Please don't take my toys away!

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
I see no reason why turmoil should be a good option for classic order races (Arco/Pythium), or even a balenced choice. Some choices suit some races better than others and so it should be.

As it stands now, Turmoil is a bad choice even for Pangaea -- which gets extra benefit out of both Turmoil and Luck.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Jasper:
As it stands now, Turmoil is a bad choice even for Pangaea -- which gets extra benefit out of both Turmoil and Luck.

That's what it seems like. Pangaea has a great patrolling unit in the harpies, but doesn't really even need them as raising taxes can't be done very well.

It is mainly the money aspect. Even with 10 Provinces pouring in the gold; you are making so much less than any Order based build you are losing incredible ground on both research and production of units.

I've tried both Pangea and BK, SaA using the Luck 3, Turmoil 3 scale. If the benefits for this scale weighed in the same as Order/Misfortune then there wouldn't be as much as issue.

If you look at the various scales which are adjusted more often than not for yourself.

For Me:

Growth: The "extra". I would take Order first, Production second then Growth in that order, unless for some reason I could get away with Sloth; then I would pump this. Even for blood magic; as the virgin loss of population is negligable for it's benefit. The slow increase over time to money is not as benefitial overall than Production scale. (For me, this is a preference)

Death: Almost never chosen; ever. Only 3 races really can choose them and only two have any benefit and that is Ermor, C'tis (Desert Tomb). Unless you are those type of races, this scale will destroy your economy.

Magic: I rarely take Magic even if I have bad researchers as a race. The vulnerability to magic resistance isn't as much on my mind as the points it costs that could be put elswhere.

Drain: I use this fairly often, to the point if 2 if I pick it at all. -2 to Research can hurt your research unless you compensate for it, but you get the benefit of 1 MR which coupled with points isn't as bad as you might think.

Heat/Cold: Only if I have to, to fit racial standards. Easy concept.

Production: This is the second scale I usually up. The only time I wouldn't up this scale would be if I am playing a style that I didn't need resources in order to field a decent army early or late in the game. More often than not this is either maxxed at 3 or Sloth. The factors of this choice are even, production and gold are both desired.

Sloth: I only choose sloth if I can field an army without production. This is rare and if I take this scale I *always* take Growth unless it's Ermor.

Order: I always take Order to 3 unless I am trying out some sort of Turmoil idea. If I adjust luck at all to misfortune I take Order up. Always.

Turmoil: Only for testing purposes. I have never sucessfully put a non Turmoil benefit race/theme (whether manditory or Pangaea) to use. It is counterproductive. If I ever take Turmoil I *always* take some form of Luck almost always 3.

Luck: This is a side note. More viewed from a "Did I take Turmoil or Order" outlook. Never on it's own merits. National heroes and such are nice; but they don't bring home the bacon.

Misfortune: If I have order I take this to 3, no middle ground. There are no other reasons I have ever taken misfortune outside of a few tests to see how many bad events I can get in a row/turn with Turmoil.

That's how I look at it. Others may have other ideas.

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Jasper:
As it stands now, Turmoil is a bad choice even for Pangaea -- which gets extra benefit out of both Turmoil and Luck.

Is it? As you put it so eloquently "I'm unconvinced." I'm also unconvinced of the zealous crusade to change the game in sweeping fashion by people lacking enough experiance to have a good judge of the question.

I have made a case Jasper and two sentence responses telling me you find it unconvincing and want more arguments are . . ."unconvincing." So you are "unconvinced" *shrugs* so I'm "unconvinced." And? Doesn't read like a discussion to me?

If you don't read the race designs I put up so don't know why they only just have enough points to work then thats your issue. I had the impression that my Posts on race design were getting little attention. Sorta funny as I was reading how one couldn't get decent race designs out of bless effects when I first came to this forum and when I post some decent bless race designs the complainers don't seem to notice or be interested in discussing the question - though some are keen on changes which would wipe out my school of race design. To this you are "unmoved and unconvinced." Cheers mate.

Fortunately for me I'm happy with the general thrust of Illwinters approach and the over enthusiatic attempts to rebalence fundamental game features are unlikely to be taken on. That being the case I think its time to get back to posting on interesting race designs and realistic options to fix minor problems. If I'm lucky people will look up from the balence debate long enough to make comment. I never did hear wether people thought the data I put together on patrolling was right - why? People were busy with the great balence debate and as they had already written off patrolling as useless why respond to someone trying to make something of it?

Sorry Jasper for being grumpy but after working hard to clear up the misunderstanding with Zen your "unconvincing" pose is a bit on the nose.

I left this group the first time I joined it because it struck me I was wasting my time. I just got drawn into largely pointless game balence debates and I get little feedback on my race design Posts - though I appreciate what I do get. When I have asked questions people don't even answer. Sure its no big deal but nobody looked up from the game balence debate to tell me the details I asked about Tien Chi - to busy doing important things.

Bah Humbug

Keir

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
That's what it seems like. Pangaea has a great patrolling unit in the harpies, but doesn't really even need them as raising taxes can't be done very well.

Here's a question...

Is it more economical in Dominions II (in terms of money per person killed) to raise taxes to 200% and patrol, or to pillage? Assume the units used take no upkeep.

[ November 24, 2003, 05:45: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Hrm. Keir, what did you ask about T'ien Ch'i? I must have missed it. Was it regarding the S&A and BK as well as summons type of thread?

I thought your Dancers of Death was a well formulated approach to the C'tis and put them in the running of potential MP candidate because of their fast expansion (akin to Caelum, Arco, Pythium and Micatan).

I don't particularly like the dancer unit later in the game even when you *can* mass produce it because they seem to really take a beating against a human opponent.

Maybe we could make or gauge a race/theme/pretender by a Triple T test. The Ten Turn Test.

What has it accomplished in raw numbers by turn 10 before you arrive at conflict (as a standard).

And I do apologize about our misunderstanding - though you shouldn't be grumpy

Is it more economical in Dominions II (in terms of money per person killed) to raise taxes to 200% and patrol, or to pillage? Assume the units used take no upkeep.

Pillaging produces unrest that you would have to clear as a 'clean up' after/while you were taking your money. If you wanted to do *Per Person* instead of resources used to produce X amount of money then it wouldn't have value based on how fast you get the money.

Unless you are going to try to pillage provinces completely out of population. I've never actually done that. You would have to calculate how much money lost over time as well.