Tip: Template for reducing late game MM hell

[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.

[Sombre]

I don't see how it would severely discourage turtling. I doubt it would have much effect on turtling at all, since turtling is primarily a gem gen based strat and gem gens aren't really be hurt by the removal of domes. Scouts carry them after all.

Besides the guy with the clam farm can out remote the guy without one.

[Micah]

No way. Remote spells are already extremely effective, suggesting that the only line of defense against them be removed is foolishness. The damage domes are also useless, it's trivial to slap a couple of resistance items on the casting mage.

Turtling isn't a problem without non-province-based income, whereas gem gens introduce a host of problems into the game.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Micah

No way. Remote spells are already extremely effective, suggesting that the only line of defense against them be removed is foolishness. The damage domes are also useless, it's trivial to slap a couple of resistance items on the casting mage.

Turtling isn't a problem without non-province-based income, whereas gem gens introduce a host of problems into the game.

I'm not sure I understand. You're opposed to defensive play but removing something which makes defensive play powerful is bad?

[Psycho]

There is nothing wrong with playing defensively. The problem is that if you have loads of gem gens losing territory means nothing to you. One fort is all you need. Raiding means nothing to you. It is very hard to defeat such an opponent. Eventually, the one with most gem gens wins, because as we all know, gem income is the most important thing. You are forced to forge them if you want to win. Thus they reduce versatility.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

I'm not sure I understand. You're opposed to defensive play but removing something which makes defensive play powerful^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H tedious is bad?

Fixed your post.

-Max