I suck with Pythium ... please help! - Page 12

Cainehill · #**111** September 19th, 2004, 10:26 PM

What I want to know is what Hen and compadres propose to give Caelum as compensation if False Horror is nerfed (as opposed to the bug where priests don't cast sermon of courage with them).

After all - I see Caelum in at least half the games I play. It isn't the winner most of the time, and yet they want to nerf one of the few things Caelum does have going for it.

After all - Caelum possibly has the worst PD in the game, because it flies right up, fights one turn, and flies away. Even Mictlan or Man's PD at least slows down invaders long enough for mages to cast spells.

Its troops are generally either incredibly flimsy, or extremely resource intensive, slow, and non-flying. National magic isn't particularly flexible, albeit it certainly isn't bad. Oh, and all its troops (except Wingless) eat a boatload of supplies, meaning that any army of decent size is often starving.

So - take away False Horror, thus hurting Caelum, which is already _easily_ countered by certain nations / themes. What does Caelum get to make up for it?

Then again, one of the main whiners about False Horror (and Caelum) also keeps insisting that Abysia is underpowered. *snigger*

incognito · #**112** September 19th, 2004, 10:51 PM

At this time, I'd like to firmly declare myself in the camp of singleminded simplicity and pet peevishness. We're a focused bunch with very particular dislikes.

Thank you. That is all.

Huzurdaddi · #**113** September 19th, 2004, 10:58 PM

Quote:

What I want to know is what Hen and compadres propose to give Caelum as compensation if False Horror is nerfed (as opposed to the bug where priests don't cast sermon of courage with them).

How about we give them national armies that can skip provinces and strike rear areas? No that would be insane. Just imagine the carnage that could cause!

No, no wait I got it. How about we make their best mage recruitable not only in the capital but anywhere they have a castle? No that would be crazy.

No, no, wait. How about making their top mage have one 3 level path one 2 level path a random and yet cost only 180? No, that's crazy. No no, wait let's make it fly as well!

Caelum is excellent even if they did not have false horrors. Just not quite so "dear god Caelum again" excellent.

Kel · #**114** September 19th, 2004, 11:00 PM

I am *not* arguing for or against false horror, or Caelum or anything along those lines...but Caelum has more going for it than False horror.

They still have good raiders, mobility and good mages. Probably other things, too, that I am not experienced enough to be aware of...but Caelums success does not hinge solely on False Horror, imo.

- Kel

Cainehill · #**115** September 19th, 2004, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Huzurdaddi said:

Quote:

What I want to know is what Hen and compadres propose to give Caelum as compensation if False Horror is nerfed (as opposed to the bug where priests don't cast sermon of courage with them).

How about we give them national armies that can skip provinces and strike rear areas? No that would be insane. Just imagine the carnage that could cause!

No, no wait I got it. How about we make their best mage recruitable not only in the capital but anywhere they have a castle? No that would be crazy.

No, no, wait. How about making their top mage have one 3 level path one 2 level path a random and yet cost only 180? No, that's crazy. No no, wait let's make it fly as well!

Caelum is excellent even if they did not have false horrors. Just not quite so "dear god Caelum again" excellent.

*yawn* If they were so excellent, why don't they win more games? They have one strength really: mages. The armies being able to skip provinces and attack rear areas wouldn't do a thing for them without the mages, because the flying troops are either very weak, or very very expensive resource-wise, and they tend to _starve_ when not close to home.

In my opinion, the only reason Caelum gets Banned is because people get frustrated playing against them. Hell - I do too, sometimes. Ditto for 'mad castling': "It isn't fun to play against!" My heart bleeds for these people, really it does. Oops, never mind - that's just some wine I spilled on my shirt.

Soapyfrog · #**116** September 20th, 2004, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Cainehill said:
Oops, never mind - that's just some wine I spilled on my shirt.

Well that explains it... you are clearly drunk!

Cainehill · #**117** September 20th, 2004, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Soapyfrog said:

Quote:

Cainehill said:
Oops, never mind - that's just some wine I spilled on my shirt.

Well that explains it... you are clearly drunk!

In vino, veritas.

Boron · #**118** September 20th, 2004, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Arryn said:
Lex is essentially repeating what Gandalf said a while back. Unfortunately, no one seems to have been listening to Gandalf. Which is a shame, since Gandalf knows what he's talking about. Certainly more so than those whose minds are closed to viewpoints other than that of singleminded simplicity and pet peevishness.

Well Stormbinder / Truper and a lot of other very experienced players say too that false horrors are at least a bit overpowered while you and Caine seem to be the only ones still claiming it is okay .

Arryn · #**119** September 20th, 2004, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Boron said:

Quote:

Arryn said:
Lex is essentially repeating what Gandalf said a while back. Unfortunately, no one seems to have been listening to Gandalf. Which is a shame, since Gandalf knows what he's talking about. Certainly more so than those whose minds are closed to viewpoints other than that of singleminded simplicity and pet peevishness.

Well Stormbinder / Truper and a lot of other very experienced players say too that false horrors are at least a bit overpowered while you and Caine seem to be the only ones still claiming it is okay .

First, who's "a lot"? Second, who's definition of "very experienced", for I assure you that your definition and mine are likely to be dramatically different. Finally, you completely ignored the text I wrote which you (for some unknown reason) bothered to quote. Why quote text if what you're going to write utterly disregards that to which you are ostensibly referring to? To make it abundantly clear what I'm speaking about, lest it elude you, how can you claim that only I and Cainehill hold a certain viewpoint when the text you quoted very clearly mentions that there are others (in this example, Gandalf)?

Oh, and one more thing: just because some people are VERY vocal in their whining about Caelum, False Horror, Abysia, or whatever other aspect(s) of the game they have trouble with due to their preconceptions and/or inflexible playstyle doesn't make them a majority. Or even significant. It just makes them a pain in the ***. If you choose to accord such folks more importance than they merit, that's your prerogative, but don't expect others to agree with you ... no matter how vocal you are.

Boron · #**120** September 20th, 2004, 07:56 AM

I just wanted to give you counterexamples .
And Stormbinder is atm probably the most experienced dominionsplayer together with Zen .

Truper made some very good points too .

Your own "anti-moraleloss fix" sounds promising too .

The combination of fear aura , 16att/def and etheral makes a false horror very tough .
Normal troops he roots and cheap high morale troops like skeletons , manikins etc. have all 0 prot + low mr so the false horror defeats them as well .
Even demons like FoD and Devils have not very high protection and are not easy to get in big enough numbers quick . Behemoths won't hit false horrors a lot because of their etheralness too .

Tell me anything how a nation like Marignon/Ulm etc. can defend against a caelum attacking with false horrors once they researched it .
If you can give me enough examples for most nations what to do against false horror raids i am convinced that false horror is ok .