|
|
|
 |
|

June 8th, 2010, 07:25 AM
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
CBM, among other things, broadens the scope of the MP game...there are tons of things that you would never use in Vanilla-MP but are useful in CBM.
|

June 8th, 2010, 08:16 AM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,460
Thanks: 13
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
I have played both and enjoy both, but you BETTER know the differences (other than Pretender design etc) before you get to the mid-game portion or you will be in for a shock.
I would really like to see a comparison between them lined up next to each other (and I suspect a lot of other players noob and vets alike would also).
I know there are a ton of different threads but I really don't have the time to chase them down, and then sift thru opinions. I would love to see someone with the knowledge just put up the differences side by side.
Might be a pretty big task and too much to ask. 
|

June 8th, 2010, 08:30 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wichtia, KS
Posts: 96
Thanks: 8
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
I haven't played CBM, so take this with a grain of salt, but...
I feel like Vanilla is more thematic and "realistic" if there were such a world as this (based on mythological descriptions and things) where CBM tries to balance the gameplay by making more options viable.
Still not sure why GoR in CBM is so cheap, though (as everyone seems to use it, a lot).
|

June 8th, 2010, 09:09 AM
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,157
Thanks: 69
Thanked 116 Times in 73 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalTurnip
I haven't played CBM, so take this with a grain of salt, but...
I feel like Vanilla is more thematic and "realistic" if there were such a world as this (based on mythological descriptions and things) where CBM tries to balance the gameplay by making more options viable.
Still not sure why GoR in CBM is so cheap, though (as everyone seems to use it, a lot).
|
I'm not even sure what 'realistic' means in this context. As long as things follow rules, they're equally good fantasy.
GoR is cheap to encourage people to use it on things other than tarts. Its still too expensive (and tarts are still too cheap).
|

June 9th, 2010, 10:18 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wichtia, KS
Posts: 96
Thanks: 8
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelloid
I'm not even sure what 'realistic' means in this context. As long as things follow rules, they're equally good fantasy.
|
What I mean is there are reasons not all magic is the same, Haruspex isn't in the same school as Dark Knowledge, and it costs 1 less gem, but requries one higher path. The game isn't made to be "completely balanced."
In a high-magic fantasy world with intelligent smiths and spell-makers, there's a good chance people would find ways of creating things that generate quintessential magic items (gem-gen). While it's not certain, but it's likely.
Basically, to me, CBM seems to be a (Conceptual) Balance Mod, while the original game's focus is more toward flavor (while of course trying to keep it from being overly unbalanced).
|

June 8th, 2010, 12:51 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: R'lyeh
Posts: 3,861
Thanks: 144
Thanked 403 Times in 176 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
A couple of years ago when I started playing, I preferred to play vanilla Dom3 instead of CBM because the mod itself was changing a lot in a short time intervals, giving highlight to different new strategies without much use of anybody who knew about them, other than people who spent the time to find out about those or talked to qm. Which I sarcastically remarked upon at the time by saying "CBM is qm's tool to win that many games", as he was or is one of the top Dom3 Multiplayer veterans against whom other people regularly gang upon (and still get beaten up). The biggest problem was that there were no references for important things like lists with the magical items and other documentation, so it was difficult to plan ahead.
It is my understanding that nowadays most of the drastic changes of the past have been removed and CBM is "mostly like vanilla", and there is a great amount of CBM-specific documentation and even a few guides written especially for nations in CBM games, so outside the realm of personal preference I see no reason for not using CBM in Dom3 multiplayer games.
|

June 8th, 2010, 08:13 AM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,414
Thanks: 26
Thanked 73 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
Noobs should never touch vanilla as it's not used at all in MP. So why make bad habits? It's more boring and less cool. And then you have to learn again...
|

June 8th, 2010, 10:06 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vacaville, CA, USA
Posts: 13,736
Thanks: 341
Thanked 479 Times in 326 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
CBm has 8,680 modding commands in it covering (every nation in the game?)
It takes down the highs and raises up the lows.
Answers, guides, hints, need to be qualified as referring to vanilla or CBm.
Many of the mods for solo play or variant dom3 game settings, are counter to CBm's purpose. Rather like having diet soda with a banana split.
Many people love CBm. Most of the challenge king-of-the-hill style games here use CBm
CBm makes Dom3 miles different than Vanilla. So it tends to be that you learn how to play Dom3 or you learn how to play Dom3-CBm
What is there to debate?
Last edited by Gandalf Parker; June 8th, 2010 at 10:15 AM..
|

June 8th, 2010, 10:39 AM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,327
Thanks: 4
Thanked 133 Times in 117 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker
C
Many people love CBm. Most of the challenge king-of-the-hill style games here use CBm
What is there to debate?
|
Obviously, quite a bit or people wouldn't be doing do.
More seriously, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "challenge king-of-the-hill style games"? King-of-the-hill, I assume, means non-team MP games? The basic style that the game's victory conditions support? And all of the variants of that, random nations, no diplomacy etc.
Are team games more often played with vanilla?
I have no idea what "challenge" means in this context.
Newbie games are more often vanilla. Is that what you mean by challenge?
Is there another style of MP game more often played with vanilla?
Aren't "challenge king-of-the-hill style games" the vast majority of games here? And probably of MP games in general, though I'd assume games not organized here or on the new forums would be less likely to use CBM, due to lack of exposure if nothing else.
|

June 8th, 2010, 11:44 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vacaville, CA, USA
Posts: 13,736
Thanks: 341
Thanked 479 Times in 326 Posts
|
|
Re: Official Vanilla vs CBM debate thread
Maybe Im doing it wrong. My math sucks. Your tests seem more extensive.
All I do is select any random nation, set the scales all to -3, then start picking pretenders. How many 9's can I get and what is left over. Most dont let me get 3 9's, or dont have anything left. The Frost Father can get 9f/9a/9w and 3 in something else. Plus has cold power if played by a chill nation.
Obviously it would be unlikely to play with THOSE settings. This was just an easy way for me to see which pretenders could be bless pretenders. I was rather surprised at the results. I would never have considered Frost Father or Freak Lord over Titan.
|
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
|
|
|
|
|