Eras done for balance purposes?

[ioticus]

I'm speculating that eras were introduced for balance purposes. As I understand it, there are 3 eras, and the era used is selected before the game begins. Once an era is chosen, you are restricted in what sides you and your opponent can choose, based on the era you are playing in. What other reason to introduce eras other than for balance purposes?

[Kristoffer O]

Thematic reasons perhaps. Restriction on number of nations in one game perhaps. I'm not sure anymore. THer might have been other reasons.

[Nerfix]

Can I be the Mr. Blatantly Obvious? ^__^

So that the players can choose whether they want magic merrymaking or armies of strrrrrrong men clashing on the battlefield.

[Gandalf Parker]

I thought Kristoffer was just feeling creative. He wanted to show a progression of each nation into something else. How did Ermor go from a nation of men into a nation of undead. How did Ulm go from farmers to heavily armed troops. And Im guessing the decline of Pangaea.

[Oversway]

I like the idea that you can pick the early era for a more magic heavy game and the last era is more conventional armies (at least, that is the theory).

But I would want to be able to play any nation against any other nation regardless of era, if I felt like it.

[Chazar]

Eras are good: I recall that I read somewhere that the Eras also influence the number and kind of magic sites, etc.

In Dom2, the MP-community seemed pretty obsessed with a certain single standard setting and convincing people to different setup was difficult.

With three standard setups (aka eras) this will certainly be more flexible and simplify the selection of suitable opponent players to fit ones own game style preference...

Somehow people are reluctant to deviate from the norm (like using alien mods). So making everyone choose is good.