Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)

[Wrana]

Though relatively new, particularly in MP, I have something to say on the following nations:
EA Ulm 4 4 2 4 2 (as said, lack of uber-sacreds in EA, + low MR; no Astral, Blood, weakish Death. But troops are good enough & forge bonus quite good).
EA Helheim 5 4 4 4 2? (sacreds, though I don't use uber-bless, but common troops are strong, too; good Death magic, weaker Blood; in MP stealthy armies are more difficult to use properly)
EA Sauromatia 5 5? 5? 4 4? (strong overall, poison archers & Hydras can replace sacreds quite well; better Blood/Death than previous, + Astral)
EA Tien Chi 4 4 5 3 2? (good troops, great versatility of mages; good summons; learn to use any variation of mages can take a lot)
MA Tien Chi 4? 5? 5? 3 2? (as above except less mages variability & less summons)
MA Shinuyama 3? 4 4? 2 2? (no sacreds & difficult to get military machine going - need scales; variable mages can be a pain to learn)
LA Bogarus 4 4 4? 2 ? (their troops are actually not bad and mages give good versatility; Dominion kill is an option I think they should excercise; plus ability to hurt enemy economy - this could make a strong mid to late game. I still think they should be 2 nations, though.)

[triqui]

LA Bogarus 4 4 4? 2 ? (their troops are actually not bad and mages give good versatility; ...

They troops suck badly and they have no sacreds. The nation is nice, i like their magic versatility and with a good awake SC they are viable. But that does not change the fact that they initial expansion strength sucks, and they are vulnerable to early attacks. I think it has been done on purpose, actually, as a way to counterbalance their powerful research.

[Gandalf Parker]

Wow. Im having a blast with them.
It sounds like yet another case of "they suck" when it might better be said "They suck at playing my style". Im not knocking you. There are two common things I see in posts about things that are broken or out of balance with nations.

A) not understanding that nations do not balance to each other, the game is rock-paper-scissors balance

B) talking about nations without apparently having played to their strengths.

When you played LA Bogarus...
did you make use of their cavalry?
did you make use of Skopets and Khlysts?
did you make use of 5 Fold Angels?
did you make use of the Luck protection?

As an example; there is nothing wrong with LA Bogarus not doing as well as LA Ulm if they are both playd with LA Ulm tactics.

[triqui]

I did not say Bogarus suck. Actually, i did say i like the nation.

But they troops suck. From a basic stat comparison. Their stats are weaker than anyone else (And that includes most indis) Their missile weapon is a *short bow* in *late era*, which they couple with precision 8. And it happens to be the good part of his army, go figure.

The nation is good. Just that its strength is not the troops. And that is exactly what this thread is for: to find out each nation strength and weaknesses.

I know Bogarus should not play as Ulm, becouse Ulm has good starting troops and Bogarus... well, does not. I would rate Bogarus higher than Ulm anyday, though.

EDIT: as already said for Maverni. Fine, if Bogarus troops are "good", then which ones are "bad"? Which nation troops will you rate weaker than Bogarus in Late Age? Becouse if Bogarus is a 4/5, then everybody else is a 5/5 and Uttgarde or Vanheim are 8/5.

[triqui]

A) not understanding that nations do not balance to each other, the game is rock-paper-scissors balance

Actually, I think I remember to have read from K.O. that the game is not balanced, nor it is intended to. I remember him saying that the game supposes that 2 weaker nations will cooperate against the stronger ones, and that LA ermor and LA ryleh fail to this "balance" becouse they can win 2vs1.

[Gandalf Parker]

My rating of a strong or weak nation would be based quite abit on my style of play. Which is heavily into stealth, surprise tactics, and basically luck. So in many cases, what other people consider underdog nations are my favorites.

I only have a problem when people list what they feel are bad things about bad nations when they obviously are not the type of player to play to that nations built-in strengths. I think that instead of complaining about a nation and wanting to change it into another nation, its more fun to try and figure out how its meant to be played. But thats probably just the basic hacker in me.

[triqui]

Gandalf Parker said:
My rating of a strong or weak nation would be based quite abit on my style of play. Which is heavily into stealth, surprise tactics, and basically luck. So in many cases, what other people consider underdog nations are my favorites.

Fine, you are wellcome to rate Bogarus (or any other nation) differently. However, if you rate Bogarus Early Game (that is, bassically it's troop strength) highly and it's Middle and Late Game (where I value things like magic diversity, research power and access to Astral) lowly, they I will use my right to disagree

quote]I only have a problem when people list what they feel are bad things about bad nations when they obviously are not the type of player to play to that nations built-in strengths. I think that instead of complaining about a nation and wanting to change it into another nation, its more fun to try and figure out how its meant to be played. But thats probably just the basic hacker in me.

[/quote] I'm not complaining about Bogarus *at all*. I'm complaining about the previous poster ability to find Bogarus built-in strengths (which have plenty), and it's (in my opinion) misdirecting post, which might make some new player to conclude that Bogarus is a good "rush nation" based on its 4/5 (that is, near perfect) score in "early game". That would make it to be on par with nations like Uttgarde, Pangaea or Arcoscephale, which have been rated (rightly imho) that way already in this post, and have MUCH stronger base troops.

The entire point of this post is to rate the nation built-in strengths (and therefore weaknenesses). You have your right to disagree with me and to think that one of Bogarus strengths is its troops, and then we will debate about it if you please. But answering "have you tried 5fold angels" will not show how their archers and cavalry is on par with Man. If it's not (and i think it's not), then if Bogarus Early Game is 4/5, Man is 5/5. That would imply Pangaea is 6/5 and Vanheim is 7/5, which kinda screw the entire purpose of having a score based on 5 points.

I agree with you that style of play will make players to gravitate toward one or another nation. Players that tend to play in very big maps with a lot of players ussually will preffer late game powerhouses (such as Bogarus) over short term potences like vanheim. But that should not modify their own ratings of the nation. Bogarus still deserve a 1 or 2 in early power, becouse it is a bad nation for blitzes and early game, even if you like it becouse you like long term nations. Then rate it 2/5 EG and 5/5 late game or whatever. Not doing so, and allowing "general likeness of the nation" to permeate it's ratings will make some people who came here looking info, to try and choose the "wrong" nations for it's playstyle. Becouse if someone who likes what you have named "ulm style" tries to play Bogarus based on its alleged "4/5 early game score", he will be dissapointed. As much as a player that like magic, research, long term goals and late game will be if he tries Ulm based on some one's score of "ulm late game 5/5".

[Endoperez]

"Early Game" wasn't defined in this thread, I think.

Some people think it's the ability to rush and stop rushes directed at you (triqui?). Quantum mechanic said he thought early game happened before level 4 in research. Some people may think it's ability to conquer independents in an empty map quickly.

I don't think a nation has to be a good rusher to have strong early game.


I agree that 4 for early game strength may be too much for Bogarus, but that's why JimMorrison wishes to get more votes. It will average out. Give your own opinion about Bogarus, preferably about all the LA nations.

"Bad votes" are a necessity, because the community is so small. They can't be fixed afterwards, because that'd screw up JimMorrison's calculations. With enough votes, it will even out any way. One high vote might mean that Bogarus has early game strength of 2.45 instead of 1.45, but that still shows it's weaker than Vanheim or Man or whatever.

[quantum_mechani]

triqui said:

and they have no sacreds.

This is not the case, though they aren't especially awe-inspiring.

[triqui]

This is not the case, though they aren't especially awe-inspiring.

True. "they have no sacreds worth mentioning" is more accurate.