|
|
|
 |

September 1st, 2009, 07:58 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco, nr Wales
Posts: 1,539
Thanks: 226
Thanked 296 Times in 136 Posts
|
|
Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
1. No Gem Gens - A definite. I do have reservations about how much it hits certain nations a lot harder than other, and the loss of the Earth booster is an issue. But I believe the downsides are far outweighed by the positives, and the downsides can also be addressed with modding.
Clam dependent nations, like Bandar Log / Kailasa for example could have the cost of their Astral heavy national summons reduced to compensate for the lost clam income. And the non-unique Earth booster could possibly be shifted to the Pebbleskin Suit (being trial-run in a game at the moment I think).
2. Low gem income settings - Not so sure about this. I know I spend a lot of time fine-tuning scripts and battle positions for any large armies I have, and any lack of gems just means the armies get bigger and the scripting/positioning will take longer due to the delayed transition to Thug/SC.
But if the aim is to increase the longevity of regular armies, then a gem income nerf certainly has that affect. But not convinced of it's MM limiting affect at all. I know for me it would probably result in an increase in MM on the army front. Although a lack of gems would indeed result in less MM on the forging/ritual front.
3. Upper map size limit - It would be a shame I think to see an end to all nations (from one era) games, which a 200 province limit would probably result in. Since I do find games that feature all nations (from one era) to be amongst my favourites. But there's no doubt more map provinces does eventually result in more MM towards the end. Maybe if the limit was 250 provinces, then that would allow an all-nations game based on a 10-12 provinces per nation ratio (less than 10 starts hitting blitz territory), while still being within a reasonable limit for the endgame MM to not reach insane levels.
Optionals
1. Ban MM intensive nations - I really don't agree with any nation ban what-so-ever for MP games, not even the regularly seen choices of Ashdod, LA Ermor/R'yleh. So I certainly wouldn't like to see a ban on MM intensive nations. Maybe this issue should be re-examined once the full effect of the other MM reducing options have had some actual MP feedback to work off.
Since the blood nations for example can certainly be MM intensive, but maybe that is only as a result of the blood work being heaped on top of all the usual MM work from gem gens, mass forgings / rituals, huge province counts etc. Once some of these are taken out of the picture, then maybe the MM from a blood economy won't seem that much of an MM problem. And I think this applies either to playing one, or facing the blood sacing effects of one.
So lets take things a bit slower if possible, and wait to see the effects a few changes makes to MM levels, rather than trying to make a huge load of changes in one go. As maybe banning MM nations will be an unnecessary step too far.
And an attempt to limit endgame MM by various nation (or spell) bans may accidentally kill off a lot of options, tactics, strategies etc. in this game, which would take away a lot of the games unique flavour. And could result in making the game more stream-lined and more repetitive, so probably less fun overall
2. Ban MM intensive globals - Not a fan of spell bans either, again for a lot of the reasons mentioned directly above.
3. Research Caps - I'd prefer a difficult or very difficult research setting to a capped one personally. Although there may be a need to address certain rush nation issues then. Especially if the map/province per nation size is getting reduced. Difficult research on a small map just says 'rush nations rule' to me. Maybe some of the popular Level 3/4 anti-rush spells could be reduced to level 1/2 for games with a difficult or very difficult research setting.
4. RAND - RAND games just rule for me at the moment. So nice to not have to deal with diplomatic issues every turn, and you get to live or die mostly due to your own abilities. Plus players are forced out of their "I must always take powerful/favourite nation each game. Then choose someone to rush, while NAP-ing all my other borders" comfort zone I often see happening in non RAND games.
Although at least for me, RAND games do result in a lot more thinking time being required, as instead of just asking your neighbour "Hey, are you going to attack me, or can we get an NAP?" you have to constantly re-assess every turn which nations may be attacking you that turn. So if thinking time is considered a part of MM, then RAND games don't always result in reduced MM.
|

September 1st, 2009, 08:29 AM
|
 |
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 466
Thanks: 35
Thanked 95 Times in 60 Posts
|
|
Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calahan
3. Upper map size limit - It would be a shame I think to see an end to all nations (from one era) games, which a 200 province limit would probably result in. Since I do find games that feature all nations (from one era) to be amongst my favourites. But there's no doubt more map provinces does eventually result in more MM towards the end. Maybe if the limit was 250 provinces, then that would allow an all-nations game based on a 10-12 provinces per nation ratio (less than 10 starts hitting blitz territory), while still being within a reasonable limit for the endgame MM to not reach insane levels.
|
Just FYI, there are 67 vanilla nations currently, between all 3 eras. So at 10 provinces per, that's a 670 (!) province map, assuming all nations are playing...
|

