Tartarian factory

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by ywl:
I think it is.

You may be right. The only other gem type I found in abundance was astral.

Assuming the chance for site is 50% and the number of nature or death gems for each site is 2. For a rough estimation:
30 * 0.5 * 1/8 * 2 ~= 4
1/8 because I assume that there are equal chance for each type of site (not true) and I haven't counted holy or unholy sites.

There are also non-death non-nature sites which give out death and nature gems - I think I found a death-producing holy site in that game (don't remember the name), as well as an unusual number of Lifeless Lakes, maybe 3, which also provide death gems.

I used 40% sites BTW, and if I understand the mechanics well it should give a 41.92% chance to get 1 site average /province, although in practice it seems I get more than that.

But even if we increase the number to 1/4, it'd still only about 8. And you're talking Arco, who has no native access to nature or death. Search by spell will be slow.

Arco has limited access to nature, and I had Priestesses search every province before I could use Haruspex. The PoD was mainly used to locate death sites before I had another death mage for Dark Knowledge, so that wasn't a problem either.

And it's Conjuration 9, Construction 6 and Thaumaturgy 4 (low). This is a lot of research. As I said, with such research and gem, you could probably do equally well with Juggernaut, Tarrasque or even 9+ ghosts per turn.

I used Ghosts (although I summoned only 7/turn), my PoD did only that until I reached Conjuration 9. Juggernauts was a completely research area and not in the scope of this test, which was to demonstrate how Arco could abuse Tartarian Gate. And IMO neither Tarrasques nor Juggernauts come close to the strategic impact of a 2 air/3 earth Cyclops (my prime candidates for GoR) who can strike anywhere on the map with Cloud Trapeze.

Also, since Tartarian summons are undeads, you could in theory counter them with "Holy Pyre" or "Control the Dead".

I don't say they're invulnerable, yet they're incredibly powerful when equipped by Mystics. And very versatile too, if you look at the male Titans. Their high MR can reach impressive levels, eg one of the aforementioned Cyclops with just an AM amulet and Iron Will gets 26, and you can still add to this total.

But still, all these cann't disprove the fact that 10 gems (or 30 with GoR) for 100+ hp, undead mage is too much of a good deal; the funny, if not ridiculous, sight of tens of dead gods in an army.

I have the suspicion that the same trick is equally abusable for C'tis, Man or Pan. These nations have the advantage of a high nature gem income, the major bottleneck of the production line. Faery Queen is expensive but it's just 40 gems, merely the price of two GoR. They're also powerful air mage and generate free sprites. I won't mind having one or two of them just lying around.

I've tried with standard C'tis but the lack of effective and reliable healing made it much harder.

[geo981010]

Originally posted by ywl:
Assuming the chance for site is 50% and the number of nature or death gems for each site is 2. For a rough estimation:
30 * 0.5 * 1/8 * 2 ~= 4

1/8 because I assume that there are equal chance for each type of site (not true) and I haven't counted holy or unholy sites. But even if we increase the number to 1/4, it'd still only about 8.

Hmm, I thought a site frequency of 50% meant that
for each of the 4 site slots per province there would be a 50% chance it would be filled? So for 30 provinces you would have:
30 (#provinces) * 4 (slots per land) * .5 (50% sites) * 1/8 (# of paths) * 2 (gems/site) = 16

I am not sure how this is affected by swamp/mountain/etc terrain (they have a higher chance of sites - though how is another Illwinter mystery!).

As always jacques, very interesting. I am in the camp of putting it a little too powerful but not terribly so - perhaps if they had their magic skills removed if they weren't a leader that would be nice, and probably turn them into unique leaders (for the ones that start out as leaders).

But the undead status does make them great targets for wither bones, so they could be countered regardless of what items you could equip them with.

[ywl]

Originally posted by geo981010:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ywl:
Assuming the chance for site is 50% and the number of nature or death gems for each site is 2. For a rough estimation:
30 * 0.5 * 1/8 * 2 ~= 4

1/8 because I assume that there are equal chance for each type of site (not true) and I haven't counted holy or unholy sites. But even if we increase the number to 1/4, it'd still only about 8.

Hmm, I thought a site frequency of 50% meant that
for each of the 4 site slots per province there would be a 50% chance it would be filled? So for 30 provinces you would have:
30 (#provinces) * 4 (slots per land) * .5 (50% sites) * 1/8 (# of paths) * 2 (gems/site) = 16

I am not sure how this is affected by swamp/mountain/etc terrain (they have a higher chance of sites - though how is another Illwinter mystery!).

> Snipped <

---

You're right. I stand corrected . It might not be that much theoretically after all.

But in my experience, 13 gems of a type is still an large income for non-national magic in the 50% site setting.

But I agree totally it's an exploit. It's only a matter of extent how much it is comparing to other tricks when you get to Conjuration 9.

[Taqwus]

At least in Dom I, if memory serves the way the 'site frequency' deal worked was that there was an X probability of having _one_ site there, and as long as the check said 'yes' another roll with the same probability took place to possibly add another one, up to a maximum of four.

[PDF]

Isn't the whole Tartarian Gate abusing thing just tied to the - not normal IMHO- possibility for Priestesses to heal afflictions on ... Undead beings ?
It would make sense to make healing only possible for *living* things, no undead or construct (maybe it already doesn't work on constructs), no ?

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by PDF:
Isn't the whole Tartarian Gate abusing thing just tied to the - not normal IMHO- possibility for Priestesses to heal afflictions on ... Undead beings ?
It would make sense to make healing only possible for *living* things, no undead or construct (maybe it already doesn't work on constructs), no ?

Cute idea. [Edit: for Priestesses only - or your undead pretender would be in trouble]

[ February 17, 2004, 21:58: Message edited by: Nagot Gick Fel ]

[ywl]

Originally posted by PDF:
Isn't the whole Tartarian Gate abusing thing just tied to the - not normal IMHO- possibility for Priestesses to heal afflictions on ... Undead beings ?
It would make sense to make healing only possible for *living* things, no undead or construct (maybe it already doesn't work on constructs), no ?

Agree. That'll be a fix of the game system which help this issue.

Two possibilities here: (1) Lifeless units only. The power of golem and other constructs will be decreased; (2) Lifeless *and* undead units. Some powerful undeads will also be affected, noticebly Prince of Dead, Wraithlords. But either way, since only Arco have easy access to healing, the effects on other nations will be limited. Prince of Dead will be less attractive as a pretender choice but it's already powerful enougth - no big deal there.

But still, it bugs me to see so many dead gods walking around for summoning . Let's make them unique .

BTW, what is the mythological source of the word Tartarian?

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by ywl:
BTW, what is the mythological source of the word Tartarian?

I believe it's Greek. If I'm not mistaken, Tartarus was the name of one of the parts of Hades...perhaps the area just before the gates of Hades? Guarded by the Cerberus?

[Taqwus]

Regarding Tartarus, Wikipedia is your friend.
(Ooh, Hecatonchires with 50 helmet slots and 100 arm slots? Hm.)

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by Taqwus:
Regarding Tartarus, Wikipedia is your friend.
(Ooh, Hecatonchires with 50 helmet slots and 100 arm slots? Hm.)

Ah...LOWER than Hades. Well, at least I was right about it being Greek.