Test games played

[zitro1987]

My thoughts:

Spell Binding's overpoweredness without trying to re-state already debated proposals:

**When you cast this spell, you get an additional insta-cost depending on global cost at 2X or 3X. Similar to how you lose mana when using spell blast.
*Could have a cost modifier (an extra 100%) against runemaster.
-you have to work really hard to get something very advanced like armageddon, losing thousands of mana points.
-Cost would reflect what would be a combination of disjunction cost and casting enchantment cost ... and more.
-Spell still extremely powerful and allows obtaining non-sorcery globals. I am still in the camp of the spell being too cheap but I may want it to be 100% successful.
*Have a power slider like disjunction but without chance of failure. You must spend 2X or 3X as much as the spell cost to get 100%, otherwise 0%.
- Fairly similar to above, but with power sliders. May not work well in the hands of AI.

Runemaster being fairly weak early in game, thus not very workable in high-difficulty games
*Start with dispel magic (kind of how artificer starts with enchant item)
-Extra research at turn 1, especially a spell directly benefiting Runemaster, should balance the spell better early and late game
-Why? Retorts (and books) naturally help early in game as well as late. Runemaster is a rare exception and is not too relevant until globals come into play.
*Give it an effect to bypass 'specialist' defense bonus. In other words, it becomes as equally effective against any non-runemaster wizard

Halflings could have access to 'barracks' without becoming overpowered (except maybe its magicians?) to eliminate the 'niche' of requiring heroism, altar of battle, or armsmaster hero.

Myrran opponent-
*First the obvious: why do we all play with the maximum number of wizards? why not 3? If 3, then the benefit of the myrran AI will decrease somewhat
*Have a formula that when starting as arcanus and playing 3-4 wizards, the myrran one has slightly reduced bonuses (particularly in the city or outpost growth category)
-This is really the issue. Myrran expands too much.
*Have an altered myrran-only AI behavior of less aggressive expansion or some other behavior change that weakens their advantage of expansion.

Difficulty -
*I think the difficulty modifiers (particularly skill-related and some economy) are a little too high. We have the bias of being experts at the CoM, but the game is rather intense in just normal which already has AI with significant advantages in economy (one in 130% I think) and skill.
-I thought the extreme skill bonuses were partially done to cover their quick research. With research being now slower in V5+, I do think this one could get toned down.
Easy is easy enough yeah
Normal seems like a fair challenge, not friendly to some players. Could have all modifiers at 100%
The rest could have their bonus accumulation slowed down by about 20% (including skill, if it starts at 100% in normal)

[Nelphine]

Its 1420 - all nodes should be conquered. (I think that should be done by 1412, but I'm fine with you saying it should be later.)

Again, I'll go back to something I've said before - power production is the best gauge of overall power (outside of super early game, and super extreme builds like draconian bowmen with no buffs).

You have 600 power income. Assuming 28 per city, and 8 tiles per node, 1.5 magic per node tile (which is the middle amount - even if you're using fair, I think the game should be balanced around middle), that nets you 500-600 power income.

I'd say yes, that's the basic problem.

I wouldn't accept less than 10 nodes. If you don't have that, then no you don't control half arcanus. So you're trying to take on someone who controls an entire plane, when you control 1/3 of a plane. That being said, that wouldn't change your power production enough.

I think this points to other issues. I won't accept heroes that don't give me power (or skill or research), then j use heroism. I use alchemy for the gold to mana, thus allowing me to effectively increase the amount spent on skill. I raze any city that isn't a power generator or dwarf with ores, or barbarian. Everything I do is to maximize power production.

I think this generally shows a problem, where some things are inherently stronger than other options. I regularly have 1000+ power production, with less than 10 non barbarian cities. Things like my heroes can easily be worth 250 by themselves, which is half your total. Astrologer or cult leader (play your empire to support whichever you have) can easily be another 200+. And as you pointed out, ~250 mana income covers battles, so all of my extra power goes into skill. (An extra 500 income per turn, over 100+ turns, is a HUGE amount of skill).

What's the point of having more books with very rares, if you have 1/3 the casting skill?

[Seravy]

*Could have a cost modifier (an extra 100%) against runemaster.

If I could see into the future to tell if the spell is going to target a runemaster or not before it is cast, I'd go and ask my future self how to fix the problem instead!

I was thinking of the power slider but first I have to re-read the entire thread to see if anything has changed by dropping the "bypass runemaster" condition at all.

Runemaster being fairly weak early in game, thus not very workable in high-difficulty games
*Start with dispel magic (kind of how artificer starts with enchant item)

This is a pretty good idea. Improves the retort for AI as well - they might not research DM early enough otherwise, and miss their window of opportunity to resist common buffed humans stacks.
Might even want to thrown in Disenchant Area albeit two spells is a bit too good for trading.

*Give it an effect to bypass 'specialist' defense bonus.

