Are devils worth 7 blood each?

[Boron]

Soapyfrog said:
I think exponential/quadratic growth is not a good thing in a fantasy game that doesn't scale well past turn 60 or so. Who wants to see Doom Horrors getting summoned 1 or even 2 per turn? Who wants to see an army of 120 devils wiped out at great cost to return completely regenerated a turn later? Even worse, who wants to fight their way through an mile-wide mass of vampires which respawns every turn no matter how often you kill it and keeps growing to boot?

The worst part is there are essentially only 3 or 4 ROI quadratic/exponential growth strategies that really pay off: clamming, fetishing, soul contracts, and vampire lords. That doesnt exactly give the game a lot of depth, or a much of an nteresting end game... in a 17 player game SOMEONE is going to carry off one or more of these strategies more that likely and, assuming some level competetance, dominate because of it.

Those empires that had to fight tooth and nail to survive and could not put the neccessary resources into clamming or whatever, get steamrolled.

Eliminating these strategies would surely result in a more balanced game.

Yeah . The worst thing is that clamming together with wishing gives you access to everything then . You can wish for a bit blood to get then the blood autosummons started , can wish the unique SCs you want in endless amounts etc. etc.
So once it comes to real lategame the nations who can't wish because they have no good astral mages + couldn't clamhoard well are severely disadvantaged .

And before especially the devilhoarding is evil .

After about turn 50-60 normally the ability to use one or more of these hoard strategies with exponential growth is the most important thing .
Furthermore normally nations don't get too big that quick and if they do they fight for lots of turns against their neighbors so they are actually weakened .

Especially Caelum + Abysia are here probably a problem because they are so strong in early game already too .

[johan osterman]

There are easy and simple solutions to your problems. Fiddle with the game settings and victory conditions, use smaller maps, attack players before strategies with 10 turn investement returns pay off.

If you continously play on huge maps while letting other players grow at their own pace do not be shocked if strategies with delayed investment return pays off. If you do not like it, play on smaller maps and use victory settings that encourage more agressive play etc.


Boron: I am pleased to see that you have been convinced to use punctuation, trying to decipher your post earlier was a hassle.

[Kel]

Yossar said:
No way. If you've gone 60 turns without attacking anyone, you're most likely irrelevant. You're going to lose to the two or three other nations that have been taking all the land and are three times as large as you are. Unless you're playing with newbies or on a HUGE map, or some other strange setting.

Well, most MP games...well, let me rephrase, most MP games that start here, *are* huge maps so maybe my experience is tainted by that. However, even without a huge map, you still have a lot of situations where you pick up land without being 'disturbed' by other players. Aside from the fact that you can clean up every indie province, you can also clean up territories from players who get thrashed and go computer control next to you. Heck, even if they don't go CC, you can still take a bunch of territory from them. On top of that, your territory will be substantially better than theirs, pound for pound, as yours will be more thoroughly site searched, castled and unpillaged.

Start a game with 3 people. Let the first two go to war while the third just takes indies and builds power. It's not a sure bet but my money is on the third guy.

- Kel

[Soapyfrog]

johan osterman said:
There are easy and simple solutions to your problems. Fiddle with the game settings and victory conditions, use smaller maps, attack players before strategies with 10 turn investement returns pay off.

This is not good game mechanics, period. If the solution to a Mictlan devil factory is "gang up on Mictlan early" then that's broken. If the solution to runaway economies is to play on small maps, then that's broken. The game doesnt scale!

What if I want to play a game on a huge map that doesnt become a clamming competition after turn 30-40? Short of a house rule I can't: there is NO POSSIBLE ALTERNATE STRATEGY.

johan osterman said:If you continously play on huge maps while letting other players grow at their own pace do not be shocked if strategies with delayed investment return pays off. If you do not like it, play on smaller maps and use victory settings that encourage more agressive play etc.

Its not a question "letting" them grow at their own pace. in a 17 player game, SOMEONE will manage it, and that player will win regardless of who won all the hard-fought wars in the middle game.

So there is no incentive to fight except to shoot cripples and snatch territory. You certainly don't want to risk an evenly matched conflict becuase that will simply cripple you.

It would be more interesting to me if magic sites and powerful summons etc. did not devalue so quickly as the game progresses. It would be interesting to see armies of national troops still relevant in the late game.

[Alneyan]

In the case of Soul Contracts, a mod could also be used to alter the effect of the item, if you think such a change is needed. As I do not think we can currently mod magic items (I haven't checked under 2.13 though), the solution would imply a weakening of the Devils themselves, and a change of the cost of the "Bind Devil" spell.

The Soul Contract will still be a long term investment, but it would then take longer to pay back, while making direct summons cheaper as well. The actual changes are left to you, depending on your mileage. Sure, a mod will unlikely be widely used, but it should do just as well as a house rule in this case. And if magic items can currently be modded, it would be much easier to do something along these lines (the same reasoning would go with clams and the like, but it would be harder to do it with an indirect change).

