Golden Age Arcoscephale

[Blitz]

_Most_ nations can hire their best mages only in their capital

How many apparently magic based themes do you know that have exactly ONE mage? Heck, how many themes have one mage? Ulm, Ulm: IF, Pan: New Ara, and GE Arco?

[PvK]

Trollheim

[Scott Hebert]

Originally posted by Blitz:
How many apparently magic based themes do you know that have exactly ONE mage? Heck, how many themes have one mage? Ulm, Ulm: IF, Pan: New Ara, and GE Arco?

First, GE Arco has two. The Mystic and the Priestess.

Second, how many nations use their weaker mages for anything other than research? There's Communion Slaves, and forging weaker items. That's about it. While _not_ inconsequential, the useful Nature items are not out of Arco's reach.

Third, it's not really about quantity so much as quality. The Mystic is generally considered one of the best mages in the game, if random. You can get 2+ in any of the Elemental paths. That's sort of the equivalent of 4 different mage types. Take a look at Mictlan's Mages. 3 of them are the same except for the non-Blood magic they get (with the small difference in the Priest King). If it were possible to get random picks restricted to specific paths, they could be represented by one unit.

With regards to the vaunted Seithkona, here's a scenario for you. You play Utgard Jotunheim, and I play GE Arco. You buy a Seithkona every turn for the first 21 turns (so you have 20), and I buy a Philosopher every turn for the same amount of time. Assuming an equal magic scale (a fair assumption, since your Cold-2 roughly balances with your 25 pt. charge for Utgard, plus my 40 points for Sloth), we will produce the same amount of research points in that time (assuming Magic-0, 1050) from these units. However, you will have spent a total of 3150 gold on your Seithkonur, while I will have spent 1749.3 gold on my Philosophers. This gives me 1400 more gold than you to be spent over 20 turns, for an average of 70 gold per turn. This only gets worse the longer we continue this.

If you think this is going too far in turns, then look at when we each have 10 (turn 11). For the same number of research points from these units, you'll have spent 1320 gold, and I will have spent 733.15. This difference is 586.85 gold.

Now, let's take a slightly different scenario. Assume that we have each bought one of our 'researchers' for the first ten turns, and then (from a second castle) bought ten more mages. Since I cannot get Philosophers in my second fortress, let me build Mystics instead. Let's see how we stand on turn 21 now.

You've spent 4626 gold total, have 31 Seithkonur, and made 1380 RPs (assuming Magic-0 scale).

I've spent 4701 gold, have 20 Philosophers and 11 Mystics, and made 1512 RPs (assuming Magic-0 scale).

Upkeep on these mages are 31 * 6 = 186 gold a turn for you, and (20 * 3.333)= 66.667 gold for the philosophers, and (11 * 9) = 99 gold for the mystics. This calculates to 165.667 gold total for me. You're still paying more for your researchers on maintenance (20g), and I'm producing more research. This is if I choose to maximize research. If I choose to minimize gold expenditure, I build Priestesses instead of Mystics, and I will spend less for my mages than you will on yours, and have less upkeep. I don't see how this is something against GE Arco.

I think, Blitz, that GE Arco is just something that doesn't work for you. That's nothing against you, but that's also nothing against GE Arco. Not everything has to play the same, and if you like the way that base Arco plays, but not GE, that's fine. Just don't try to dictate how others should play, and everyone will be fine.

[Blitz]

First, GE Arco has two. The Mystic and the Priestess.

So does Pangaea: NA I suppose. Her level 1 nature magic isn't irrelevant, but it's certianly not on par with most nation's secondary mages... even if she is a more efficient researcher and comes with different magic than the mystic.

Second, how many nations use their weaker mages for anything other than research? There's Communion Slaves, and forging weaker items. That's about it. While _not_ inconsequential, the useful Nature items are not out of Arco's reach.

Using only the strongest mages available is a common mistake made by less experienced players.

I think, Blitz, that GE Arco is just something that doesn't work for you. That's nothing against you, but that's also nothing against GE Arco. Not everything has to play the same, and if you like the way that base Arco plays, but not GE, that's fine. Just don't try to dictate how others should play, and everyone will be fine.

I'd be happy to thrash you with GE arco. I've never said it was unplayable, merely weaker. Obviously from the poll, I'm speaking with the majority here. If you don't agree, that's fine... but it certianly isn't an indication of my inability to play the theme. As for dictating how people play? Not sure what you are talking about there.

[ June 23, 2004, 23:06: Message edited by: Blitz ]

I wouldn't take popularity as some sort of truth. Especially considering that GE is relatively new.

[Scott Hebert]

Originally posted by Blitz:
So does Pangaea: NA I suppose. Her level 1 nature magic isn't irrelevant, but it's certianly not on par with most nation's secondary mages... even if she is a more efficient researcher and comes with different magic than the mystic.

Well, you were the one who said that GE Arco has only one mage.

Using only the strongest mages available is a common mistake made by less experienced players.

You like insulting people, don't you, Blitz? If you check other threads (such as the Desert Tombs thread), you will see I am quite comfortable with using 'secondary' mages.

I'd be happy to thrash you with GE arco.

I'm sure you would be.

I've never said it was unplayable, merely weaker.

Why would YOU choose GE Arco over normal Arco then? If you believe as you imply elsewhere in this thread and others that GE Arco is weaker than normal Arco, why would you ever play it?

Obviously from the poll, I'm speaking with the majority here.

Poll results can be rigged with anyone with a modicum of intellect. As I don't ascribe stupidity to you, I see no reason why the results of that poll should receive undue attention. I'm fairly confident that the developers pay it little heed.

If you don't agree, that's fine... but it certianly isn't an indication of my inability to play the theme.

Then why bother bringing it up? If you can play and win with the theme, what's so wrong with it? If you don't _like_ playing it vis-a-vis other nations or themes, that's perfectly fine, but don't bring up a discussion about how it's weaker because you don't like the way it plays.

About the only thing I agree with in this entire thread is that the Wind Rider is (slightly) overpriced, and that's only because the Gryphon Rider of the Garnet Amazons costs the same and gives you a Gryphon when the Rider dies.

BTW, nice sidestep of the math.

[Blitz]

I wouldn't take popularity as some sort of truth. Especially considering that GE is relatively new

You are already on record that you feel the wind rider is overcosted. Have you changed that opinion?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using only the strongest mages available is a common mistake made by less experienced players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You like insulting people, don't you, Blitz? If you check other threads (such as the Desert Tombs thread), you will see I am quite comfortable with using 'secondary' mages.

I think inexperienced players tend to recruit the best possible unit, regardless of circumstances. It's certianly a habit I had to break fairly early on. I don't know if you are still in that stage or not, but your post seemed to imply it.

About the only thing I agree with in this entire thread is that the Wind Rider is (slightly) overpriced, and that's only because the Gryphon Rider of the Garnet Amazons costs the same and gives you a Gryphon when the Rider dies.

Great, let's improve the wind rider then shall we? I seem to recall that was what my mod did. Giving GE a well-costed large flier would most likely improve the theme quite a bit, and it's what I've advocated all along.

Why would YOU choose GE Arco over normal Arco then? If you believe as you imply elsewhere in this thread and others that GE Arco is weaker than normal Arco, why would you ever play it?

I like the GE concept. I think it's the best concept for a theme out there. I'd like to see it be strengthened so I could justify playing it more under competitive circumstances.

[ June 23, 2004, 23:22: Message edited by: Blitz ]