Random Picks and Modding...

[Saber Cherry]

The_Tauren13 said:
Or maybe dump the equation and pull something like this:
Code:

---

Morale   Cost

   0     0.00

   1     0.05

   2     0.20

   3     0.32

   4     0.41

   5     0.47

   6     0.50

   7     0.70

   8     0.85

   9     0.95

  10     1.00

  11     1.10

  12     1.30

  13     1.60

  14     2.00

  15     2.12

  16     2.23

  17     2.33

  18     2.43

  19     2.51

  20     2.60

  21     2.67

  22     2.74

  23     2.79

  24     2.85

  25     2.89

  26     2.93

  27     2.96

  28     2.98

  29     2.99

  30     3.00

---

That looks really good! My suggestions:

Cap minimum at .5, and cap maximum at 2.5. Morale 20 is NOT worth any more than morale 19. Not even .1%, and certainly not the 4% or so that your chart lists... since above 16 or so, units will almost never fail morale saves or repel rolls. I've never seen units with 18 morale retreat (when in their own squad).

Morale below 5 (from what I understand of the morale formulas) no longer has any real effect. Units with 5 morale will virtually always fail morale saves and repel rolls (that hit), so a morale 1 units is as useful as a morale 5 unit.

Thanks for generating the chart!

[Endoperez]

And that loss would be far more than 30-50 gp, as he would never know just where that assasin was going to be the next turn... Especially if he has flying boots. One would need to have 5+ scouts with any army that moves near enemy area, and either lots of scouts or lots of patrollers (or pd) in research provinces.

[Graeme Dice]

The_Tauren13 said:
Right. Lets make national troops more useless than they already are. And lets make most battle summons more effective than most ritual summons.

Are you still hung up on false horrors? They are decent, but it's not like there's no easy ways to get around them.

[Evil Dave]

Saber Cherry said:
As for morale value... it's sort of an s-curve with the steepest part around 9, with asymptotes at maybe 5 and 16. I can't think of an s-curve equation offhand.

You can generate s-curves (gamma curves) by integrating normal or polynomial distributions. In this case, integrating the distribution of 5 three-sided dice will get you almost the distribution you want: range of 5-15, with the steepest slope at 10.

[Saber Cherry]

Evil Dave said:

You can generate s-curves (gamma curves) by integrating normal or polynomial distributions. In this case, integrating the distribution of 5 three-sided dice will get you almost the distribution you want: range of 5-15, with the steepest slope at 10.

Thanks Actually, I play Dominions to get away from math (especially calculus) but for some reason it keeps popping up...

[Evil Dave]

Saber Cherry said:
Actually, I play Dominions to get away from math (especially calculus) but for some reason it keeps popping up...

Really? Wow. From reading this thread and the others on modding and balance, I'd concluded:

1) You and the other good/knowledgable players really liked math.

2) The reason I'm not very good at Dom2 is that I wasn't using enuf math, and was worrying too much about silly notions like reducing the other side's ability to fight.

[Saber Cherry]

Evil Dave said:
Really? Wow. From reading this thread and the others on modding and balance, I'd concluded:

1) You and the other good/knowledgable players really liked math.

2) The reason I'm not very good at Dom2 is that I wasn't using enuf math, and was worrying too much about silly notions like reducing the other side's ability to fight.

Hmm... maybe I was kidding a little. I actually like math, until people start talking about eigenvalues and integrating high-degree trig functions

[Scott Hebert]

Graeme Dice said:

S2 or less is worth less than most other paths. S3 or more is worth more. W is worth the least of all except if it's in combination with a path that is useful on the battlefield.

I would prefer, actually, if you could rate each path separately, and then give a bonus/penalty on what paths it 'shows up with'. If you could do that, I could recalculate the costs of the mages.

I've never seen anyone actually use hydras, so I can't comment on that.

Well, I like to use them, at least. I think that in MP they would be less viable, as apparently MR is about the only stat that is of any use.

The druid is very common, the Daughter of Avalon is not.

The Druid also has an opportunity cost of 400g for the Temple and Laboratory to make him. The Daughter does not. Shouldn't that factor into the costs as well?

They can only summon an endless horde of undead if you've also researched alteration 5 for drain life, and have also spent 10 death gems on a skull staff. Otherwise they only get to cast about 4 raise skeletons, which is not that scary of a force.

Hrm. I seem to do well enough with Enchantment-3 and the Raise spells (they can throw about 5 or so each before falling over). Then again, I never get to play against the cutthroat MP people.

