Tip: Template for reducing late game MM hell

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by Juffos

If you wish to reduce micromanagement by eliminating diplomacy, please don't. Limit it to ingame messages. Diplomacy is necessary for the weak nations to unite and counter the strong.

Yes. What I listed are 3 items that are confirmed to increase MM and can be removed w/o a serious effect on balance/fun. It doesn't mean that all game must be w/o diplo, only that those that would be w/o diplo would have less MM. Or more precisely - less time spent on chats, mails, PMs etc so that turns process considerably faster.

Gem gens, the way they are currently, just plain suck in MM respect. Perhaps if it was possible to "curse" their income so that it can't be moved from the owning mage to the lab then they'd be ok (income only for battles). As they currently are they are tedious, boring, MM intensive and cause income inflation in end game.

Smaller maps and less nations clearly reduce MM.

[Sombre]

Solutions which we ourselves cannot do aren't that useful though. I mean there are many ways the problem could theoretically be solved, but I don't think identifying them all makes sense.

[thejeff]

Of course, without diplomacy you have to spend more actual in-game time preparing to counter war from all your neighbors, not to mention relying even more heavily on managing scouts to get info you can't get from others.
(Not that you should rely entirely on diplomacy for defense, but you certainly don't guard a border with an ally as strongly as you'd have to if you didn't have a deal.)

[WraithLord]

Usually w/o diplo one concentrates on deterrence to avoid wars. It may actually be more reliable then NAPs. As I have seen once and again that in diplo games you'd get nations dog-piling the leader while in RAND that's a rare occurrence and even when it happens you'd see 2-3 smaller nations banding as opposed to much more in diplo games. Also, when you're smaller and weaker in diplo games you may easily get to end game while in RAND it will all be over much sooner (so the whole game is much shorter as well).

I speak from personal experience of playing both game types. For me removing diplo considerably shortens turn processing.
EDIT: Again, I'm not saying diplo is bad, not fun or what not. It's perfectly viable and I'll surely play diplo game in the future. However I think that games w/o diplo require considerably less time investment.

[Sombre]

Oh I should point out NI maps also greatly reduce micro, simply because there are far, far less commanders - most notably scouts you have to cycle through with n.

[K]

I'm amused that all the suggestions for removing MM in endgame all involve neutering anyone's ability to achieve game-ending dominance in the endgame, thus insuring the game goes on longer and there is more MM required.

Globals and gem-producing items and forging and SCs are all ways that players achieve asymmetric power, and removing them guarantees that games will be bogged down in stalemates and endless diplomacy as people decide who to gang up on.

[Stavis_L]

Originally Posted by K

I'm amused that all the suggestions for removing MM in endgame all involve neutering anyone's ability to achieve game-ending dominance in the endgame, thus insuring the game goes on longer and there is more MM required.

Globals and gem-producing items and forging and SCs are all ways that players achieve asymmetric power, and removing them guarantees that games will be bogged down in stalemates and endless diplomacy as people decide who to gang up on.

I believe the frustration is that these tools no longer provide game-ending dominance, and do not provide asymmetric power, because everyone has them (saving the globals, of course; I think the objections there are a little odd, other than the spells that are just broken because they aren't really designed for large games.)

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

I believe the frustration is that these tools no longer provide game-ending dominance, and do not provide asymmetric power, because everyone has them (saving the globals, of course; I think the objections there are a little odd, other than the spells that are just broken because they aren't really designed for large games.)

I believe his point is that these are all options for endgame power, and as two players are unlikely to choose the same ratio of investment in each then their power develops asymmetrically.

If you remove some pathways as valid choices, you vastly increase the odds that two players make identical or sufficiently similar investment choices and thus their power does not really diverge in any category.

(Of course, there is the distinction between possession of power and application of power, but such contests can go on a long time if neither side can actually attack the other's real power base.)

Part of the problem is that an existential threat for a large nation is much different than an existential threat for a small nation. To make a nation of 50+ provinces even *blink* you have to take ~5-10 more provinces/trn than they can take from you. (or do an equivalent amount of damage to their production structure - gem gen holders, summoners, etc...).

[Micah]

The biggest asymmetry gem-gens provide is when you've got someone pulling in 60% of their former gem income with 10% of their former provinces when you're slogging through a war with them. It makes finishing people off in the late game incredibly difficult when they can concentrate their income so heavily and just worry about defending a single province with all of their forces, first turn defender advantage, layers of domes and a huge gem income.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Micah

The biggest asymmetry gem-gens provide is when you've got someone pulling in 60% of their former gem income with 10% of their former provinces when you're slogging through a war with them. It makes finishing people off in the late game incredibly difficult when they can concentrate their income so heavily and just worry about defending a single province with all of their forces, first turn defender advantage, layers of domes and a huge gem income.

Well, domes are actually part of the problem here. At least the ones that actually block spell effects. (Getting to attack the casting mage but always letting the spell through would be fine). More of a problem than gem gens in my opinion, because it makes turtling and defense too easy.

Edit: from a balance perspective, just removing domes with spell blocking effects from the game would have a lesser effect than removing gem gens on game balance, and severely discourage the turtling everyone whines about.