Mod: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by kianduatha

Moreover, the only nations who use glaives don't need high-damage troops, as they use 15+ strength troops.

T'ien Ch'i has 15+ strength troops? At the price of their glaive bearers?

[hunt11]

When people object to gem generators, do they have a problem with all of them, or just with clams?

[Stavis_L]

Originally Posted by hunt11

When people object to gem generators, do they have a problem with all of them, or just with clams?

1) Different people object for different reasons. See any number of threads.
2) Generally - people who object for micromanagement reasons object to them all.
3) Generally - people who object for game balance/power distribution reasons are more heavily focused on clams...but that's more varied.

Feel free to choose your own reasons for liking/disliking them :-)

[llamabeast]

All of them!

[Redeyes]

Originally Posted by LDiCesare

T'ien Ch'i has 15+ strength troops? At the price of their glaive bearers?

T'ien Ch'i uses its glaive troops?

[Festin]

LA Mictlan also has glaives.

[Maerlande]

QM,

We were discussing LA Ulm strategies on IRC and I noticed what I think is a balance issue.

Black Templars are useful troops for LA Ulm especially with a rainbow light bless which also suits LA Ulm as a viable build. However, I think they are badly overpriced. The comparisons I made are Midgard Vans and TC Ancestor Vessels.

Vans at 90/16 are 10 gold more and 29 resources less. I think the gold price for vans is suitable and resources are based on equipment if I understand correctly so that suits.

Ancestor vessels at 60/31 are 20 gold cheaper and 14 resources cheaper.

Black templars at 80/45 gain a lot of protection but have generally inferior stats to the above and have no special abilities besides sacred. The resource price is for gear so makes sense but the gold price seems at least 20 too high if not 30 too high. My understanding is that protection should not be included in gold price because it's in the resource price. Also, they have terrible MR which is potentially an issue in some situations.

Clearly a build to use Black Templars must account for production and that's fair. But burning that much gold on a decent but not special sacred cavalry unit is painful. You could buy 8 infantry for that.

That's my opinion anyways. I'm not sure LA Ulm needs help in late game, but it does have a bit of a fragile expansion depending on the strategy. And also the consensus on IRC is that LA Ulm is rush bait because their late game is so good. Black templars are one of the best equilizers for stopping a rush. And I don't think they have much late game value so it's really only a boost to Ulm's expansion and early game.

Cheers,
Maer

[Micah]

"And I don't think they have much late game value so it's really only a boost to Ulm's expansion and early game."

Stronger early game translates directly into stronger late game...

[Maerlande]

Fair enough

[Illuminated One]

That's actually one thing I have to disagree with.

Firstly, it's limiting strategies to "expand fast" (with a chance to outresearch and use research advantage in some situations).

Secondly I really don't see where Ulm can squeeze out a bless for templars.
You need d3b2-3 on your god and you need him at least dormant if you want to get into the vampires quickly, you want high dom, s4 is necessary for RoW, nature isn't.

Giving the vampires back their earlier lower cost might be better imo. They are (leaving the immortality out) weaker than the recruitable mages of many nations (Scratti and Mictlan Rain Priests for instance).