gold output

[apoger]

>In what way is Ermor worse under the new system?


Since gold is tighter, influence from Ermonian dominion will hurt more.

Even if ermors influence has been reduced (and I don't know if it has) by 1/2...

In Dom I;
Taxes 1000
Upkeep 500
Net=500 gold to spend per turn
Then Ermors influence brings taxes down 200.
Net=300 gold to spend per turn

In Dom II;
Taxes 600
Upkeep 500 (no change to that)
Net = 100 gold to spend per turn
Then Ermors influence brings taxes down 100 (a guess).
Net = 0 gold to spend per turn

This sort of thing has repercussions beyond Ermor. The Dom II economy is much different than Dom I.

Frankly, I'm surprised you had to ask about this.

[ November 02, 2003, 05:23: Message edited by: apoger ]

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by apoger:
>In what way is Ermor worse under the new system?


Since gold is tighter, influence from Ermonian dominion will hurt more.

Even if ermors influence has been reduced (and I don't know if it has) by 1/2...

In Dom I;
Taxes 1000
Upkeep 500
Net=500 gold to spend per turn
Then Ermors influence brings taxes down 200.
Net=300 gold to spend per turn

In Dom II;
Taxes 600
Upkeep 500 (no change to that)
Net = 100 gold to spend per turn
Then Ermors influence brings taxes down 100 (a guess).
Net = 0 gold to spend per turn

This sort of thing has repercussions beyond Ermor. The Dom II economy is much different than Dom I.

Frankly, I'm surprised you had to ask about this.

Frankly I am suprised by your analysis, the glaring fault is of course that upkeep is dependent on income, so everything else equal the upkeep in the second case would be 300 not 500. Thus, if we assume the rest of the numbers make sense, you would have 200 gold remaining. Making the influence more or less proportional, and if we change the ermorian influence to -120gp it is proportional.

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by johan osterman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by apoger:
>In what way is Ermor worse under the new system?


Since gold is tighter, influence from Ermonian dominion will hurt more.

Even if ermors influence has been reduced (and I don't know if it has) by 1/2...

In Dom I;
Taxes 1000
Upkeep 500
Net=500 gold to spend per turn
Then Ermors influence brings taxes down 200.
Net=300 gold to spend per turn

In Dom II;
Taxes 600
Upkeep 500 (no change to that)
Net = 100 gold to spend per turn
Then Ermors influence brings taxes down 100 (a guess).
Net = 0 gold to spend per turn

This sort of thing has repercussions beyond Ermor. The Dom II economy is much different than Dom I.

Frankly, I'm surprised you had to ask about this.

Frankly I am suprised by your analysis, the glaring fault is of course that upkeep is dependent on income, so everything else equal the upkeep in the second case would be 300 not 500. Thus, if we assume the rest of the numbers make sense, you would have 200 gold remaining. Making the influence more or less proportional, and if we change the ermorian influence to -120gp it is proportional.

---

He is also neglecting the fact that in Dom I you had to pay upkeep on your patrollers - you couldn't get that kind of extra income without patrollers.

Of course Ermorian influence will be less in absolute terms - you aren't taxing at 200% in Dom II. That is the biggest reason incomes are less. Some positive scales have been nerfed somewhat - but on the other hand, so have their negative counterparts. You won't lose as much from Ermor's Turmoil 3 in Dom II as you would have in Dom I.

Usually though your core provinces won't fall under Ermorian dominion anyway, unless you have very low dominion strength and/or are failing to preach. Mictlan might have a problem with an Ermorian dominion pusher, but I doubt if many others would - Ermor can't preach and can't afford many temples. (Desert Tombs C'tis can do both, but doesn't have the killer dominion. I don't know if Carrion Woods Pangaea can preach and still has cheap temples - if so, dominion pushing from them could be very dangerous.)

More serious is that provinces you take from Ermor are more or less permanently ruined, while other players who fight living opponents can gain valuable land (if they win). The high gem income of the Unholy Sepulchre (and other lands searched by Ermor's pretender, if they go for a rainbow mage) makes up for this somewhat - if you can use it.

Of course all this analysis assumes that Ermor is going Ashen Empire or Soul Gates. Otherwise they will probably take much less malign dominion since they will need gold and supplies for their own troops - and they don't have the "kill the living, reanimate the dead" special dominion effect.

Yes, it is likely to be somewhat of a disadvantage to start next to an Ashen Empire or Soul Gates Ermor (or a Carrion Woods Pangaea). But those themes will probably be unpopular in MP because they are (a) easy to counter (by human players), (b) start slow (at least Dom I Ermor did), and perhaps most importantly (c) draw too much hostility from a diplomatic perspective.

I'd like to be able to play all the different special themes of Ermor before making a definitive statement as to which would be best for MP; but at the moment I expect that Ashen Empire/Soul Gates would probably not be a good choice.

[Jasper]

I've never found being next to Ermor to be a disadvantage, and several times have found it to be a boon. You should defend yourself against hostile dominion pushes -- they're very common. IMHO it's unusual to have Ermorian dominion hold sway over your lands.

Also, Ermor doesn't really want to push his dominion into your lands, as that's simply diplomatic suicide. Making his lands worthless to you and going no further is much more attractive -- and I don't see how this is significantly different than Dom 1.

[Keir Maxwell]

Previously the complaint I read about castles was that Admin was overpowered and that would decide your choice. Now I read that admin is underpowered and castles are not an effective economic investment.

Er, um, are we playing monopoly? I thought you built castles for defence, a base for offence, and control? I'm not sure that the economics being desired makes much sense in the environment we are playing. The castle allows you to hold the lands and gather taxes effciently - its not a factory designed to produce more factories.

I quite like the idea that the defense strength might affect the choice of stonghold. Remember what you wrote on this subject re Dom I race design Alex?

The impact of gold shortages is something we should be cautious about. Magic is weaker so golds stronger, golds less available so in built magic is stronger, air is weaker so blood is stronger but blood is weaker unless you are . . . in which case . . . blah, blah, blah . . . on no my brains turned to mush.

So, so, much has changed. Alex don't react to every change based upon the impact it has upon the Dom I play balence because its not that relevant. The old world is gone and the new one is only just unfolding. I don't know how it will be but I can see glimpses and they contain many rich hues and deep, deep, shadows. Fear the Dark, oh yes, fear the Dark for its is rising!

Don't worry, be happy . . .

Keir

[Pocus]

I run some testbeds on castles storming. Nobody play with the intent of loosing, but still I think taking into consideration how your castle handle an assault can be a factor to be considered.

Just try the hill fortress : You will get 32 arrows fired each round into the inner yard, a yard so small that enemies will stay here a long time before being able to break into the inner area.
We need to test this with additional effects like staff of storms or arrow fend, but I dont think castle arrows will be useless anyway, as even with low precision, they will hit often when fired at point blank.

An by the way, the hill fortress is not that bad, when you only take design points cost and admin level.