| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Latest Threads |
[spoilers]The Courts of C...
Forum: Pitboss 80
Last Post: Thoth
31 minutes ago
» Replies: 155
» Views: 4,090
|
My WIP Unit Art Thread
Forum: Caster of Magic for Windows (CoM II)
Last Post: Lagi
2 hours ago
» Replies: 66
» Views: 2,067
|
[PB81] Clash of Island
Forum: Pitboss 81
Last Post: xist10
2 hours ago
» Replies: 41
» Views: 1,060
|
Civilization 7 is in deve...
Forum: Civilization General Discussion
Last Post: LKendter
3 hours ago
» Replies: 138
» Views: 10,467
|
PBEM25 Mapmaking and Lurk...
Forum: Civilization 6 PBEM 25
Last Post: Chevalier Mal Fet
5 hours ago
» Replies: 84
» Views: 2,240
|
Cornflakes Goes Classical...
Forum: Pitboss 82
Last Post: Cornflakes
5 hours ago
» Replies: 107
» Views: 3,350
|
[PB79] MirOh No, what am ...
Forum: Pitboss 79
Last Post: klops
7 hours ago
» Replies: 345
» Views: 8,226
|
[PB78] Underdogs and unde...
Forum: Pitboss 78
Last Post: Donovan Zoi
9 hours ago
» Replies: 482
» Views: 12,865
|
[PB78] Dreylin boldly goe...
Forum: Pitboss 78
Last Post: Mjmd
10 hours ago
» Replies: 359
» Views: 8,385
|
[LURKER THREAD - NO PLAYE...
Forum: Pitboss 79
Last Post: naufragar
11 hours ago
» Replies: 101
» Views: 3,078
|
|
|
| Land sizes |
|
Posted by: MrBiscuits - February 10th, 2018, 06:45 - Forum: Caster of Magic
- Replies (10)
|
 |
A feature I'd quite like is that smaller land sizes have the land nearer the centre of the map. The reason I play smaller maps is that I want to play a shorter game, but with smaller land masses it means that you are managing less cities, but you've got to manage all your units moving across the ocean a lot more so you don't actually save any time.
This would make the naval aspect of those games a bit weaker, but to be honest it is not exactly the most interesting part of the game. There's enough navy combat with the standard map size as it is.
Maybe the vertical distribution could be the same and the horizontal one more central.
|
|
|
| Revisiting Books - Did books weaken in value? |
|
Posted by: zitro1987 - February 9th, 2018, 16:20 - Forum: Caster of Magic
- Replies (11)
|
|
I've been thinking that with the introduction of starting settlers, introduction of magic market and stronger library, and higher research costs, that we may have weakened books compared to retorts, particularly for mono-realms.
(March 19th, 2017, 05:22)Seravy Wrote: All right, it's about time to start working on this. (it'll probably take a while)
C/U/R/VR , C Starting/ U Guaranteed/ U Guaranteed turn 1 research/ R Guaranteed, other effects
Book 01 : 3/1/0/0, 0/0/0/0, Find/Trade common
Book 02 : 3/2/1/0, 1/0/0/0, Find/Trade Uncommon
Book 03 : 4/3/2/1, 2/0/0/0, Find/Trade Rare
Book 04 : 5/4/3/2, 3/0/0/0, Find/Trade Very Rare
Book 05 : 6/5/4/3, 4/1/0/0,
Book 06 : 7/6/5/4, 5/1/0/1,
Book 07 : 10/7/6/5, 5/2/0/1,
Book 08 : 10/10/7/6, 5/0/2/1,
Book 09 : 10/10/10/7, 5/0/2/0, +8% research, -5% casting cost
Book 10 : 10/10/10/10, 5/0/2/0, +16% research, -10% casting cost
Each book offers a unique feature, making them all a significant, valuable pick :
book 1 to 4 offer the ability to find and trade spells of each rarity. Book 5 offers a guaranteed uncommon. Book 6 offers a guaranteed rare. Book 7 offers knowing every common and a second guaranteed uncommon. Book 8 offers all uncommons and the ability to have 2 of those appear on the research page on turn 1. Book 9 offers all rares and a cost/research bonus. Book 10 offers all very rares and more cost/research bonus.
Once the system is implemented, we can tweak the numbers any way we want relatively easily.
Back when this was implemented, it was a near-perfect balance where books were probably only slightly inferior to retorts.
It could be argued that having a number of books (particularly in terms of focusing 1 color) have weakened because:
*the initial 'power' boost with many books is less relevant when you have cheap strong magic buildings and 2 settlers - cities provide a significant boost, weakening this aspect.
*higher research costs weaken the effect of 'more books = more spells' as you have to be more strategic in building your spell list. When this plan was implemented, we were often increasing the research bar and building an amazing assortment of spells quickly. This is no longer the case and the benefit of more spells may come after the deciding point where you lose or win.
*More of the rarer spells at high books, harder to research and possibly the fewer you get by the time you can tell whether you're winning or losing. It may become less relevant to have higher books compared to retorts that help you earlier on.
