Tip: Template for reducing late game MM hell

[Micah]

No way. Remote spells are already extremely effective, suggesting that the only line of defense against them be removed is foolishness. The damage domes are also useless, it's trivial to slap a couple of resistance items on the casting mage.

Turtling isn't a problem without non-province-based income, whereas gem gens introduce a host of problems into the game.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Micah

No way. Remote spells are already extremely effective, suggesting that the only line of defense against them be removed is foolishness. The damage domes are also useless, it's trivial to slap a couple of resistance items on the casting mage.

Turtling isn't a problem without non-province-based income, whereas gem gens introduce a host of problems into the game.

I'm not sure I understand. You're opposed to defensive play but removing something which makes defensive play powerful is bad?

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

I'm not sure I understand. You're opposed to defensive play but removing something which makes defensive play powerful^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H tedious is bad?

Fixed your post.

-Max

[WraithLord]

gem gens recap:
1. Everybody does them. So nobody gets a serious advantage. I forge lots of them with every nation I play, even ones w/o paths. I just invest some and get/empower mages to needed paths. Everybody does it. The secret is out. All that's left is:
2. Tedious, mind numbing work of forging them and defending their holders.
3. They prolong end game since it's very hard to kill nations by taking their provinces. In-fact province are not that important when you have those 60 clams and 60 blood stones on scouts or what not.
4. They indirectly contribute to making end game turns longer by allowing a much higher gem income - thus more spells, SCs, forging work.
5. Coupled with wish the game just breaks.

Missed anything?

BTW, I have read somewhere that IW originally intended them to be used for battle. If there was a way to enforce that (not allowing their income to leave the holder) then they could be of use.

[K]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

gem gens recap:
1. Everybody does them. So nobody gets a serious advantage. I forge lots of them with every nation I play, even ones w/o paths. I just invest some and get/empower mages to needed paths. Everybody does it. The secret is out. All that's left is:
2. Tedious, mind numbing work of forging them and defending their holders.
3. They prolong end game since it's very hard to kill nations by taking their provinces. In-fact province are not that important when you have those 60 clams and 60 blood stones on scouts or what not.
4. They indirectly contribute to making end game turns longer by allowing a much higher gem income - thus more spells, SCs, forging work.
5. Coupled with wish the game just breaks.

Missed anything?

BTW, I have read somewhere that IW originally intended them to be used for battle. If there was a way to enforce that (not allowing their income to leave the holder) then they could be of use.

1. So they are not unbalancing the game. That's a flaw?
2. Yeh, and defending provinces, castles, mages, etc is so tedious.
3. The funny thing about the endgame is that you can take 90% of a person's provinces in a few rounds with thugs and SCs and then you have to actually fight their armies. It's actually good that the win doesn't always go to the sneak attacker.
4. Yes, having a gem income adds a level of complexity to the game. This is the wrong game for you if you don't like complexity.
5. Let's face it, any gem income and Wish causes weird things to happen. I once ended a game just by using my non-Astral, not gem-gen, gem income to Armageddon the place to death to force the end of the game because 15 players were stuck in terminal turtle mode and the game was never going to end.

Gem gens only cause MM when you spend a lot of time turtling and have extra gem income and mage time to spend on them. The fact that you want to hit people early and hard before they can build a hundred gem-gen items actually means that the endgame should be shorter if people are not stuck in terminal turtle mode.

If you spend a lot of time fighting, scripting a single large complicated army can take an hour or more. That and incentives to turtle should be the place where people should be spending their energies if they want to cut down MM.

[Raiel]

Originally Posted by K

...If you spend a lot of time fighting, scripting a single large complicated army can take an hour or more. That and incentives to turtle should be the place where people should be spending their energies if they want to cut down MM.

Seriously?!?

I'm beginning to see why it's so difficult to reach any real consensus on these forums... this game is so varied and complex that different players will enjoy the game for completely dichomotic reasons.

I enjoy the strategic elements of Dominions 3, but I LOVE the scripting and placement... it's only painstaking when I actually care about the results - and caring about the results means it's worth the time invested - so it's not tedious to me.

[WraithLord]

K, your view is very interesting. I don't think we can reduce this to a factual disagreement since it's very much about taste and preference of players. So clearly there's no black and white here

I guess a lot of ppl share my feelings towards gem gens as contributing to significantly raise end game MM. Perhaps in small games they can be ok, but certainly not for moderate to large ones. It’s a very delicate balance but for now I think I’d rather go w/o them.

[Hiisi]

Originally Posted by K

3. The funny thing about the endgame is that you can take 90% of a person's provinces in a few rounds with thugs and SCs and then you have to actually fight their armies. It's actually good that the win doesn't always go to the sneak attacker.

You have a valid point, but i have to disagree. I think that no gem gens means
-Less SC / thugs able to beat PD
-More summoned units on field from defender, because no gem investments in gem gens.
-National units are more important than before. Easier to defend with, but difficult to blitz with.

I would say that it's harder to sneak/blitz if no gem gens...

[Kuritza]

Originally Posted by Hiisi

You have a valid point, but i have to disagree. I think that no gem gens means
-Less SC / thugs able to beat PD
-More summoned units on field from defender, because no gem investments in gem gens.
-National units are more important than before. Easier to defend with, but difficult to blitz with.

I would say that it's harder to sneak/blitz if no gem gens...

If you're right, then gemgens actually allow nations with weaker national units to compete against nations with stronger armies. Thus, gemgens make this game more balanced.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by WL

Now, does anyone seriously claim that removing gem gens unbalances the game?- Not taking into account gem gen dependent nations.
If so, please elaborate the rational behind this claim.

See K here:

Originally Posted by K

3. The funny thing about the endgame is that you can take 90% of a person's provinces in a few rounds with thugs and SCs and then you have to actually fight their armies. It's actually good that the win doesn't always go to the sneak attacker.

What more elaboration do you need?