Wishlist: Alchemy - Converting Gems for Gold needs a better Rate

[WraithLord]

MaxWilson said:
Alchemy would also be proportionately more valuable if you were playing with 25% or 50% gold multipliers.

I totally agree.

Up until I read this thread I hadn't noticed how little I've used Alchecmy. Between the higher gold income in dom-III and the nerfing of fever fetishes, alchemy in dom-III has turned out to be not cost effective.

[Edratman]

I also find that the gems I have in excess are not convertable. IE, if I'm playing a nation without water paths, the water gems are pretty much useless, but I never seem to have a mage that can covert these gems to gold or swap them out for other gems that I could use.

This may be out of date information because I quit even clicking on the alchemy button at least a year ago.

[ano]

MA T'ien Ch'i alchemists receive a 50% bonus as well. You don't need any special pretender or something for that. It may really help early on but only when it's crucial to have a bit more gold.

[Endoperez]

What you can alchemize doesn't depend on the mage doing it. You can change gems into astral or astral into other gems, at 2:1 ratio, or fire or earth gems into gold, and that's all.

[ano]

I meant alchemizing fire and earth for gold.
That's the thread topic, isn't it?

[Sombre]

The solution is simple - fire and earth gems should simply be worth more gold per gem.

[Endoperez]

ano said:
I meant alchemizing fire and earth for gold.
That's the thread topic, isn't it?

I meant that for Edratman. "I never seem to have a mage that can covert [water] gems to gold" etc. It also doesn't hurt if any new people here know about alchemy, even if they haven't read page 91 of the manual.

[MakeYourTime]

I agree with raising the exchange rates on alchemy. Since Dom 2 money has simply become worth a lot less (just like in real life *sigh*). With armies becoming larger in general, you simply need much more gold to be competitive in the troop department, so it stands to reason that alchemical transmutation should be adjusted accordingly. It doesn't really make sense to have a feature that's basically useless because it wasn't updated along with everything else (I'm sure as hell not going to waste up to 4 gems of anything for 15 gold...) There's the matter of building prices, but that could be adjusted accordingly, if people think that's even an issue.

[JimMorrison]

As well as increasing value of Fire and Earth, I think all gems should be transmutable for coin. Maybe for less than those 2 gems, but if it is made strategically viable, then it would kind of suck that only a few nations have starting gem income to make it possible in the early game where some would argue it was most useful. Taking EA Abysia as an example, 6F gems per turn, if it were bumped to 30g apiece, that's an extra 180g/turn if they decide to alchemize at the start to get a faster start. 4 turns of that is basically an extra fort, while someone who has no access to F gems has no viable option whatsoever in that department.

Actually, I'd probably say making F worth 30, S and E worth 25, and all others worth 20..... Would probably be a fair enough balance. Or you could say F/S/E 30, and all else 25, I don't care.

Though have to be careful, if you make it worthy for everyone, the 50% bonus could end up too powerful.

[Coldshard]

What if whenever a fire or earth gem was alchemized it gave some amount of gold and had a chance of giving you one of the other gems?

At that point the boost to alchemy could be split between the two options somehow which would mean that the increase in gold wouldnt multiply as heavily for them. Also, the alchemists stone could be made to be worthwhile!