*you have fewer starting spells than multi-color choices by a great degree (as much as 5 vs 8 for 10 books)
On the other hand, fewer books and multi-realm may have become stronger:
*trading or finding the rare spells at 3 books and v.rare at 4 books, arguably worth more than most other types of treasure if found via lairs
*early common spells have higher research cost, so getting them early on is great.
*the starting uncommon of book #5 can help you research a low-cost powerful creature or spell to get ahead.
Suggestion about what I perceive to be an imbalance:
1) strengthen high # of books of 1 realm with an early game benefit
a1) increase number of starting common at books 7 & above (or better: just 9 and 10 books). They would probably be among the lesser/cheaper spells anyways, giving you a research head-start into more advanced spells.
a2)higher research bonus in 'specialist', but requiring at least 8? books of a kind
2) Max out the total number of books of a kind at 9, squeezing the benefits stronger where needed, if the message above of tweaking books is relatively simple as stated.
3) Design 1-2 more high-tier spell tweaks that encourage AMAZING COMBOS within each realm.
4) Do nothing, this is an intentional encouragement of multi-color realms, which were not very favorable in earlier versions when we could easily max research and get an early 1600rp efreet and probably win the game.
edit: 5) Shift 3rd starting common from pick 4 (super strong with finding v.rare) to pick 9. Add 5th and 6th starting common at book 9/10 or increase research bonus.
6) most likely favorite and least radical - add starting commons at 9 and 10 books. Done
Book 01 to 08 Unchanged
Book 09 : 10/10/10/7, 6/0/2/0, +8% research, -5% casting cost
Book 10 : 10/10/10/10, 7/0/2/0, +16% research, -10% casting cost
or more starting commons at books 9 and 10, but without research/casting bonuses (you'd likely pick specialist anyways)
|
|
|
|
| Defending by running away megathread |
|
Posted by: Suriname - February 8th, 2018, 14:02 - Forum: Caster of Magic
- Replies (99)
|
 |
Problem statement
MoM/CoM are harsh. When you make a choice you face the consequences. There is an in-game trick that allows to make a choice and not face the consequence. It cheapens the game, and it reduces its value of a hard and difficult one. It also forces challenge-minded players to use it, because it's just that much of a boon. It's abuse without any advantage to the game and it should go.
Do you disagree? Then please tell me: what is the advantage that having this trick brings to the game? How is it different from summoning wraiths on turn 1?
(February 7th, 2018, 06:00)Seravy Wrote: but I'm strongly against excluding flying creatures from the "conquest" trigger. It's unfair. If I'm attacking a city and my creatures are flying, why should I be penalized for that and forced to engage the enemy when I can just move into the city tiles and conquer it. What, the enemy can't attack me? That's their problem, they should have researched web. If my cavalry can do it, my death knights or doom drakes should be able to as well. Again, this is subjective, for me this would be a greater deal breaker than the city not becoming mine even though I enter it. At least the current rules are consistent : You don't get the city until you kill all enemies. New rule would be : You don't get the city until you kill all enemies if your units are flying, otherwise you do. Well, that's just bullshit. But if we don't exclude flying, then I can abuse that to steal cities. Which is even worse.
This is a perfect example of not only "do not fix if it isn't broken" but also "do not fix if fix is not an improvement" at the same time. Except, you've already received many reports of the fact that flying is absolutely broken. Reducing its advantage is therefore a desirable feature of any proposed solution. Solution implies a problem, and I can show that there is a problem, as the fact that you've avoided to answer any of these points makes me suspect that you don't have an answer and this makes you uncomfortable:
- people can see vids on the web of shitty run away to keep a city tactics, making your work look bad
- tactics become tricks making the game simpler, see the answer to C.Mike. I hope we all agree that the richness of the game, its complexity, is what attracts us to it. Clearly a tactic that is always used presents therefore a problem.
- freedom doesn't mean lack of consequences. One can choose to abandon a city before the battle if the enemy stack is seen coming, or during the battle with "flee". But, in tactical one can run around and not engage. That's so useful that I feel obliged to plan for it - not as the main strategy, but rather as an additional parachute that gives me more leeway when facing an attack. At the beginning this just needs 40 prod - the cavalry - or some cheap summon, nagas and bears are quite ok for this against slower stuff as they are tanky too. But this is lack of consequences from choices. I choose not to engage in my city and I keep it despite that.
- if it were a multiplayer game nobody would accept this, let's be honest. To take any cities you'd have to bring cavalries only to avoid this trick, and enough to withstand the initial barrage of spells/ammo, this would self-reinforce in a loop until some realms wouldn't ever be used, it'd soon become Caster of Life buffs on cavalries and all games would be decided by turn 50. You'd receive soon enough enough reports that you'd be forced to change it.
Quote:Quote:will be forced to flee
Never been a fan of games where I don't get to pick my action and the game forces me into one, especially if that one is not favorable for me.
Sure thing. You are free: pick your action. Have you decided that you want the city? Then don't flee, remain and fight.
