Mod: CBM 1.7 released

[rdonj]

He's right that they're not really gem gens though, which is the main point. I think the more important reason for making the SDR unique is that blood is a bit too strong, and that's the easiest way to nerf it. I can't blame QM for preferring to unique dousing rods than to change and balance the costs of all blood spells to try and balance blood out.

[Dimaz]

I agree, removing SDRs in such widely used and important for the community mod without warning is ridiculous. Gemgens were removed after much debate AFAIK and they were considered broken by vast majority back then which the vote in another thread shows, not so with SDRs.
Seriously, it really irritates when people call something only remotely close "WARNING! GEMGENS" and use it as an excuse to remove it from game. I feel that options should be removed from the game only if they are seriously broken.

[DeadlyShoe]

Um, if it's not a gem generator, what is it? It has no purpose but generating gems over time. It's just much more limited in potential and use than the others, which is presumably why it lasted so much longer before getting nerfed.

Noone is against things just because they are gemgens. I.E. Eternal Pyre and similar spells are blatantly gem generators but noone is saying to take them out.

[llamabeast]

Actually Dimaz, I think the community was a bit outraged about the loss of gem gens at the time, but gradually came to see it as a change for the better.

I think basically, blood and blood sacrificing are both severely overpowered. Removing SDRs (and Jade Knives) is an effective way to mitigate that, while having the added side effect of removing some micro, and allowing Blood nations to start their research with something other than Const 4.

[Dimaz]

The game that Xanatos (IIRC) tried to start with CBM 1.5 short after the 1.6 release never started because there were only 4 or 5 players who wanted to join (including me). I think that shows the level of acceptance. I know some people that were against the change but it was sort of impossible to start the game with gemgens here at the time.
Blood being op is completely different matter than SDRs being gemgens or not. Actually I'm not sure that it needs external balancing even if it is op as usually it more or less balances itself in the game (especially with diplomacy). Also banning gemgens effectively made blood stronger so it's just the conseqence of previous decisions. And removing SDRs of cause nerfs blood but 1) unequally for different nations 2) it removes just another "investment" part of the game which is bad imo. They are sort of cheap for what they do I agree, 10B seems more adequate.

[quantum_mechani]

The fact that apparently there is still around 25% support for gem gens certainly supports the idea there was even greater division over them then.

I actually would not be that opposed to 10b SDRs instead of unique ones, but I think most of the issues would remain the same. Investment options are only interesting so long as they are just that, options. They make a lot more sense in a game designed to make strategic choices of that sort- and dominions is not that game. Investment options are so few, that they seem to either become mandatory choices or trivial effects. I tend to think this is because marginal resource advantages are not really what make or break rushes in general, you are almost never making the choice of much needed offensive options to expand vs. investment. Because there are so few investment options (even base game), you can easily soak the cost of all available investments and still be in very nearly as strong of a military position.

Anyway, that's my theory for why investment options always seem to be unavoidable or too marginal to consider in dominions, but it also seems a pretty unavoidable conclusion empirically.

[Corinthian]

I agree with quantum_mechani on this that the problem was not exponential investments, so much as it was the no brainer situation. Because lets face it: In a strategy game, EVERYTHING you spend resources on is an investment. You invest in troops to get provinces, you get provinces to get gold, you get gold to get troops.
The gem gens was too cheap and gave too good a return on the investment. It became far superior too more conventional early game strategies, like spamming low level summonings.

In the early game there is not a lot of spells that will put you in a better position, than hoarding gems, for casting higher level spells later, will do.

Also, clamming was not obvious to your neighbors, unlike a high province or gem income count. Witch would be the result of other kinds of investments. Therefore it prevented people from gauging your threat level and gang up on you before it was to late.

All of these things could be fixed by reducing the profit of the investment. In vanilla, a clam of pearl will pay for itself in 14 turns and could be made with hammers after researching const 2.

