Mod: CBM 1.7 released

[Festin]

Actually, an almost perfect solution to the investment problem would be to limit the number of gemgens according to the number of provinces. For example, instead of being magic items, gemgens could be spells (simular to Domes and limited to one of a kind per province), or immobile summons, or even buildings.

But any of this is probably impossible to mod in. Too bad.

[PriestyMan]

Trust me, if we weren't restricted by mod commands, we would have solved it ages ago. but we are. so no point thinking of more solutions which cant be implemented.

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by Dimaz

In fact clams were only 2w 10 gems in d2, and so the cost and trouble to get them was hugely increased but still they remained very important part of winning strategies despite that, so I don't think any reasonable cost increase can change that. They should be somehow limited to the actual size of player's lands or gem income from sites to make them comparable with other investment options, unfortunately it can't be done with modding tools we have.

Well, sea trolls (kings) are gem-gens, but they aren't much used that way since 55 gems is a quite steep price, and waiting 54 turns to get an investment back is quite long. I doubt people would clam with such long investments. Of course, astral pearls > water gems, but still.

And I agree with llamabeast that such things are game-size-dependant. Early game is way more important in a 4 player game than in a 12 player game.

What?..... Am I the only one that plays T'ien Ch'i as a sacred rush nation?

Do you imply they could be played differently??? But in EA the earlier summons are just better because they can be summoned faster.

[Redeyes]

Originally Posted by Corinthian

If that is your problem then you must hate Late Age C'tis.

MA Ermor is the worst, maybe a bit more likely to spam Clams too... in the pre-1.7 days.

[Dimaz]

I put the word reasonable for a reason. Of course you can make clams cost 65 water and 40 nature, but nobody will make them then. I meant that I don't think it's possible to balance them by ajusting the cost, they are either too powerful or useless, because of their mechanics. The only real solution is to limit their maximum number, but the only way to do it without house rules is to make them unique.

[llamabeast]

LA C'tis is a bit different. Sure it would be annoying trying to crush a fortress containing an endless supply of longdead. But eventually you'd just get better research and bring along an SC or group of mages that could kill unlimited undead. Massed longdead are only a problem in the early and mid games, so eventually the player who has provinces will win. Also there is no versatility - you cannot turn longdead into more mages or anything like that.

Massed clams, however, only become more valuable as the game moves into late game, and you can use the pearls to get more wish casters and make more clams and so on - there's no limit to how powerful you can get, trapped in your little fort.

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

...
Apart from that, I think it's horrid that a player can be reduced to one sieged fortress, but still be effectively at full power because the fortress is full of clam bearers. It completely disconnects power from provinces and armies.

Well, come to think of it isn't it the same with a player that summoned lots of tarts and equipped them as SCs and now has all of his summoned and equipped ubber army hiding in his last VP?- Yes, he has no income to speak of but he is a power to be reckoned with although holding just that one fort. In that sense this scenario is born out of previous greatness - meaning a player can't get there w/o being a substantial power in the game to begin with.

Naturally the fact that clams generate income is what makes the difference but in light of the example I gave I find that one fort + gem gens argument somewhat weaker (though still solid )

[DeadlyShoe]

Tartarians arn't any kind of economic power, you can't continue to generate armies with tarts. I suppose you could fort up with tons of Wraith Lords or other unit-generators, but the cost of building enough to actually build a worthwhile army in a reasonable # of turns is prohibitive.

[Kuritza]

With tarts, you can hope to break siege and try to re-conquer some land. With gemgens, you can keep summoning, but you are still losing because your opponent has BOTH gemgens and the land (hence money and recruitables). Am I missing something?

Just bring some siege golems to breach the walls.
When it comes to unbreakable castles, Pangaea is much more annoying (to the point of being unfair, in my opinion). Pangaean Pans are so gaean.

[DeadlyShoe]

... the whole point of it was that you retain economic power with gemgens, and in fact you remain almost 100% of your economic power with gemgens. Noone has any problems with a strong army forting up so that it can come out later.