Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelloid
WL: there actually is a factual disagreement here. K is positing that gem gens make the endgame more fair because you don't just lose to a massive sneak attack - ie, the fact that this income is hard to take away is better for balance. Whereas it's been posited by a number of people that gem gens are unbalanced because its gem income that can't be taken away. That's a major factual disagreement about what constitutes fair and balanced in the game.
|
When the end game comes, you need to castle and dome yourself. You need to protect important provinces. If you let your enemy take them so easily, you deserve to lose. |
Yes, you can protect a few sites. But if all your gem income is tied to sites you can lose an awful lot of it to a blitz attack. And then you've basically lost the game. A reduction of gem income by 50% is game losing at that point, because then your opponent outspends you substantially.
Hiisi:
Some nations have sneakable armies that can take PD without being especially strong. Or have thugs that don't actually need equipment. Or purchaseable SCs. etc... Removing the option for others to summon them just makes the ones who can purchase them better.