My solution is to make the gemgens worse investments. Lets change the cost of the clams from 15W 5N to 20W 5N and also change the construction requirements to const 6. Also if you are going to return the hammers, give it the "No forge discount" tag. This would change the rate of return from 14 to 25 turns. And by the time you reach const 6 there will be other high level spells to compete for the gems.

It will still pay for itself eventually, but it is no longer a no brain investment and will probably only be done by well entrenched turtlers, like underwater nations. Or by people that wanted const 6 for other reasons.

[Kuritza]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

The fact that apparently there is still around 25% support for gem gens certainly supports the idea there was even greater division over them then.

No it means that these who opposed your gemgen-purge initially still dont like it, and sometimes visit these boards out of nostalgy or something like that.
You seem to take it for granted that these who have played your mod for a while come to love all its features. Well, it's not necessary true. Make another poll if you wish - 'Did you change your opinion about gemgens over the last year?' - with answers like 'No / Yes, I like it without gemgens now / Yes, I have decided that removing gemgens was a lame solution.' Perhaps you will be surprised... perhaps I will. Seriously, that would be interesting.

Now, for the 'obligatory investments' thing. Yes, you need hammers to compete. Is it a bad thing? No. Is having fewer magic items a bad thing? Yes, in my opinion.
Need for hammers encourages either diplomacy or creativity. Initially, you just need one or two; later, any nation can forge them. Added micromanagement is also marginal.
You oversimplify the game.

[llamabeast]

The trouble with that is that the appropriate cost depends on the size of game. For a small 4-player game, vey cheap clams would be appropriate, while for a huge game they should be very expensive in order to avoid being no-brainers. There's no cost which is appropriate for all games.

Apart from that, I think it's horrid that a player can be reduced to one sieged fortress, but still be effectively at full power because the fortress is full of clam bearers. It completely disconnects power from provinces and armies.

[Corinthian]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

The trouble with that is that the appropriate cost depends on the size of game. For a small 4-player game, vey cheap clams would be appropriate, while for a huge game they should be very expensive in order to avoid being no-brainers. There's no cost which is appropriate for all games.

This point I disagree with. Why? Because big games and small games also play very different in every other way. All actions in strategy games are investments. You can usually chose between quick investments that have a bad but fast payoff. Or you can make long, slow, investments that will make slower but greater payoff. A clam is a long term investment that is safe. It will always pay of after long enough time. The drawback is that it has a opportunity cost. The research points needed to get to const 6 could be spent elsewhere. Those gems and research points could free some unfrozen that could win you wars.

The clam is only a good investment if you live long enough for it to break even. (25 turns in my scenario.) You sacrifice part of your current power in order to gain a greater power down the line. Assuming you survive. And it is not certain that you could not have gained greater power by using your current power to take your neighbors provinces and gem income.

So what does this have to do with small games? Well small games are quick! Late game strategies like tarts and wish will be useless. Anyone that sacrifices short term power, in order to gain even more long term power, will be crushed by people that build troops and battle mages. By increasing the cost and research required to use clams, you delay the repayment and makes it a late game plan. Or rather a plan that come into fruitaition in the late game.

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Apart from that, I think it's horrid that a player can be reduced to one sieged fortress, but still be effectively at full power because the fortress is full of clam bearers. It completely disconnects power from provinces and armies.

If that is your problem then you must hate Late Age C'tis.
I am playing them in a newbie game on the other forum. I have been at war with two other players for proximately two and a half year. I have been loosing that war for almost as long..... They can't kill me though because even though I only had two provinces left at the worst, I still had all my undead reanimators left. And because I had found quite a few death sites in the first year, they were quite many.

The enemy could raid away all my lands, take my gem and gold income, and yet none of that mattered. Because my upkeep-free priests could reanimate 42 upkeep-free tomb chariots each and every turn! My war making abilities are still on top and I could probably hod out at least another year against two enemies that control all my lands. Possibly two!