Global Enhancement Dispelling

[Endoperez]

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Endoperez:
...and she manages to seduce that mage...

Unless the enemy caster was a pretender. Pretenders are immune to seduction.

---

I know that, look at the wording. But even in that case, an assasination attempt would happen... But pretenders generally are not that easy to kill, so the odds are that wouldn't work.

Anyway, that might have gotten someone confused. Thank you for reminding!

[Yossar]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Cast the Dispel spell, or cast Wrath yourself. If there are already 5 globals active (including the enemy Wrath), then casting any other global ritual will have a 20% chance to replace the particular global you are conncerned about.

It's totally random which one gets replaced? I thought I read somewhere that it automatically replaces the one with the lowest amount of extra gems added.

[Torvak]

Originally posted by Yossar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
Cast the Dispel spell, or cast Wrath yourself. If there are already 5 globals active (including the enemy Wrath), then casting any other global ritual will have a 20% chance to replace the particular global you are conncerned about.

It's totally random which one gets replaced? I thought I read somewhere that it automatically replaces the one with the lowest amount of extra gems added.

---

I came to believe it's random. In my current game i have 4 enchantments up with 300 extra gems each and still dispel one of my own when casting a fifth. I doubt the AI spent 300 extra.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Torvak:
I came to believe it's random. In my current game i have 4 enchantments up with 300 extra gems each and still dispel one of my own when casting a fifth. I doubt the AI spent 300 extra.

One trick I found useful is to stair-step your enchantment casts: The first GE I'll cast, I'll ram a solidly excessive 800 into it. Then the next one I throw up, I'll only toss in maybe 650, then 500, then 400, etc.

The fact that the subsequent enchantments you throw up are weaker than previous ones will make sure they're probably too understrength to be able to push out your existing ones, so will overwrite the AI's instead. The AI won't throw enough weight into anything to outgun this, so this will nearly always work.

In MP, take all of the figures given above, and do the following: If score graphs are visible, then do an eyeballing on your gem income vs. the enemy's gem income, and then use more than your opponent will likely have. If his gem income is better than yours, then don't bother pumping it. You'll get dispelled if he wants to no matter what you do.

If score graphs are disabled, take the above figures I gave (300-800), and multiply by the following formula base*(sites / 75.0) * (turn / 25) * players/3.

So for your first launch, in a sites-55 game on turn 38, with 6 players, the amount of gems you should use is equal to 800*(55/75)*(38/25)*2 = 1783 gems.

Too much, you think? Then you must not care very much about your enchantment sticking. Don't bother pumping it at all, then. Hell, don't even bother casting it, if it's going to harm anyone. It'll just get dispelled. If you're gonna go, go all out. Anything worth doing is worth doing with excessive force. Do it the right way. Do it the Norfleet way.

[Yossar]

Number of provinces in the world has gotta be a part of that formula too. It's a lot easier amassing gems on a larger map.

If it's random which one gets knocked out when you cast a sixth enchantment and not based on gems added why would you add any gems? If I can knock out Norfleet's enchantment that cost him 1783+ gems with one of mine that just cost the base amount then there was no point in him adding all those gems.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Yossar:
Number of provinces in the world has gotta be a part of that formula too. It's a lot easier amassing gems on a larger map.

This is already subsumed into the turn-time calculation. A larger map runs for a larger number of turns as well. To include world map size in the calculation would double-count this factor.

If it's random which one gets knocked out when you cast a sixth enchantment and not based on gems added why would you add any gems? If I can knock out Norfleet's enchantment that cost him 1783+ gems with one of mine that just cost the base amount then there was no point in him adding all those gems.

It's random which one will get knocked out, IF one is knocked out. If you can't overpower ANY of them, they'll all stick. That's my theory behind doing it in reverse, DECREASING costs, by putting the strongest FIRST, so that it reduces the pool of enchantments which CAN be knocked out. It seems to work against the AI. I rarely have to squabble with humans over the global slots, to the same extent, though. Usually a human player will put a lot of gems into it, and when I blow his out of the water using my generally superior gem income, it goes down in flames taking most of his gem investment with it. Such is the price of not following my formula.

[ March 13, 2004, 19:45: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Norfleet]

Side note: Rigorously following the formula can make you a little predictable, if your opponent knows what it is: It's helpful to prioritize your enchantments, and make the first-cast one, the one you put the most gems into, the one you REALLY want to stick.....then follow by throwing up a decoy enchantment in a few turns, one which he will probably find more distressing, and then let him tear it down following my formula, depleting all of his energies on a decoy.

Also, when in doubt, double the numbers. Anything worth doing, is worth doing with excessive force. Admittedly, the formula I've given *ALREADY* includes an excessive force multiplier, but like I said: If it's worth doing, it's worth doing with *EXCESSIVE* force. Obviously, if excessiveness can be so easily quantified, it's no longer truly excessive.