Ah, that's okay. It's not an issue anyway. I was just messing around in a losing game, and expected focus magic to just be a buff without such side effects, but I had no idea it related to the magical weapons too (I'm still learning such mechanics, which is great). There are better targets for the spell anyway.
|
Random questions
|
|
November 15th, 2017, 07:15
(This post was last modified: November 15th, 2017, 07:17 by Nelphine.)
@focus magic
Seravy in sorcery thread page 2 you already reference focus magic as a done deal. So either its something you brought with you into this mod before you talked to anyone at all, or its early on in the main thread. @guardian Its +to hit and +to defend Not +attack and +armor So looking at your slingers, before focus magic, they would become +3 to hit and +2 to defend if they had guardian. Looking at your slingers after focus msguc they would become +2 to hit, an extra +1 to hit with melee only, +2 to defend
Right. So it makes your defending units pretty awesome.
But I've grown up with learning that aggression and offense is what wins games, and basing your strategy on defending means that you're counting on losing. Granted, in this game it's (luckily) a bit different with the random/surprise attacks, but it's still not something I'd be tempted to choose, even at 1 pick. Edit: Also, my cities seem to either have a token garrison, or a strong one. I don't think there are many situation where the retort makes the difference between winning and losing. The token ones will lose regardless, and the strong ones tend to not get attacked. I admit I might be severely underestimating it, though, and that in actual practice it's incredibly helpful.
I actually have no idea how good Guardian is now that the AI is updated. It used to be amazing and in theory it's still good, mainly because the AI will underestimate your forces but whether that effect is more, or less relevant now, I don't know. If you couldn't stop the AI's doomstack without this and can with it, then it's huge. If you can't stop it anyway, not so much.
It's also one of the open discussions, and I wouldn't mind making it cost 1 pick but so far that idea wasn't very popular.
The issue with guardian is that it benefits AIs a lot more than players. First for the fun aspect, being defensive isn't so much fun. But also because AIs play a LOT more defensive battles than players thanks to how the game works. At 1 pick it'd be a very good deal for AIs, and it'd be used mainly to bait defensive battles and get the first turn from players... Is that something we want?
My experience is the opposite, the AI has dozens of stacks and attacks many times a turn while I usually attack with a single doomstack or two except if I had a long time to prepare for a "surprise" attack against an ally.
Ofc this is only true on the higher difficulties and obviously not for the first 50-100 turns. Once I counted and the AI attacked me something like 24 times in a single turn after I started the big endgame war. The AI is more cautious with attacks in 5.x though so maybe this changed somewhat but eventually those extra troops will find and attack something weak enough - units you're moving between armies, smaller armies, a weakened garrison, etc. Also the human has a large advantage. They get to choose to attack the enemy with guardian or not while being aware of the effect. The AI is not getting this choice.
My experience is that it only attacks when it's reasonable sure (mathematically, I guess) of a win. That means it hunts spearmen cities... and once it decides the strong ones are possible as well, I've already lost. But we have probably wildly different playstyles (read: I'm a lot worse).
|
