Request for strategy: Late game tips

Velusion · #1 May 15th, 2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

MaxWilson said:
Not exactly too high or too low, but... I'd probably charge based on value, which means rarity and utility more than gem cost. (Of course, some things just won't be valuable enough to be worth selling period.) Remember that these items cost you research and mage-time to make, and/or pretender points to bootstrap you into paths to make them. And it would cost other nations the same. So, dwarven hammers might be 25 gems, and a bag of winds might be 60. Boots of Flying, however, don't bootstrap into anything and so your 7/5 formula seems reasonable to me, 14 gems. Remember that you're saving them on research cost as well as possibly getting them into paths they couldn't have reached independently.

-Max

In a game with a lot of players I think you'll get much better deals than that trading with other nations. Just send out a message to a few nations you know should have the paths for the items you are looking for and most will probably be looking for something you can make...

RamsHead · #2 May 15th, 2007, 01:44 AM

Another plus on trading is that it can increase the trust between nations.

Gandalf Parker · #3 May 15th, 2007, 01:55 AM

Is that just for you to figure with or that was what you were going to send out? You might also keep in mind that some people hate math. A general sending with a formula might not get you as many responses as some straight sales prices.

jutetrea · #4 May 15th, 2007, 02:25 AM

What I sent out, figured the math wasn't too deep or they could just ask me for the price of a specific item.

I agree on the value being based on rarity/utility but this way seemed much easier - at least to get the ball rolling maybe.

For instance, a ring of sorcery - highly highly useful, would be going for 56 astral or 64 misc gems. only a 16 profit on top, but add another (10?) with the hammer and it makes more sense.

For a mage turn I invest 40 of a gem i'm strong in and get back 26 extra or I shore up my weaker numbers with 64. On the useability side with someone who maybe maxed out at 2S it may be worth 100 astral to actually get the item...but far fewer sales (and far less buffing of opponents).

Is it worth not selling boosters at all? Why bootstrap a nation other than a pure ally into a new line?

Hmm, hope there's more dialogue on this as the more I think about it the more paranoid I get.

Will the volume/profit offset the helping of another nation? I'm assuming yes as it happens relatively frequently...

atul · #5 May 15th, 2007, 02:55 AM

Quote:

jutetrea said:Is it worth not selling boosters at all? Why bootstrap a nation other than a pure ally into a new line?

At least I tend to swap items. Usually there's something other than gems that you're needing, like boosters for your weak paths. Or, not everyone has earth for dwarven hammers. But I've also sold items for gems, good friends get the base forging cost as a price (so my gain is the one from using the hammer and some good will spreading around).

Regarding the alliances, I feel that there should be something to be gained in an alliance in order for it to last. Of course I'm not going to backstab at the first opportunity, but the guy whose only message to me ever was "NAP, 3 turns to call off?" and who then proceeded to cut off my path of expansion without consulting me isn't going to have a stable neighbour. On the other hand, people that are fun to play with or trade a lot I've defended even if we haven't had a formal alliance.

jutetrea · #6 May 15th, 2007, 03:12 AM

I consider a NAP completely different than an alliance. IMO while in an alliance its a NAP, a defensive treaty, and an "i'll back you up in anything you do...even if its really really dumb" all rolled into one.

A NAP is just a small measure of security, and 3 months warning is nothing really. If you're fighting on one front its tough to do anything about another front in 3 months.
6 months notice is best imo, if you can't respond in 6 turns you've got big problems.

atul · #7 May 15th, 2007, 04:12 AM

Yeah, well, the NAP thing was just an example from the "real" life. I think my main point was, if someone came to me really early with a proposition that let's be allies for the rest of the game, I'd be really wary. Maybe after few joint wars where both of us has had the change to prove that it's more than just talking the talk, but from the get go, no.

With some people it's easy to plan campaigns, share the spoils of victory and feel fair, with other it feels that each turn is battle of wills whether either gets a little more edge. I know which kind of people I want to ally with, my problem being, I don't know what kind of people most of the other players are. Yet.