September 1st, 2009, 08:49 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco, nr Wales
Posts: 1,539
Thanks: 226
Thanked 296 Times in 136 Posts
|
|
Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavis_L
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calahan
3. Upper map size limit - It would be a shame I think to see an end to all nations (from one era) games, which a 200 province limit would probably result in. Since I do find games that feature all nations (from one era) to be amongst my favourites. But there's no doubt more map provinces does eventually result in more MM towards the end. Maybe if the limit was 250 provinces, then that would allow an all-nations game based on a 10-12 provinces per nation ratio (less than 10 starts hitting blitz territory), while still being within a reasonable limit for the endgame MM to not reach insane levels.
|
Just FYI, there are 67 vanilla nations currently, between all 3 eras. So at 10 provinces per, that's a 670 (!) province map, assuming all nations are playing...
|
That's why I specifically said "all nations (from one era)" and not "all nations (from all eras)" or simply "all nations". As having just all the nations from a single era in a game should fit into the 250 province limit I suggested, regardless of the actual era. Although maybe I should have said "all nations (from just one era)" to avoid confusion.
An all nations, all eras game would be insane MM regardless of the settings.
|

September 2nd, 2009, 12:08 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: France
Posts: 820
Thanks: 4
Thanked 33 Times in 24 Posts
|
|
Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
In terms of Victory Conditions, cumulative victory points more or less guarantee that the game will end at worst at turn X, so they could be used more often. Although they only provide 1 cumulated point per year, so you need to control the VP province on the good turn (last winter or first spring?), they force games to end faster.
|

September 1st, 2009, 09:28 AM
|
 |
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,617
Thanks: 179
Thanked 304 Times in 123 Posts
|
|
Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calahan
Maybe some of the popular Level 3/4 anti-rush spells could be reduced to level 1/2 for games with a difficult or very difficult research setting.
|
I *really* want to see this mod. Harder research without the rush-vantage would be an ideal solution, IMHO. Ugh... Just what I need to start up my university studies, a modding project. Well, at least this one will be quite easy, just moving the spell researchlevels around.
Anyone intrested, keep an eye at the modding section, I'll start up a brainstorming thread within few days.
__________________
I have now officially moved to the Dom3mods forums and do not actively use this account any more. You can stll contact me by PM's, since my account gives e-mail notifications on such occasions.
If you need to ask something about modding, you can contact me here.
See this thread for the latest info concerning my mods.
|

