Luck/Order scales after 2.06 Patch

[Jasper]

It sounds like you cry (especially if you have Turmoil), and hope that your Dominion reasserts quickly. And hope that your opponent doesn't keep casting it...

These spells have gone from nuisance in my book to potentially devestating.

[ January 14, 2004, 00:30: Message edited by: Jasper ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Arryn:
I already have over a dozen mages.

Only a dozen? Then you really don't have any magical power to speak of.

More just aren't worth the bother as they don't survive combat, I have a 3:1 margin of research on the #2 AI, and I'm limited by my gem income.

Mages easily survive combat if you position them properly. If you are limited by your gemincome then you haven't searched your provinces throughly enough, or are playing on a small map with a very low probability of magic sites.

By the way, many of the strategies people are fond of for multiplayer aren't significant for those of us playing solo ...

That's a nonsensical statement. Any strategy that works against a thinking opponent will work just as well against an AI>

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
I already have over a dozen mages.

Only a dozen? Then you really don't have any magical power to speak of.

---

You're assuming I need more. I can hire mages, or I can hire Jarls. The Jarls have been more useful in expanding. Try not to assume that the way you like to play is the way someone else does.

Mages easily survive combat if you position them properly. If you are limited by your gemincome then you haven't searched your provinces throughly enough, or are playing on a small map with a very low probability of magic sites.

More assumptions. See above comments. As for positioning, there are spells that will reach out and hit you anywhere. Ditto for flying enemies.

I personally find it more effective, in my games, to devote resources to reaching out and hitting the enemy than in defending myself.

That's a nonsensical statement. Any strategy that works against a thinking opponent will work just as well against an AI

It makes sense if you think about it, rather than rush to judge someone else's play style. The AIs aren't as challenging as a human, so you need not worry as much about them, nor how they will react to you. You will never need to worry about an AI using an 'innovative' strategy. You can take your time developing your nation as you see fit because you know that there isn't a human on the other side itching to take you down as fast as he can as a matter of his own pride. Et cetera.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Arryn:
You're assuming I need more. I can hire mages, or I can hire Jarls. The Jarls have been more useful in expanding. Try not to assume that the way you like to play is the way someone else does.

No, I'm simply stating the fact that 12 mages does not a significant force make. I'd like to have 12 mages just researching by turn 14-15 in most cases, and even then, that's only going to get you somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 research points.

More assumptions. See above comments. As for positioning, there are spells that will reach out and hit you anywhere. Ditto for flying enemies.

If your enemy is casting spells that will affect the whole battlefield, and you are not supplying any magical firepower of your own, then I wish you luck in keeping your losses to a reasonable level. The only spells that can target mages specifically, and thereby are not affected by positioning as I already said, are magic duel and battlefield effects. Anything else can be avoided by being careful. If your enemy has fliers the mages them with a few heavy troops.

I personally find it more effective, in my games, to devote resources to reaching out and hitting the enemy than in defending myself.

What on Earth are you talking about? Putting mages on the battlefield has nothing to do with being on the defensive.

That's a nonsensical statement. Any strategy that works against a thinking opponent will work just as well against an AI

It makes sense if you think about it, rather than rush to judge someone else's play style.[/quote]

No, it really doesn't. You just claimed that a strategy that is effective in multiplayer is not necessarily going to be effective in single player.

The AIs aren't as challenging as a human, so you need not worry as much about them, nor how they will react to you. You will never need to worry about an AI using an 'innovative' strategy. You can take your time developing your nation as you see fit because you know that there isn't a human on the other side itching to take you down as fast as he can as a matter of his own pride. Et cetera. [/QB]

Which, of course, is you agreeing with me, and not at all what you originally stated.

[SurvivalistMerc]

If anyone else is still interested in this topic, just pretend that Jaspar's is the most recent topic-related post.

[PDF]

Back (more) on-topic :
I really have a problem with the "mix" between O/T and L/M : as it stands now you have to take Order to limit Misf effect, or to take Turmoil to amplify Luck. But Order is a rock hard good investment, whereas Luck is a gamble...

In the end you have a 0 net Design cost in both case, but with O+M have +20% income, +6% res and *very few* bad events, in the other you have -20%, -6%, and may have unpredictable good events...(BTW getting 100's of Militias is just a waste of upkeep gold, not really a good news !)

Who will be foolish enough to go for the second option ? Maybe for fun in SP, but no way in MP.
THAT'S the issue IMHO..

[apoger]

>I really have a problem with the "mix" between O/T and L/M : as it stands now you have to take Order to limit Misf effect, or to take Turmoil to amplify Luck.


I'm working on a mod that will take care of this (for those that want to use it).

It should be done shortly, however I still need to know if there are mod commands that affect magic scale. They are missing from the docs, and I'd like to know if they are part of the available tools. It's hard to do balancing when one scale can't be modified.