Balance opinions

[DrPraetorious]

I have several issues with CB.
1) Too many changes that don't do any good. For example, the increased cost of indie commanders.
The problem this is meant to address is legitimate (you hardly ever use your national commanders), but as QM himself has admitted, boosting the price of indie commanders doesn't actually acheve this, but it *does* penalize you for fielding large armies - it also has an effect on bloodhunting, and attaches a larger economic penalty to a failure to properly micromanage a blood economy. This particular example may not be the best as QM may change it back in the next version.
Now, I've had this argument with QM many times on IRC - QM doesn't see what's "special" about the default values or why I would want to keep changes to an absolute minimum.
I think Jazzepi has already expressed my opinion on why change should be avoided where not absolutely needed; QM may not agree but I'm certainly not the only person who feels this way.

2) Too much nerfing.
I think you get very little objection to making presently non-viable, and fun/cool, strategies more viable.
So if CBM improves units, makes units cheaper, gives more spells and units, this is broadly acceptable, especially with weak/underdeveloped nations people will accept the learning curve for a buffed nation relatively easily.
Playing a game and discovering some option is non-viable is a very different play experience that people won't tolerate. Also, in general, people *know* how to play the stronger nations (there's something to know) - few people know how to play Marverni well. It's more possible than you might think, but....
Also, it can be difficult to nerf a (supposedly overpowered) strategy in such a way that you don't ruin it entirely, which is undesirable.

3) CBM is over-optimized for blitz games.
The game has many 4X strategies so I am generally a defender of the proposition that strength in the early game translates to strength in the late game.
But this has limits, and you really test the extremes of those limits on the blitz maps for which CBM seems to be optimized.

In order for me to use a CBM mod, it would need to fit the following philosophical criteria:
a) Minimal changes. If a change does not clearly and successfully address one of a small number of major issues, leave it out.

b) Extra-minimal nerfing. Even if a change *does* clearly and successfully address a major issue, if it's a nerf, only keep it if the issue it addresses is really critical.
Half-measures that minorly inconvenience a strategy (like raising the death gem cost of a tartarian) are an example of something I just won't use.

c) Nothing that raises micromanagement requirements, *even if it fixes a critical flaw*. Turns take too long already - anything that punsihes a strategy which is easy to script, or which adds overhead to manage an existing strategy, is a non-starter.

I don't want to come across as over-critical, however - I have been unable to make a mod that meets the criterion I've described, so I can hardly fault QM for failing to make a mod that he doesn't even want to specifications which I can't myself achieve (although I have hopes for the new spell modding engine.)

But since you ask, this is why I don't use CBM myself.