to-nation comparisons are fine, though doomed to be skewed by personal opinion. Nothings perfect.