Game balance

[Seravy]

Before we continue, I think this is the time to decide how much game balance we want in the game.

I see two different possible options.

1. We want as much game balance as possible, no matter the costs

OR

2. We don't care if excessive early game luck or certain extreme tactics result in unfair wins.

Particularly, we can choose to try fixing the armorer's guild, and the starting mineral balance issues, or we can decide these are acceptable and ignore them. I don't think a non-intrusive non-artificial solution for them exists, unfortunately.
Obviously, not everyone will be happy with the decision, whichever way we go, so I'll open a poll for this.

To quote from current tasks :

[Armorer's Guild] Players can sometimes build endgame military buildings too early. Some sort of a non-artificial solution to prevent this without reducing the income sources is needed. Variable buying costs might be doable but it feels too artificial.
[Dwarf race] Golems are overpowered, probably need to lose Magic Immunity and some armor.  The above Armorer's Guild issue is even more problematic here so Golems requiring the building won't be a solution unless that gets solved.
[Starting minerals] Starting on too much or certain types of minerals (adamantium) results in unbalanced games. A restriction to starting minerals might be needed?
[Tactician], [Warlord] Making these two retorts mutually exclusive could force players to make a real choice instead of the no-brainer "both" when playing military strategies.

Edit : voting and discussion of specific issues continue in specific threads for each issue (see last post)

[Nelphine]

My opinion is a mix.

I think golems should be armorer's guild units, but I don't care if people can rush armorer's guild, including golems. 

I'd also rather leave golems roughly as they are - I'd be wiling to replace magic immunity with every other immunity, and lose 1 or 2 armor, but no more. Losing at least 1 armor is probably a good idea, any other changes I'm not super worried about.

I'd be willing to not allow adamantium starts, but I'm not particularly worried about it. I'd be against losing any other minerals (including coal and mithril).

I also think dwarves swordsmen/halberdiers should get at least 1 resistance back, despite valance issues.

[Seravy]

Swordsmen can get 1 back without a problem (aside from not matching the template of being 1 lower than halberds), but halberdiers cannot.

[Nelphine]

I don't understand. Why can't they match nomad pikeman? Or various priests (beastmen and dark elf)? Also note, in this case I think the balance is not as important as dwarf having high resistance, so I'm fine with the halberdier problem.

[Seravy]

Because neither priests nor pikemen work as a life buffed lone attacker. They either don't have enough health or armor for it. A combination of all three, armor, health and resistance is what we need to avoid.

And this is not optional unlike the armorer's guild problem - a buffed halbderier is something people (and AI) will make even if they don't intend to abuse it - it's a thing you naturally do if you play Life. But once you have the unit it will inevitably part of a fortress spike team and win the game for you, even if your fortress spike team would normally be inadequate. So the halberdier has an effect on generic gameplay.

(also, basic units being THAT good against Nagas and Ghouls is bad on its own even if ignoring the fortress problem. Early game spells, including summons have a too large dependency on resistance rolls on average to give a race a base 8 resist halberdier.)

[zitro1987]

I'm not too concerned with Armorer's Guild, but a minor starting mineral restriction and a golem with significantly less armor (5) may be needed.

[Seravy]

By the way one more thing that probably falls into this category.

Warlord+Tactician. It's a trivial choice to always use both if playing a military tactic, as stacking more defense (or stats in general) has increasing returns. The situation is the same as Archmage+Spellweaver, albeit the result is not as powerful, it's equally as unbalancing in the early game.

If the "balance" votes win, we should consider making Tactician and Warlord mutually exclusive as well (heck, even if not, we should consider that, Tactician is meant as a hero retort or an alternative 1 pick version of WL, not something you have in addition to it.)

I'm intentionally not including Alchemy because the bonus it provides is purely economic (you get the magical weapon bonus earlier than normal because you don't need to build it.) while these are purely military.

[Catwalk]

You have to define game balance first This important question is not suited for a simple poll. I'd take down the poll and keep the discussion going, the poll only serves to clutter things.

[Catwalk]

My opinion is that balance is exceptionally important. I don't want options that are almost always terrible or options that are almost always terrible. I want all races to be essentially equal strength, permitting that circumstances change which leads to one race being stronger in one game and another being stronger in another game.

A sentiment that I want to protest against strongly is this:
"It's okay if some races, realms or retorts are weaker, you can pick them if you want a challenge"

Note that I'm not saying anyone has said this verbatim, but there have been hints at it. A better poll question is to ask if anyone but Seravy uses Guardian deliberately for their wizards

[Catwalk]

Putting it more simply: Game balance (almost) never needs to stand in the way of fun.

"I don't think a non-intrusive non-artificial solution for them exists, unfortunately."

I've never seen this to be the case in a balance question. It's okay to say "I don't like that solution personally", but that's different from saying it's objectively unfun.