September 1st, 2009, 10:06 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco, nr Wales
Posts: 1,539
Thanks: 226
Thanked 296 Times in 136 Posts
|
|
Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnsaber
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calahan
Maybe some of the popular Level 3/4 anti-rush spells could be reduced to level 1/2 for games with a difficult or very difficult research setting.
|
I *really* want to see this mod. Harder research without the rush-vantage would be an ideal solution, IMHO. Ugh... Just what I need to start up my university studies, a modding project. Well, at least this one will be quite easy, just moving the spell researchlevels around.
Anyone intrested, keep an eye at the modding section, I'll start up a brainstorming thread within few days.
|
Yeah, I much prefer high research level myself in games, but always wary of the huge bonus it gives to rush nations. Have picked up some modding skills myself (thanks to you Burns  ) so was going to look into this once my current high number of games dropped a bit. But would be more than happy to see a genuine modder undertake the project though.
Not that I want you to think I'd push you into doing that it in any way Burns
[Calahan pushs Bursnaber very hard in the make "Difficult research with Anti-Rush spells tweak mod" direction]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombre
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calahan
Although at least for me, RAND games do result in a lot more thinking time being required, as instead of just asking your neighbour "Hey, are you going to attack me, or can we get an NAP?" you have to constantly re-assess every turn which nations may be attacking you that turn. So if thinking time is considered a part of MM, then RAND games don't always result in reduced MM.
|
But that is strategy at a macro level, absolutely not micro management. Macro level strategising isn't something anyone wants to cut back on.
I prefer RAND style (or at least no diplomacy) games because they reduce the horrible 'nap with neighbours, 2 on 1 the weakest guy, repeat' thing you get with diplomacy. Just as you described. I don't think it's so much a cut back on MM, just a way to reduce slightly turtley strats which all seem to lead right to MM hell endgames.
|
I don't consider additional thinking time to be a part of MM either, but I am sure there are some player who would. Which is why I gave it a mention.
Since losing the ability to seal up several borders for X turns with a simple "Do you want an NAP" message, would certainly constitute extra work to some players. With "extra work" being incorrectly translated as meaning "extra MM".
You are of course correct saying it is a macro level decision. And Dominions is probably the wrong game for people if they don't like things revolving aroung making macro decisions.
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithLord
Calahan:
"2. Low gem income settings - Not so sure about this. I know I spend a lot of time fine-tuning scripts and battle positions for any large armies I have, and any lack of gems just means the armies get bigger and the scripting/positioning will take longer due to the delayed transition to Thug/SC."
I think army mgmt is much less MM than forging/rituals. You can copy scripts and give in 10 secs complicated scripts to lots of mages in army.
|
ooohhh, I must be super anal on the fine tuning MM then. No wonder my turns always take me so long  I'm always tinkering with individual mage scripts, mixing up casting orders every turn in case anyone seen my fights, tweaking placements to avoid opponents settings aimed against my last know placements. If I tried I'm sure I could happily spend half an hour just arranging 3 mages and 40 troops.
Knew I was obsessive about MM, but guess I didn't realise just how high my level was
And I find forging and ritual casting to be a lot easier MM wise by keeping notes each turn, and simply ticking off things as I issue their casting or forging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithLord
"Maybe some of the popular Level 3/4 anti-rush spells could be reduced to level 1/2 for games with a difficult or very difficult research setting."
That would be great!
|
[Wraithlord pushes Burnsaber in the make "Difficult research with Anti-Rush spells tweak mod" direction]
Last edited by Calahan; September 1st, 2009 at 10:27 AM..
Reason: To save doing a new post
|

September 1st, 2009, 09:42 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
|
|
Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calahan
Although at least for me, RAND games do result in a lot more thinking time being required, as instead of just asking your neighbour "Hey, are you going to attack me, or can we get an NAP?" you have to constantly re-assess every turn which nations may be attacking you that turn. So if thinking time is considered a part of MM, then RAND games don't always result in reduced MM.
|
But that is strategy at a macro level, absolutely not micro management. Macro level strategising isn't something anyone wants to cut back on.
I prefer RAND style (or at least no diplomacy) games because they reduce the horrible 'nap with neighbours, 2 on 1 the weakest guy, repeat' thing you get with diplomacy. Just as you described. I don't think it's so much a cut back on MM, just a way to reduce slightly turtley strats which all seem to lead right to MM hell endgames.
|

September 1st, 2009, 10:04 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 3,465
Thanks: 511
Thanked 162 Times in 86 Posts
|
|
Re: Template for reducing late game MM hell
vfb:
"1. Do you mean to reduce micro for other nations, so they don't have to set up a bunch of temples/preachers? Or is it the blood hunting/slave buses micro? One thing you might want to do is eliminate all blood mage summons. Otherwise they are almost as bad as gem generators. Maybe make 10 unique Vampire Counts or something, and 6 unique Vamp Lords, and something similar for Mictlan's summons?"
Reduce both the nation MM and the MM it induces on other nations.
Kuritza: I understand your sentiment. Nations that need gem gens to survive should be addressed in CBM mode or something. The MM hell they cause plus the income inflation loop-back with wishing is big no-no for me.
Mardagg: Yes difficult research instead of research cap.
Calahan:
"2. Low gem income settings - Not so sure about this. I know I spend a lot of time fine-tuning scripts and battle positions for any large armies I have, and any lack of gems just means the armies get bigger and the scripting/positioning will take longer due to the delayed transition to Thug/SC."
I think army mgmt is much less MM than forging/rituals. You can copy scripts and give in 10 secs complicated scripts to lots of mages in army.
"Maybe some of the popular Level 3/4 anti-rush spells could be reduced to level 1/2 for games with a difficult or very difficult research setting."
That would be great!
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|