Blood hunting with blood 1 mages

[Groundworm]

Since SDRs were made unique and require construction 8 after CBM 1.6, several heavy blood nations are left with only blood 1 mages for blood hunting (excepting cap-only mages, which obviously can't be recruited en masse). So how do you actually amass large numbers of blood slaves with blood 1 hunters exclusively? Do you just recruit a truly ridiculous number of them? Do you give all of your blood hunters blood-boosting items at the cost of 25 slaves each? Is there another way that I'm missing?

Should I just use CBM 1.6 if I want to play a nation with only blood 1 recruitable everywhere mages?

Thanks! All suggestions welcome!

[LDiCesare]

If you're playing SP and want SDR, definitely play with CBM 1.6. The point behind the removal of SDR was to remove micromanagement, so if you don't mind it, go for it. Or mod CBM 1.8+ and give dousing bonus to your mages if you like.
Alternatives: Jotunheim. Even after 1.6, some nations ahve recruit-everywhere B2 mages.

[kasnavada]

Do you just recruit a truly ridiculous number of them?

This. You've got to remember that the hit on blood income is "compensated" by loss on hammers and gems gen for gems, which hits non-blood nations very hard (thugging is much more difficult in mid game and numbers of SC in mid / late game are greatly reduced). And one of the main Blood advantage, they still have only a "minimal 2 paths" needing research (blood and construction).

[Valerius]

The problem with removing SDRs is that it doesn't hit all blood nations equally. Annoyingly, powerful nations like Niefelheim are barely impacted. If you have cheap non-cap B1s you can power through it by recruiting even more of them as kasnavada suggests. Doesn't work as well when your B1s cost 280 gold like Vanjarls.

Any of LDiCesare's suggestions would work or you could wait and see if CBM 1.9 addresses this. I doubt Mictlan will get a dousing bonus but maybe Van will.

[llamabeast]

As I understand it, the reasons for the artifactification of dousing rods were:

1) Including a choice which should *always* be taken is basically a bit broken or at least pointless. Almost without exception, blood hunters should be given rods if possible. So they weren't adding much to the strategy of the game.
2) Their inclusion added non-fun micromanagement.
3) Blood is generally considered to be overpowered, so the resulting fairly large nerf was desirable.

Now it's obviously a bit unfortunate that this affects some nations more severely than others. Vanheim stands out as a victim, and this will be addressed in CBM 1.9.

As for how to hunt without them: yes, lots of blood hunters basically. If you are, say, Mictlan or Lanka they are so cheap that this is still a good strategy. Giving blood hunters 25-slave boosters is also not unreasonable, but represents a genuine choice. If you are short of blood hunters but can be reasonably sure of their safety, giving them boosters is a sound investment (I'm not sure of the break-even time but I bet it's <10 turns). If you have lots of forts, blood hunters coming out of your ears but they are often killed (e.g. you are fighting a raiding nation), they're a bad idea. There's also the question of whether you need the blood slaves more now or later.

[rdonj]

Heck you can even empower them for not much more than that. But there's plenty of b1 hunters out there who aren't a big deal to use in fair numbers. Some nations do suffer though. Nice to see that llama will be doing something so people can stop worrying about vanheim so much

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by rdonj

Some nations do suffer though. Nice to see that llama will be doing something so people can stop worrying about vanheim so much

I'll never stop worrying about any of my glamour nations. Hey, have I mentioned how the lack of hammers really kills thugging?

I do actually like the removal of SDRs and I also have no problem with blood being nerfed in general. The bad thing about it is that unlike changing summoning costs, that affects everyone equally, removing SDRs hits some nations harder than others. Van is the worst hit since they already have what must be the costliest blood hunter in the game (thanks for reviewing that, llama!). Admittedly, it's hard to summon pity for Mictlan and Lanka and since their blood hunters are so cheap you can just buy more to still get a good blood economy. But what really irks me is that stupid Niefel/Jotun/OPheim wasn't particularly bothered by it. They fully deserved to be included in the nerf. Anyone up for W1B1 skrattis?

[Nightfall]

Wouldn't a more sensible nerf to SDR's be to make forging them require B2 (or even B3), which will also incidently raise the cost. I know at that price I wouldn't bother forging one for every blood hunter, just the B1's.

