|
|
|
 |

November 3rd, 2003, 09:48 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Did you noticed.......
Quote:
Originally posted by apoger:
>I think you owe someone a pizza with Anchovies -
Ahem... that was in response to a specific warden versus flagellent fight. We will do the testing when the full game comes out and we have access to the flags.
|
You might want to read back on that one Alex. While I may have misread it my understanding was your argument was that bless effects weren't going to make into MP except perhaps with Flagellents.
[/quote][/QB]
>5. MP = early game supercombatents? Am I the only one who finds early game super combatents dieing left right and center when used carelessly? My "Back to the Ice Age" Jotun race has awesome early supercombatents and all it takes to kill one is a few lizards with pokey things! Sure they smash low damage dealers but I wouldn't have thought two handed weapons were a hard to achieve counter?
We obviously have different definitions of super combatant. [/QB][/quote]
Thats rude Alex. I have read through many of your Posts in the Last few days and taken them seriously and tested your statements because I respect your opinion. If you are going to blow me off with vague throw offs after I have attempted to make a reasoned argument I'm left wondering why you are in such a bad mood and why have you given up on reason all of the sudden?
In know what a SC is Alex - you taught me!
Please Alex pull back from your grump and discuss because as yet you haven't given much backing/detail at all to your claims and I, and others, need to hear examples of the SC's you are talking about. Otherwise you are responding to me like I'm just to stupid to play this game properly so you can't even be bothered explaining your view.
Keir
|

November 3rd, 2003, 10:18 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 296
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Did you noticed.......
Quote:
Originally posted by Pocus:
the formula has not changed, and is :
admin * scale bonus * tax rate
in doms I without patrolling it gives :
1.5 * 1.3 * 1.3 = 2.535
380 gold for 30000 pop capital
with patrolling (order dont increase max gold output):
1.5 * 1.3 * 2.0 = 3.9
585 gold for 30000 pop capital
in doms II, without patrolling (hey sure!) :
1.25 * 1.33 = 1.6625
249 gold for 30000 pop capital
and thats it : 249 gold versus 580. In these 580, you need to recoup the draft cost of patrollers, and pay there upkeep though. Significant, but 50 archers cost only 25 gold in upkeep, and 400 gold to buy.
So the ratio is that you have half the gold of doms I in doms II (for the capital).
|
Thanks for all the glory details . I guess why I didn't pay enough attention is more I tolerate the new math better - or I regard that some change of parameter of a problem to be solved . But the original argument still stands, you can always double the richness. Or as another suggested, another improvement will be to seperate the Gold and Resource settings and allow finer tune.
I also find the new "Order" scale forces me to make some painful (but good for gameplay) tradeoff. To raise income, I need order but I'll have less beneficial random events. Some of these events are very significant, I've got a Lore Master and a Stalker (the ethereal assassain). I hate to lose them because of a +3 order .
|

November 3rd, 2003, 10:23 PM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 1,221
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Did you noticed.......
Quote:
admin * scale bonus * tax rate
in doms II, without patrolling (hey sure!) :
1.25 * 1.33 = 1.6625
249 gold for 30000 pop capital
|
Hold on! If I will change the tax rate, the income won't change??? 
__________________
Dominions 3. Wallpapers & Logos
-------
"Training is principally an act of faith. The athlete must believe in its efficacy: he must believe that through training he will become fitter and stronger, that by constant repetition of the same movements he will become more skillful."
|

November 3rd, 2003, 10:34 PM
|
 |
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 410
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Did you noticed.......
>I do have the suspicion that with turnmoil+3 / luck+3, you'll get more income from random events than the shortcomings from the tax penalty. If you could compensate the 20-40% shortfall with patrol, it might be an interesting strategy.
That's one of the first things I tested when I got the demo. No such luck (no pun intended). You can't make up the shortfall with a turmoil-luck strategy.
The potency of the luck stat seems to have gone down. Particularly if you take order, which is almost a given in the low gold enviornment.
|

November 3rd, 2003, 10:35 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,463
Thanks: 25
Thanked 92 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: Did you noticed.......
Income will surely change, but some of your loyal subjects will have to face the winter without food, as you are taking it to pay your growing armies and greedy wizards. Add patrolling armies that hunt down complaining farmers, killing their revolting kids, raping their daughters to keep the unruly in line and you have an additional bunch dead peasants. After a while you have fewer farmers to pay your taxes.
To sum up: Players dislike evil men and if they would raise taxes they would be evil, so they try to be nice, at least to their own people.  Therefore there are fewer players that would consider raising taxes. It is nice to have a community of morally correct people.
We count on the same moral standards to keep blood magic and necromancy from being widely used 
|

November 3rd, 2003, 10:37 PM
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Nuts-Land, counting them.
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Did you noticed.......
Quote:
Originally posted by ywl:
But the original argument still stands, you can always double the richness.
|
you know as me that the standard settings will be more often than not adopted in PBEM.
Quote:
Or as another suggested, another improvement will be to seperate the Gold and Resource settings and allow finer tune.
|
yes I would like that, I think it is SC which posted (as in Saber Cherry, not Super Combattant...). Otherwise, with so much resources, the bias versus heavy units would be even greater. So rich settings ok, but only for gold then.
Quote:
I also find the new "Order" scale forces me to make some painful (but good for gameplay) tradeoff. To raise income, I need order but I'll have less beneficial random events. Some of these events are very significant, I've got a Lore Master and a Stalker (the ethereal assassain). I hate to lose them because of a +3 order .
|
quite true, some events are really crunchy. I got a visit from an astral council too.
[ November 03, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Pocus ]
__________________
Currently playing: Dominions III, Civilization IV, Ageod American Civil War.
|

November 3rd, 2003, 10:40 PM
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Nuts-Land, counting them.
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Did you noticed.......
Quote:
Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
quote: admin * scale bonus * tax rate
in doms II, without patrolling (hey sure!) :
1.25 * 1.33 = 1.6625
249 gold for 30000 pop capital
|
Hold on! If I will change the tax rate, the income won't change??? yes it will change, but you will pay direly the cost, so in essence, it is not viable to fiddle with the tax rates on the long term. This is why I didnt care to post how a 200 % taxed province churn in doms II.
There is case where you want to tax at 200%, like being at bay, or depriving an enemy of the income of a soon to be lost province, but thats another matter.
__________________
Currently playing: Dominions III, Civilization IV, Ageod American Civil War.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|