Caster of Magic Release thread : latest version 6.06!

[Seravy]

idk, if I'm considering an Alliance with another wizard, it means conquering them wouldn't be as easy as you make it sound. I usually need to max my mana for prolonged periods during my Arcanus wars.

Obviously, having all the territory to yourself is always better than an ally holding it, by design and definition of the genre.
However in a few rare cases the spells the other wizard knows might actually be a huge contribution (primarily spell blast, curses, or some globals) as you can't use them yourself - in these cases an alliance might be better than conquest.
Diplomacy comes into the picture if the cost of conquest outweights the gains (or if the wizard is too strong to conquer), or when you need the spells of the other wizard to beat the Myrran.

And at least in some cases, your ally may declare war on you during the war with the other plane, especially if you're chaos or death or sorcery and want to use your most powerful very rare Global's; this would result in your rear cities being at significant threat.

Only if you're chaos or maybe death. Sorcery has Aura of Majesty to remove the effect of Suppress Magic. Death only has Eternal Night and Evil Omens - you probably need to have both to get enough penalties to risk losing it. Alliances tend to be quite stable.

Finally, your ally may not declare war on the AI on the other plane (if the other is say charismatic with all the same books as your ally), which you can't completely predict.

Not true, if you're at war with the Myrran, the ally is required to also declare war if you ask, unless they are in a peace treaty. So at the very least they'll be at war at the beginning when it matters.

[Nelphine]

Right, but generally, those 4 factors still combine to make it easier to plan to conquer your home plane. Certainly there are cases when an alliance can work, but relatively, they're rare. So if you simply plan from turn 1 to conquer them in the first place, you're better off.

Anyway, my point is, the importance of diplomacy in late game could certainly be increased, even if there isn't complete agreement on when it loses relevance. I'm not sure how to go about doing that though, although simply saying 'amp towers are always destroyed when conquering cities' would be a possibility.

[teelaurila]

It is a curious thing that at high difficulties the player can actually wait for the AI to use his bonuses to get amp towers up early, and then conquer. Towers seem to be destroyed maybe ~50% of the time on master? Making that a guarantee is a bit meh - taking away rewards for the success of conquering a big, usually well defended, city.

What if amp towers gave fortress ligtning - or a weaker version of it? Perhaps that would make it too easy for the player to defend...

If we increase building destruction even more - maybe we can keep rewards at least to some degree by saying gold loot is proportional to destruction? (How is it determined anyway)

Another big gain for being the sole arcanus wizard is controlling all (open) towers. This allows you to secure your rear cities, and keep the myrran from scouting your cities. If you have an ally, there needs to be at least one open tower for that ally to partake in the war.

[Nelphine]

Destruction rates currently increase based on difficulty in order to counterbalance the AI production and gold bonuses, so as you increase in difficulty, even though the AI get more buildings, the human doesn't get more buildings when conquering a city.

My only reason for suggesting amp towers become guaranteed is that they are just so incredibly strong - if you have a choice between a 100% chance of getting an amp tower, and a 100% chance of conquering a tower and getting treasure, 90% of the time, just the chance of the amp tower is actually worth more than the treasure in the tower. (So one amp tower is worth more than the treasure in a tower.)

Now, you actually only have a 50% chance of getting the amp tower, but you get the rest of the city too. That makes the city more valuable. And the rest of the city will have long term gains for your economy, putting it further ahead of the tower.

[Seravy]

Speaking of Amplifying Towers, in the timeframe that's relevant to the discussion the player should have casting skill in the 100-150 range where Amplifying Towers are not that economical yet and are worse compared to Wizard's Guilds.

The fact that the conquered city will produce you anywhere from 20 to 100 gold, ~20 power, research and even hammers, is why they are worth conquering. Having Amplifying Towers included is a nice extra but hardly a deciding factor. They will be the most valuable resource eventually, but much later and by then you rebuild them anyway if they were destroyed.

[teelaurila]

Also: If you turn off the raze prompt, you can see whether the amp tower survived before you choose to occupy or raze (with r -key at that screen).

[Nelphine]

The discussion is only relevant when breaking towers is an option. At that point, I would expect you to have 150 casting skill.

At that point, conquering an amp tower is the equivalent of almost 4000 mana and gold. That's equivalent to the treasure in a medium or weak tower.

It also allows you to save that ~4000 mana/gold to spend on something else (although most likely ~2000 of that will still be spent on skill, but it's still higher skill.)

Whether or not a wizard's tower is more economical doesn't change the raw value of the amp tower.

[Seravy]

It doesn't matter how much it is worth.

If destroyed, you have to pay 1800 gold to get it back. If not, then it's free. That's not a difference I care about when I can get something that produces 100+ resources every turn. It's irrelevant. You conquer cities to own more cities. With or without Amplifying Towers. Obviously it's better with them, but that's not the deciding factor.

(I have no idea where your 4000 comes from anyway. At 150 skill it costs ~2100 power to gain 7 skill. It won't be 4000 unless you foolishly convert all your gold to mana and keep the skill bar maxed without alchemy instead of doing the right thing and spending it on wizard's guilds. Or Amplifying Towers.)

[Nelphine]

2100 mana, 1800 gold. I'm comparing against tower treasure, not against another city. This discussion is about whether or not conquering your Aly is worth it, and I literally choose what cities I raze and what cities I conquer based on the presence of an amplifying tower.  No other building covers its own production cost within the duration of a war I have chosen to start. For me, I would base my decision to keep an ally based on expected gain in amplifying towers.

And no, almost no city produces 100+ mana/gold per turn, unless it's dwarf, or maybe dark elf, or you have spell enchantments on it, or it's completely maxed out in buildings and population (which it simply won't be after you conquer it, due to building destruction.)
Either way, that 100 per turn still takes almost 20 turns to build the amplifying tower.

Absolutely in the long term, a highly developed city is worth far more than just it's amplifying tower. But amplifying towers are an immediate power boost that are a very good guage as to whether a city is worth conquering or not, as the AI also knows to prioritize them.

If they don't have an amp tower, the gains of razing are usually better (you can rebuild for cheap, you can resettle in a better square with a better race). If you're just going to raze your ally, that does not justify killing him (unless you are confident he'll declare war on you in the middle of your next war).

[Seravy]

almost no city produces 100+ mana/gold per turn

I meant mana/gold/research/production. Those are all precious resources.

a highly developed city is worth far more than just it's amplifying tower. But amplifying towers are an immediate power boost

...and "immediate" is the last thing I worry about when I'm already successfully conquering the last wizard on my plane, and decided not to open the towers. Because I definitely am, otherwise I would have picked the Alliance, regardless of what I'm doing with the towers.

I'm comparing against tower treasure, not against another city. This discussion is about whether or not conquering your Aly is worth it,

I admit I'm starting to lose track about what we are even talking about but I don't see a connection here. Deciding whether to open towers or not, and whether to conquer an ally or not, are two independent decisions. You can decide not to conquer the ally, and use the next 5 years to build up/summon a big army or push ahead in research or whatever else while also keeping towers closed.