Tip Template for reducing late game MM hell - Page 18

Squirrelloid · #**171** September 14th, 2009, 07:38 AM

WL: there actually is a factual disagreement here. K is positing that gem gens make the endgame more fair because you don't just lose to a massive sneak attack - ie, the fact that this income is hard to take away is better for balance. Whereas it's been posited by a number of people that gem gens are unbalanced because its gem income that can't be taken away. That's a major factual disagreement about what constitutes fair and balanced in the game.

Hiisi · #**172** September 14th, 2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K

3. The funny thing about the endgame is that you can take 90% of a person's provinces in a few rounds with thugs and SCs and then you have to actually fight their armies. It's actually good that the win doesn't always go to the sneak attacker.

You have a valid point, but i have to disagree. I think that no gem gens means
-Less SC / thugs able to beat PD
-More summoned units on field from defender, because no gem investments in gem gens.
-National units are more important than before. Easier to defend with, but difficult to blitz with.

I would say that it's harder to sneak/blitz if no gem gens...

Kuritza · #**173** September 14th, 2009, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiisi

You have a valid point, but i have to disagree. I think that no gem gens means
-Less SC / thugs able to beat PD
-More summoned units on field from defender, because no gem investments in gem gens.
-National units are more important than before. Easier to defend with, but difficult to blitz with.

I would say that it's harder to sneak/blitz if no gem gens...

If you're right, then gemgens actually allow nations with weaker national units to compete against nations with stronger armies. Thus, gemgens make this game more balanced.

Psycho · #**174** September 14th, 2009, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

WL: there actually is a factual disagreement here. K is positing that gem gens make the endgame more fair because you don't just lose to a massive sneak attack - ie, the fact that this income is hard to take away is better for balance. Whereas it's been posited by a number of people that gem gens are unbalanced because its gem income that can't be taken away. That's a major factual disagreement about what constitutes fair and balanced in the game.

When the end game comes, you need to castle and dome yourself. You need to protect important provinces. If you let your enemy take them so easily, you deserve to lose.

Hiisi · #**175** September 14th, 2009, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuritza

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiisi

You have a valid point, but i have to disagree. I think that no gem gens means
-Less SC / thugs able to beat PD
-More summoned units on field from defender, because no gem investments in gem gens.
-National units are more important than before. Easier to defend with, but difficult to blitz with.

I would say that it's harder to sneak/blitz if no gem gens...

If you're right, then gemgens actually allow nations with weaker national units to compete against nations with stronger armies. Thus, gemgens make this game more balanced.

Hey i didn't say that

I meant from the point of view of sneaking/blitzing the game would be slower. Of course if no gem gens nations with strong armies/bless strat would be even better than now.

WraithLord · #**176** September 14th, 2009, 08:44 AM

MM != Balance

This thread is about MM reduction in end game.
Any balance discussions are a side track as far is this thread is concerned.

Psycho · #**177** September 14th, 2009, 08:55 AM

Any changes to reduce MM should attempt not to unbalance the game even more.

Squirrelloid · #**178** September 14th, 2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

WL: there actually is a factual disagreement here. K is positing that gem gens make the endgame more fair because you don't just lose to a massive sneak attack - ie, the fact that this income is hard to take away is better for balance. Whereas it's been posited by a number of people that gem gens are unbalanced because its gem income that can't be taken away. That's a major factual disagreement about what constitutes fair and balanced in the game.

When the end game comes, you need to castle and dome yourself. You need to protect important provinces. If you let your enemy take them so easily, you deserve to lose.

Yes, you can protect a few sites. But if all your gem income is tied to sites you can lose an awful lot of it to a blitz attack. And then you've basically lost the game. A reduction of gem income by 50% is game losing at that point, because then your opponent outspends you substantially.

Hiisi:
Some nations have sneakable armies that can take PD without being especially strong. Or have thugs that don't actually need equipment. Or purchaseable SCs. etc... Removing the option for others to summon them just makes the ones who can purchase them better.

WraithLord · #**179** September 14th, 2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho

Any changes to reduce MM should attempt not to unbalance the game even more.

Agreed. This is the chief reason why some items were removed from the recommendation list.

Now, does anyone seriously claim that removing gem gens unbalances the game?- Not taking into account gem gen dependent nations.
If so, please elaborate the rational behind this claim.

Squirrelloid · #**180** September 14th, 2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WL

Now, does anyone seriously claim that removing gem gens unbalances the game?- Not taking into account gem gen dependent nations.
If so, please elaborate the rational behind this claim.

See K here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by K

3. The funny thing about the endgame is that you can take 90% of a person's provinces in a few rounds with thugs and SCs and then you have to actually fight their armies. It's actually good that the win doesn't always go to the sneak attacker.

What more elaboration do you need?