[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

-Cheaper titan pretenders: Not sure it was needed.
Do YOU use the titan? He just doesn't have the utility of a number of other pretenders.

Yes I do. Ladies of love, lords of rebirth in particular.

-independant commanders slightly more expensive: I don't like. Sure, national non mage commanders aren't recruited, but paying 10 or 20 more for an indie leader won't change that. I pay 60 in vanilla to get a knight commander on turn 2 if I can't have another indie commander, so making them cost 50 or 60 wouldn't change my priorities but upset me a lot. I don't think changing the price of indy commanders fixes the problem of not recruiting nationals, so it should be dropped or another solution found.
So mainly you don't like it cuz it annoys you? I wish a better solution could be found too, but it isn't that big a deal, and anything that encourages nationals is fine in my book.

Yes it's annoying as in not fun and that's not good in a game. You need leaders to just ferry troops around. Making them expensive isn't really a good option. It doesn't encourage nationals in my book. As I said, I would pay for a 60 gold indie leader if I can recruit a mage. I think the move is unneeded and without any good effect. It'll cost about 10 gold on first turns and that's about it. It also has very little effect for nations whose mages have good leadership.

-staff of corrosion: I'm not sure it changes much to lower its level. When playing T'ien Ch'i, I often have mages cast acid bolts or rain. They can forge the staff, but since they often lead armies themselves, there's noone to give the staff to. If it cost less gems, I migth give it to an indie commander, but then between a commander + 1 mage-turn of forging + the gems and building a mage that can cast acid bolt, I don't really find it interesting. Of course, T'ien Ch'i acid-able mages are capital only so on a big map it may be different, but I'll generally prefer a mage over a commander + 1 mage-turn + a 15-gem-item. Right now I think the change makes Construction more interesting than Evocation, and I don't think it's needed.
I'm confused by what your complaint here is. Is it that you still don't use it? How does it make Cons better than Evoc? A little more clarity would be appreciated.

Yes I still don't use it. It might be useful to go for Cosntruction rather than Evoc in order to get acid bolts earlier (through item).

-eater of the dead: Do the changes make it more interesting to summon one considering it's always going to backfire and looks even worse when feral now?
Confused about your complaint here too. I'm assuming you think its still not cheap enough/easy enough to cast?

It should be disposable/weaker in order to be worth the risk for summoning him. I can't think of many cases when I'd want to summon it whatever the cost right now.

-slime: ok it was mostly useless, but it was the only spell some water mages could cast and they would cast it. What does the change try to accomplish? Make water magic somewhat useful in combat at low Evocation? Why?
Your point? Slime is great, if anything it lets your W mages cast SOMETHING semi-useful

If it's great, why did it need a boost? Why should water mages be able to cast something that becomes more powerful than what Earth or Fire mages can cast at the same level?

-blindness: Isn't 2 a bit early?
It doesn't work too much against early SCs, and by the time you get to late SCs you have better things to cast. Do you use it a lot?

No, I don't. But having it at level 2 seems a bit too early. If it targets mages or archers, it can be nasty.

-ligthning bolt: Why make it weaker?
So people might use Orb Lightning, and because A magic is pretty ungodly good.

Leaves me unconvinced. Augmenting Orb lightning range would make it better without making lightning bolt less reliable against strong humans.

-the kindly ones: when someone casts that and I have blood mages, I want to dispel it asap. It usually costs me 3 mages before I can dispel, whihc costs at least 30 gems. Having the spell cost only 30 means I should always cast it and cast it again every turn if an opponent of mine plays blood since we'll both lose 30 gems but he'll also lose 3 mages. So I think it's so cheap it's a no-brainer and should always be cast is possible, unless all global enchantment slots are used by or needed for other enchantments.
What nation besides Machaka is going to cast this?

Do they have to have it cheap because they're the most likely to use it?

-Umbral: This just ruins EA Agartha imo. What do they have left to try to survive? Even the Barathrus Pact boost doesn't do much to change the situation. Lower gold prices for some troops don't mitigate their crappiness.
I agree to a point, but I think 6 would be fine. I would prefer that Agartha's troops get a major boost.

Maybe 6 would be ok IF the troops got a boost.

-Grey knight: Does he need such a drastic gold decrease? I've not encountered enough to make heavy use of them, but I always wanted to build them. Probably just because I think they're cool.
I don't know what these grey knights are? Indies?

Yes, indie ehteral knights. Very hard to balance/evaluate because you see them very very rarely.