In fact I don't think it would hurt CBM to bring back gemgems with slightly raised path costs. The point of them should be less about massively increasing income and more about being a way to convert gem types more efficiently than alchemy over time.

Are clams overpowered at W4N1 with hammers nerfed?
Fever Fetishes at F1N2?
Blood Stones at B4E2?

In general I think CBM has made a lot of mistakes over time in making big changes, where little ones could often accomplish the same thing.

For instance, wouldn't adding the cursed flag, if possible, to dwarven hammers accomplish the reduction in micro desired, and be a small nerf that applies evenly to all nations, yet still leave them as a viable option.

[kasnavada]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

1) Including a choice which should *always* be taken is basically a bit broken or at least pointless. Almost without exception, blood hunters should be given rods if possible. So they weren't adding much to the strategy of the game.
2) Their inclusion added non-fun micromanagement.
3) Blood is generally considered to be overpowered, so the resulting fairly large nerf was desirable.

Ohoh !!! Then you'll be removing mind hunt soon ?

It does correspond, you *always* have to take some protection against it. It *does* make you have pointless micro (shuffling otherwise useless 1 astral mages around with a non astral nation and placing them in armies) and basically it's also considered overpowered by a lot of people. Well I do not know about other people's opinion, except the fact it's mentioned in nearly every guide, which gives me a clue to its power.



I do not like overland attack spell though, since I played disciple II... You always got to the point in that game where overland spells could kill anything with no counter possible. My opinion may be biased.

Coming back on subject, while I do not actually think removal of gem-gen makes the game more balanced, it *does* reduce micro by a lot. Which people usually find funnier. Putting them back at higher cost would just set back a bit the time were it's becoming more micro than playing. Of course, if there was a "assign gem gen and take gem from gem gen" button that took care of it...

[llamabeast]

Gem gens were removed for a number of reasons. Some of them are arguable (e.g. micromanagement), but the most egregious effect of their presence was the disconnection of income from land.

Imagine the situation: it's mid-to-late game, and you declare war on a neighbouring nation. You play well and they play badly. You raid effectively, outwit their armies, kill their SCs and seem to be on a winning course. Finally you reach their capital and lay siege.

But now something becomes apparent - your opponent has been playing a gem gen-heavy strategy, while you haven't. You own lots of land, he owns none - but still, invisibly, his gem income is much higher. He can hold his fort indefinitely, produce more gem gens every turn, use Wish to turn pearls into other gems, produce SCs at will etc.. You've played a much better game than him, but you can't win. Is that fun?

Although this sounds far fetched, this is a common situation in the gem gen-containing dom3 world. The late game degenerates into a gem gen rush, territory becomes irrelevant and it becomes a somewhat abstract and dull game. Not using gem gens is not a valid option, which means you *must* find a way to get a W3N1 mage (as well as an E3 mage for hammers). If you were playing Abysia, say, this involves a big detour from your thematic strengths.

In fact forging gem gens is not necessary for very small games, because for small games the game will finish before they become overpowered. The cost of the gem gens determines the game size at which they become a good choice. So increasing the cost of gem gens only moves the problem. If gem gens were more expensive, they would be a clearly bad idea for small games, but still a necessary tool for victory for very large games. There is only a small window of game size in which they are "balanced", and even then they are not balanced in a fun way, since as discussed they represent an income source which is disconnected from a player's territory.

It's worth noting that the game is *not* balanced for the inclusion of gem gens. KO explicitly said that he did not expect people to forge them in large numbers, but rather thought they would be a handy portable gem source for travelling armies. So it's not as if all the rest of the game were based around an expectation of gem gen forging.

In general I think CBM has made a lot of mistakes over time in making big changes, where little ones could often accomplish the same thing.

Well these things are always open to opinion, but people have at least put a great deal of thought into it. These things have been *heavily* discussed, and quantum_mechani (the author of CBM) is a smart and generally conservative guy.

For instance, wouldn't adding the cursed flag, if possible, to dwarven hammers accomplish the reduction in micro desired, and be a small nerf that applies evenly to all nations, yet still leave them as a viable option.

That suggestion might be worth discussing if it were possible.