What you have right now is have your cake and eat it too. But you'll agree that that's not MoM (or, hopefully, CoM) - the game is effing harsh, if you take a decision you have to live by it and confront its consequences. Or would you like to go back to the days of summoning wraiths at the beginning too?
Quote:One thing to note here : we fixed the production interruption bug. That doesn't sound very related but it actually is. I bet about 40-60% of the time, when a player manages to get to keep a city through running in circles, this bug helped them do so - so the 75% damage destroyed the armorer's guild? No worries, the paladin you bought last turn is already completed sir, we are ready to defend now! This will be gone now. You lost a military building? No new unit to defend you next turn. You either can instantly summon a strong creature there, or you can forget about keeping the city.
So my claim is the "problem" might be already fixed, after this change, the tactic will be even less effective.
In what version? Because I've just had it happen. Anyway, it's not enough. If I choose not to defend a city, I want to lose it - either it gets razed, or it changes hands. And if I refuse to engage, well, then I've made my choice...
The advantage
Clearly the above is true only if there's an advantage obtained from this trick. Advantages:
1. defensive
In the game one can attack or defend. By defending you get the first turn casting, and the advantage is obvious. So, by keeping the city you force the enemy stack to attack again and can further reduce the AI doomstack: next round those 2 confuse'd units won't be there, you'll manage another confusion or 2, and even if you eventually lose the city the doomstack's been reduced to nothing. When you manage to suppress 2 AI summons you have suppressed not only the units themselves, but all the time/effort taken in moving them from the summoning circle to your city. The advantage, at turn 60, is great. Currently it's the only thing that makes lunatic possible, because you can do this with a cheap unit and overcome the difference in resources.
2. reinforcements
If there's reinforces on their way - and with all the cities at distance 4, this is perfectly possible - a single turn makes or brakes keeping a city.
3. lost buildings
Sure, you lose some buildings... But do you? If you get lucky you won't, especially if the enemy has run after you till turn 10, then gone back and entered the city around turn 13, and not many enemy units remain. In any case, even when you lose some buildings and population the destruction will be much less than the total in the city. Confront this with losing the entire city, including the time and resources of the settlers, and you see how the current loss does not compare.
This works so well that eventually I started to use it on attack. With cheap tanky summons - bears, nagas - or with cavalries if the enemy is faster it becomes cheaper to go into an enemy stack one by one, cast save or die spells - confusion, sleep etc - and run around the slower enemy until turn 25. But this is for another thread....
Just don't do it
That's dumb, why wouldn't I do something that the game allows me to? But I don't like it, I think it makes the game look ridiculous when it's seen on videos, and that it cheapens the whole experience for everybody involved.
The solution
1. the algorithm
After all the back and forth in the other thread this algorithm seems to be easy enough to implement and the closest to a satisfying solution:
Counter for both sides, starting on turn K to see which side keeps the city. K can be subject to balancing considerations, offering a way to fine tune this approach. I'd use 10 as a start, the same turn in which the AI units run for the city, because it feels the right number, but it's just a first idea. It could be from turn 1 to keep the advantage to the defender, for example.
At turn 25 the side with the highest counter "wins".
2. Definition of win
For me the win means forcing anyone who's refused to engage to face the consequences of the choice. If it is the defender then the city should change hands, or be completely razed - I don't really mind either way. Any remaining troops should then either flee - because that's what running around is - or "withdraw exhausted", but the latter might be too complicated as it's currently possible only on the attacker side. It would however be better in that it compensates the player the effort of running around and keeping the unit alive... This brings me to,
3. Extending this to flee
If you look at the flee function, it's a simplistic 50% survive/die for each unit.
We can extend this approach to the flee function and have speed and movement mode (flight, etc) be considered for the odds of fleeing, replacing the simplistic dice roll.
At this point, we could replace all "retreating exhausted" with simply the flee retreat - because it happens mostly in cases of faster or equal movement speeds. Therefore, the cavalry wouldn't be lost by fleeing ever, or most of the time, resulting in a similar outcome as the exhausted withdrawal. This however is more complicated and probably deserves its own thread.
|
|
|
|
| Cheese, Clogs, Dikes, Tulips, Windmills and Weedy Movement. |
|
Posted by: Alhambram - February 8th, 2018, 13:23 - Forum: Civilization 6 PBEM 8
- Replies (71)
|
 |
If anyone is wondering about thread title, it is Dutch.
Translated: Shall Alhambram choose Netherlands or not?
To be honest, soon I saw my choices, it was instant Netherlands for two reasons:
-Firstly I want if possible play with expansion civ and Netherlands was only one given to me.
-Secondly I am dutch, so I play in honor of my country. Japper also comes from Netherlands, so it was 33% chance that Netherlands would land at Dutch player and it fell upon me.
|
|
|
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 76 online users. » 2 Member(s) | 74 Guest(s)
El Grillo
|
|
![[Image: 1ee.jpg]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/308/125/1ee.jpg)
