Tip: Template for reducing late game MM hell

[fantasma]

my point about hammers was more in the line of you have significantly more forging going on with them, and more than 25% nominal savings. And it makes a difference as it delays the time you forge close to 50 items/turn.

Removing hammers has effects on balance, mainly for earth and thug-reliant nations, I guess, but that is a different question altogether.

[WraithLord]

This extract from the first post is what ppl think reduces MM w/o having serious side effect on balance/fun:
"
1. No gem gens.
Note: Efforts are being made at modding for compensating gem gen reliant nations.

2. Determine an upper limit on map sizes, # of players and reasonable victory conditions. Consensus
10-12 players, 10-15 provinces per player, 40% capital VPs victory condition.
Note. MM is in direct relation to how many provinces one controls at end game. Worst case scenario (MM wise) is 2 powers each controlling 30-40% of the map making war.
# of players and victory conditions have similar effect.

3. No Diplomacy. i.e. RAND.
Diplomacy is not directly related to MM but cutting that part of the game results in faster turn processing. Plus, it allows for different patterns of gaining victory (no alliances, NAP turtling, dog piling etc) which could be refreshing on it's own right.
"

I plan to participate in future games that follow these guidelines (1+2 for sure) and so be able to test first hand how they influence endgame MM.
Thanks for all the feedback!

[Hiisi]

Hi, im wondering that?

Is it possible to make spells that create gem sites?

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by Hiisi

Hi, im wondering that?

Is it possible to make spells that create gem sites?

While this will remove one part of gem gens incurred MM (making sure the mages carrying them survive and passing them around at times) it doesn't cover the other part of MM they cause: getting to end game with tons of gems, which means you can (and so must) summon/forge/cast that much more. Plus it will encourage turtling and castling.

[Hiisi]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

While this will remove one part of gem gens incurred MM (making sure the mages carrying them survive and passing them around at times) it doesn't cover the other part of MM they cause: getting to end game with tons of gems, which means you can (and so must) summon/forge/cast that much more. Plus it will encourage turtling and castling.

As Illuminated One said that sites can be limited, so maybe 2 sites per province. Combines total spell made gem gens in a large game of 150 provinces = 300 gem gens total. Currently 1 player can have same amount of gem gens in late game. So in end game 100 gems from gem gens would be huge.

With number of gem gens restricted by provinces, no more turtling with gem gens. 10 provinces total 20 gem gens = sweet target tag for conquest.

IMHO hammers are the reason for late game hell. Hammers reduce cost of gem gens over 25%. At the same time they reduce baypack ratio of gem gens by 25%. In long run with hammers increase gem gen income by 35-40%. With +35% more gems 1,35*1,25=1,69 more forging with hammers. Playing nation that has natural forging bonus gem gens will skyrocket even more! So remove hammers.

With higher cost of gem gens (no hammer bonus) the cost of opportunity raises significally (also now they could be taken over). I think current gem cost for gem gens are quite ok.

Games would no longer be forging competitions, they would have more strategy (more sites on map = more tactical opportunities, scouting even more important)

-No need for hundreds of indy scouts running around.
-No need for pool gems, if the income is map based.
-No need to huge balance changes for nations that needs gem gens
-As Illuminated One said "Gem Income is visible".