Guide: Bandar Log - you whipped me with what?!?

[Epaminondas]

AreaofEffect,

If that post was directed to me, you are already preaching to the (half-) converted. I acknowledged as much in my response to Kristoffer. He introduced an angle I did not sufficiently consider before.

Nonetheless, if you are trying to go to an immoderate lengths with the argument and simply say that cross-national comparisons ought not be made, period--well, then, I can't agree.

[AreaOfEffect]

Originally Posted by Epaminondas

AreaofEffect,

If that post was directed to me, you are already preaching to the (half-) converted. I acknowledged as much in my response to Kristoffer. He introduced an angle I did not sufficiently consider before.

Nonetheless, if you are trying to go to an immoderate lengths with the argument and simply say that cross-national comparisons ought not be made, period--well, then, I can't agree.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against making comparisons between nations in general. Nation-to-nation comparisons are always good in my book. What I'm saying is that unit-to-unit comparisons aren't very helpful. Also note that I feel even more strongly about this when the two units being compared fill completely different niches. Comparing a size 6 trampler to a sacred mounted unit and a standard bearer with awe against an ice giant are rather drastic comparisons to make.

My opinion is that you should make comparisons for the sake of game balance. However, those comparisons should be made by taking in the nation as a whole. Regular units, sacred units, commanders, province defense, priest power, magic paths, starting gems, pretender selection, national spells, extra dominion effects, castle types, and temple costs all have to be considered. It's not an easy comparison to make.

The purpose in the post is to express my concern that some comparisons were being made rather hastily and incorrectly. That comparisons were being made in a manner that didn't reveal much insight.

I'm glad you are half converted on this issue. I guess that means that I don't have much else to say. I just wanted to be clear that nation-to-nation comparisons are fine, though doomed to be skewed by personal opinion. Nothings perfect.

[JimMorrison]

Well AOE, perhaps I misspoke a bit, as I didn't mean to make a strictly direct comparison. I was mostly just trying to show how unless you are absolutely rolling in cash you can't spend, the tigers generally end up not being not entirely cost effective.

And really, I did not just compare them to elephants. I also compared them to White Ones. Unfortunately, Bandar Log has no other cavalry, certainly no other sacred cavalry, so what would be a better unit to compare to? I compared them to the other unit with a similar cost, and to the other sacred unit, I think that's all I could do, since we all seemed to agree it's not right to compare them to Oiorpata, for example.

I just hope that KO's agreement of my point on cost, wasn't a euphemistic, philosophical agreement. I will cross my fingers that we see a cost reduction of capital only units (not commanders) in the next patch - to encourage people to use their special national units more frequently.

<3