Unholy priests are severely overrated. By the time you've summoned enough so that they will have a noticeable effect on your battles, your opponents should be able to deal with longdead without much difficulty. The summoned unholy priests are probably better off when used as combat platforms.

Mm. I have a question, Graeme. This is meant seriously, not sarcastically. Do you use non-summoned troops at all in your games?

That's your opinion. I'd say that Caelum's mages are a good baseline for what every nation should have.

That would require an entire re-write of Illwinter's magic cost formula to compensate. Would you like me to do that, and then report on what everyone's mages should cost?

True, but nobody would buy them at that cost.

At this point, I think you should talk to Illwinter about their costing formulas, then.

That does not work at all, as a single death means that all your commanders run away.

Barring other factors (like someone spamming troops), yes. Again, there is always a way to handle that issue.

I'd go the other route and decrease all site searching spells to 1 in the respective path.

Mm. Wouldn't that make Sages even better than they are currently?

You don't use a Niefel Jarl for its spellcasting ability. You use it as a full-fledged SC. This is a role that a Vanadrott cannot match as the Van does not have sufficient hitpoints.

I would think that with the spells a Vanadrott can cast, the HPs would not be as great of an issue. I would agree that the Hangadrott is a better example than the Vanadrott, but that would require me playing with a Death scale.

Why not ignore it? Is there any way to make assasination cost effective?

Apparently, you don't think so. However, if I removed the cost for being an assassin, you'd have a flood of them. Now, working on the 'diminishing returns' system, a mage-assassin wouldn't 'spend' as much for his assassination capability as the 'straight' assassin (to the point of 0, perhaps).

Personally, I don't use Assassins for the same reasons I am 'troop-based'. I hate having too many commanders to tell what to do (it makes the turns take too long, for me).

Acashic record costs too much to worthwhile.

Again, that is your opinion. If I have casters who can cast Acashic Record, I generally prefer to use that than the other site-searching spells.

If you have a 5S one, they you got very lucky, as you're much more likely to get something along the lines of S3W1B1N1, which doesn't have too much of a use.

Oh, it's very rare, I'll grant you. I wanted to know more from a 'did I use the correct formula to cost them' standpoint than anything else.

That's the worst of their problems.

Mm. Well, 'spread-out' mages cost less.

No, they are important because astral provides luck, and magic resist in the form of the lucky pendant, lucky coin, starshine skullcap and antimagic amulet, while death magic provides wraith swords and decent summons.

[/quote]

And if they didn't? And what you term 'decent' I term 'overpowered', by and large.

However, I am not trying to 'mod' the game to what I think is fair or balanced. I am trying to see if I can come up with a rubric that calculates the gold cost of a commander accurately.

To that end, I am going to raise the 'first path, first level' cost from 30 to 50, and recalculate the mages. I will probably also have to make Holy magic the same as the first path magic (50,90,150), and it will again come closer to current costs.

[Scott Hebert]

Huzurdaddi said:
Scott,

I think you are on the correct path with your costing. The power of Caelum and C'tis almost 100% come from their mages and this is refelect in your increase of their cost.

As I said to Graeme, my intent is not to change the balance point of the game, but to find a point where everything comes out to the cost that is listed for them in the games.

Your changes will clearly change the flavour of the game. Many people really like the current optimization points ( Caelum, magic dominating, etc ) but it would also be interesting to see how your mod plays out.

I'd hope that I wouldn't change the flavor of the game that much.

WRT Spies they really should cost more. A spy is worth far more than a scout.

Yes, but right now it's worth 10 more. Much more than that, and... well, I don't know. How much do you think an Assassin is worth? Do you think a Spy is worth more?

I also think that making the cost reduction of a capital only commander a function of the number of capital only commanders a great idea. Actually it should probably be some kind of percentage formula. But I'm sure you will work it out.

A percentage formula could end up with expensive mages (like the Crone) ending up nearly the same as less expensive mages, which would obviate the cheap mages.

Quite possibly, -10g,-5g for each commander after the first, would work. It sort of feels weird for me to have one percentage-based calculation, and no others.

[Scott Hebert]

Evil Dave said:
Really? Wow. From reading this thread and the others on modding and balance, I'd concluded:

1) You and the other good/knowledgable players really liked math.

I love math, and I love to generate statistics. However, I am neither very good or very knowledgeable about this game.

2) The reason I'm not very good at Dom2 is that I wasn't using enuf math, and was worrying too much about silly notions like reducing the other side's ability to fight.

*chuckles* Nah. I'm just trying to find something to occupy my mind, and I came up with this.