I can't do this, Runemaster is applied outside of, Specialist inside of the "resistance adjustment" procedure so they don't see each other.

Have a formula that when starting as arcanus and playing 3-4 wizards, the myrran one has slightly reduced bonuses

I can't make the bonus variable.

This is really the issue. Myrran expands too much.

...but I can force them to expand slower, if we end up needing to do that.

normal which already has AI with significant advantages in economy (one in 130% I think)

Not nowadays, I think 110% is the highest, nor counting the overland casting and maintenance which are more significant.

I thought the extreme skill bonuses were partially done to cover their quick research.

No it wasn't. It was to cover for their inability to focus the usage of spells to one particular area, and especially because they can't focus their creatures at one particular goal either. While there have been improvements in these areas, the AI is still extremely incompetent at them compared to a human.

[Nelphine]

On potential overpowered myrran AI. I've come to the realization that I need to get to myrror early to avoid that. As you know I aim to start breaking towers by 1406, although 1412 is probably more reasonable. As per my current game, I generally find arcanus wizards are actually stronger, but I specifically go to myrror to stomp that AI as I know it has the most potential.

[zitro1987]

Bypassing runemaster/specialist or not, spell binding draining extra mana the turn you select the global (depending on global spell cost) may lessen the concern of how overpowered it is at least in regards to its excessively cheap mana cost. The feature would work similar to how spell blast drains mana when you select a spell.
*If we have to lose a few thousand extra mana, we will still use it without hesitation ... but at the cost of several more battles worth of mana.

In regards to runemaster having a free dispel I think it is balanced. If we add 'disenchant', it no longer is weak in early game thanks to trade opportunities but may be leaning too powerful with the 2 being free unless you reduce the 150% bonus in it.
*Can it add an extra +25% research reduction in the dispel spells or at least disjunction? (kind of how artificer has a 50% bonus for items, but 25% for other arcane)

Myrran being forced to expand slower ... you can do that? It might be the most 'subtle' solution to merely tweak its behavior in this regard. Players may not notice they play a different behavior. In what way would you think of doing this?
*More probability of buildings/units as opposed to settlers?

[Nelphine]

Myrror AI have a higher cap on number of settlers they can build at the same time if and only if the human is not on myrror.

This was done specifically to make the myrran ai expand faster, as we'd been having games where impossible ai hadnt settled all of myrror in 1413 or 1415 despite no other wizards in that plane.

I'd personally dislike reverting that, as I think a wizard alone on a plane should expand faster.

[Seravy]

Its 1420 - all nodes should be conquered.

They are, but not by me.

I wouldn't accept less than 10 nodes.  If you don't have that, then no you don't control half arcanus.

Arcanus has 16 nodes. Half of it is 8. I had around that number, maybe not exactly 8 but likely 7.

I use alchemy for the gold to mana,

What gold? I was making like 20 a turn. Maintaining all those armies to prepare for the war isn't free, not to mention Amplifying Towers.
I didn't have Prosperity either this game, but that's not something other realms get anyway so we should ignore it.

What's the point of having more books with very rares, if you have 1/3 the casting skill?

Well, I normally should control the entire plane by then so I was behind by 50% in territory. That translates to skill in a similar ratio. Peaceful strategy does not pay off it seems - I could keep up in research with Altar of Peace but not in skill.

I've come to the realization that I need to get to myrror early to avoid that.

That works, but that's not solving the problem, that merely gets around it. The intended primary gameflow is not going to Myrror early. (btw, going there would just be even more OP if the Myrran was holding back in the beginning so this is not so trivial to solve. First we need to prove the problem exists though - so more test games. I'm 99% sure we'll find that it exists, but still need to do things in the right order.)

The feature would work similar to how spell blast drains mana when you select a spell.

It wouldn't - the spell would still resolve even if you couldn't afford the extra cost, so you only need to make sure you don't have MP when it is completed to avoid the cost. Also you'd get no indication of the amount you are going to lose which is unacceptable.

In what way would you think of doing this?

Setting the "settlers allowed at a time" to 1 instead of 2.
However this would make early Myrran access strategies overpowered so we should avoid it if possible.
Instead we should probably focus on their midgame expansion somehow.

[Nelphine]

Not that it's relevant but, arcanus has 17 nodes (recall my discussion where I thought that was unusual).

You had said 6 or 7. 6/17 is 1/3.

[Seravy]

Is it still 17? I thought we changed to 16? Oh well, doesn't matter.

[zitro1987]

In what way would you think of doing this?

Setting the "settlers allowed at a time" to 1 instead of 2.
However this would make early Myrran access strategies overpowered so we should avoid it if possible.
Instead we should probably focus on their midgame expansion somehow.

How about combining the two?

When the lone myrran wizard AI reaches mid-level expansion (15-20 towns? year 1409-1412?) settlers allowed at a time reduced from 2 to 1.