[Gandalf Parker]

Soapyfrog said:

This is not good game mechanics, period. If the solution to a Mictlan devil factory is "gang up on Mictlan early" then that's broken. If the solution to runaway economies is to play on small maps, then that's broken. The game doesnt scale!

I havent really been following the conversation but it sounds like another "if its not head-to-head fair then its broke" discussion. ou are saying that if a strategy is offered in response to a strategy that its not an answer?

And arent nations like Marignon and TienChi also solutions to devils? (any nations with high priests)

What if I want to play a game on a huge map that doesnt become a clamming competition after turn 30-40? Short of a house rule I can't: there is NO POSSIBLE ALTERNATE STRATEGY.

You are talking about Atlantis using clams, correct? On a large map, what about the other large-map strategies. The ones that dont get a "fair play" on small maps. Pangaea sneak, Man air-drops, Caelum checkerboard, Arcos stand-and-think? Surely those offer some challenge to the clammers.

Its not a question "letting" them grow at their own pace. in a 17 player game, SOMEONE will manage it, and that player will win regardless of who won all the hard-fought wars in the middle game.

Your games have 17 people using the same strategy? No wonder you have a problem with balance issues.

[johan osterman]

Soapyfrog said:

This is not good game mechanics, period. If the solution to a Mictlan devil factory is "gang up on Mictlan early" then that's broken. If the solution to runaway economies is to play on small maps, then that's broken. The game doesnt scale!

Broken? Just because the way doesn't play the way you want on larger maps do not mean that it is broken. The game setup parameters are intended to have gameplay effects, obviously all strategies will not be equally effective with all setups. This doesn't mean the game is broken. It just means that all strategies are not optimal in all setups, which is both desirable and very hard to avoid.

What if I want to play a game on a huge map that doesnt become a clamming competition after turn 30-40? Short of a house rule I can't: there is NO POSSIBLE ALTERNATE STRATEGY.

What if I wan't to keep the cake and eat it? Short of regurgitating it up again I can't: THERE IS NO POSSIBLE STRATEGY.

Also I believe you are overstating the clam potency.

...

So there is no incentive to fight except to shoot cripples and snatch territory. You certainly don't want to risk an evenly matched conflict becuase that will simply cripple you.

I fail to see why this is particular to large game and what it has to do with soul contracts and their balancee and why it is a bad thing, it seems like entirely reasonable and indeed desirable state of affairs.

It would be more interesting to me if magic sites and powerful summons etc. did not devalue so quickly as the game progresses. It would be interesting to see armies of national troops still relevant in the late game.

While you might object to the speed at which this happens I do not see how anyone can argue with that delayed investment payoffs should payoff. Research etc need to yield significant results, or no one would bother with it. Also, as has been pointed out by various other posters, some players enjoy the presence and dominance of the high end troops and spells.

[The_Tauren13]

And the people who don't, like me, play small maps ( like Karan with 17 players! ), and we all go home happy. Quit whining. So maybe the game isn't perfectly balanced, but it is one of the best games I have ever played, simply because there are so many strategies. Eliminating long-term strategies would do nothing but take away from why this game is fun.

[Soapyfrog]

Gandalf Parker said:
Surely those offer some challenge to the clammers.

Do they? I dont know!! I cant understand how they would. Massive gem income gives you freedom of action without significant constraints... seems like a no-brainer to me!

Well if there are counter-strategies then I'd love to hear them in detail, since I would prefer not to have to clam like a madman just to keep up.

Gandalf Parker said:Your games have 17 people using the same strategy? No wonder you have a problem with balance issues.

I dunno... can you really NOT clam and survive in a game that is certainly going to Last more that 50-60 turns? I mean out of 17 maybe not all of them will use that strategy but the winner at the end of the game WILL be a someone who has implemented one or more of these investment strategies.

johan osterman said:
Also, as has been pointed out by various other posters, some players enjoy the presence and dominance of the high end troops and spells.

I enjoy that too, but I think a GOOD game is one where players are forced to make DIFFICULT decisions with regards to the use of their limited resources. If you have ivnestment strategies that allow for exponential growth, but a) there is not equal opportunity to use them and b) the game doesnt continue to scale as your economy grows, then all the high end magic and summons etc become massively devalued.

[Soapyfrog]

The_Tauren13 said:
So maybe the game isn't perfectly balanced, but it is one of the best games I have ever played, simply because there are so many strategies. Eliminating long-term strategies would do nothing but take away from why this game is fun.

Does not compute. If you play on a large map you must pursue a long term strategy of clamming/fetishing/blood stoning/soul contracting. Doesnt sound like "so many strategies" to me. Sounds like, effectively, only 4, which are all slight variants on the same strategy... and really you should be implementing all four.

I guess there is some strategy in what you DO with all your gem/devil income, but not much (mostly empower to cast wish). When you have no hard decisions to make, there is not much strategy involved.

If you play on a SMALL map you should STILL pursue a clamming strategy as it will ensure your final victory if you come out of the dogfight alive, although I TOTALLY AGREE that in this case it is much harder to do because you SHOULD be in conflict much earlier and more continuously.