Sprites are still overpowered

[Catwalk]

Here's yet another demonstration of early domination with sprites.
- Date: April 1402 (turn 27)
- Wizard: Halflings with 4x Nature (Sprites, Earth Lore, Web) + 2x Life (Heroism) + Spellweaver + Specialist + Tactician + Conjurer + Inquisitor
- Nodes taken: 4 (3x Sorcery, 1x Nature)
- Items found: 3 (2 amulets, 1 armour, can give a combat hero +4 attack and +4 defense)
- Power base: 97
- Casting skill: 42 overland, 28 combat
- Sprites: 8
- City development: Stunted, got an AI very close by again who's blocking off my expansion once, so I have to crank out an early Fighter's Guild and send Slingers his way. Found around 2000 gold so far, funding my military project nicely.

This setup is definitely better than the previous one. Heroism is a great addition, not only for heroes but for the ability to deploy insane slingers early on. Heroism is awesome for Halflings since I can't build barracks. If I get a fighter hero soon I can probably solo enemy capitals with him. One of the amulets has Water Walking, so he'll be able to travel at a nice pace.
EDIT: I got the Druid and the Barbarian (some of the worst fighting heroes I could have gotten) about a year later, this is what they look like with their gear and Heroism.

Two of the least impressive heroes, but still fully capable of solo stomping the AI at present.

I'm regretting Inquisitor, though. It's not needed for the early boost, I can produce sprites at full speed without it. There is a very high chance of getting an early neutral city, and the value of that exceeds the tax bonus. But more importantly, it gives me much greater flexibility in where to summon. If I take a neutral city on a faraway continent I suddenly have full access to populate that continent with Sprites and Magic Spirits. That's a huge advantage, so Inquisitor has to go.

I also ditched Cult Leader again, it was cute but it became a factor far too late to matter. I've added Tactician because I want an early hero, although this is really just overkill. The setup is probably strongest with another two books instead of Inquisitor and Tactician. Another Nature gives me Resist Elements (critical for taking out early neutrals with shamans) and another Life gives me Endurance for even more hero dominance. I also get +4 starting mana and +6 starting skill from another 2 books (with Spellweaver), that boosts my start considerably.

Note that I'm not leaving out any test games, I've gotten off to a strong start in every single one.

Turn 1 save: http://www.filedropper.com/save1001_1
Current save: http://www.filedropper.com/save3_1

[Catwalk]

I abandoned the above game after getting the heroes and peeking at the map (unimpressive opponents), and started another one.

Here's yet another demonstration of early domination with sprites.
- Date: August 1402 (turn 31)
- Wizard: Nomads with 5x Nature (Sprites, Earth Lore, Web, Resist Elements) + 3x Life (Heroism, Endurance) + Spellweaver + Specialist + Conjurer
- Nodes taken: 1 (1x Sorcery, took it on turn 7 or so)
- Items found: 1 (1 Sword, only effect is Death)
- Power base: 45
- Casting skill: 43 overland, 29 combat
- Sprites: 9
- Horsebowmen: 5 (Regular with magic weapons)
- Towers taken: 1 (Got Iron Skin)
- City development: Bit slow, got 2 cities + 2 outposts + 2 settlers, took a well developed nomad city on another continent where I'm building awesome Horsebowmen

This start is weaker due to fewer nodes available, but still very strong. The setup is definitely better, had I not been able to take neutral cities I would have been screwed. You can argue that I would have lucked into getting a nomad city anyway, but I don't like relying on that kind of luck. Good riddance to Tactician and Inquisitor.

Iron Skin + Endurance + Holy Armour on just about any unit should make it close to invincible. It's too bad I have nomad cities, Gnoll/Klackon/Lizardmen Halberdiers would be nice right about now. I still refuse to build shitty 6-figure Nomad Pikemen A single unit of heavily enchanted Horsebowmen should do the trick, though. I have to take an elf city with 4 longbowmen, 4 cavalry and 1 halberdiers. The Horsebowmen cost much less and should survive with less damage (although both would probably survive without a scratch).

Turn 1 save: http://www.filedropper.com/save1001_1
Current save: http://www.filedropper.com/save3_1

[Seravy]

I started playing only to realize I'm an inquisitor, which completely disables my entire strategy, so I started over from turn 1, and replaced Inquisitor with Alchemy. War Bears are a strategy that focuses on conquering enemy cities - if I can't do that, there is no point.

Played up to 1404, this is the save file.

  1404.GAM (Size: 151.94 KB / Downloads: 0)

This is how the map looks like :

   

I own 11 cities, with 2 more coming under my control soon from the Yellow player as neither has any garrison worthy of mention. I have no intention to attack their capital right now - they know Sprites and Bears don't perform well against 9 of those. I will produce some other units to deal with that later - having conquered all their territory is more than enough. I might even get a chance to trade for Giant Spiders, the lack of which will probably hurt later.
I'm building up War Bears on the purple player's continent now - already summoned about 8 of them. I expect this player to have lots of ghouls, so I'll probably suffer a bit more losses but it shouldn't be hard to win - Bears are stronger, and the city on the continent is Gnolls with Mithril, so I can even spam wolf riders if needed.
I have an income of 126 gold and 58 mana per turn and a casting skill of 46. I didn't check the provided 1404 save so I don't know if that's any better or worse than it, but I definitely doing way better than I should be for 1404 October. I'm going to finish the game before looking at that save.

...I'm going to read your 3 new posts now, you were faster.

[Catwalk]

You did better than I expected and you might be able to win, but it's massively inferior to my results. Your results demonstrate that Sprites are not the only powerhouse in my strategy, but they're definitely a cornerstone. Is your power base only 58? It sounds like you haven't taken very many nodes. I think I had more cities too, I'll go take a look.

EDIT: Nope, I was a bit behind on cities. I do agree with Inquisitor being a mistake, as detailed above.

Also, I banished Horus May 1405. He was actually set to become a formidable opponent, having expanded very nicely with a total of 13 cities by May 1405. Unchecked, he might have been trouble.

[Seravy]

You did better than I expected and you might be able to win, but it's massively inferior to my results. Your results demonstrate that Sprites are not the only powerhouse in my strategy, but they're definitely a cornerstone. Is your power base only 58? It sounds like you haven't taken very many nodes. I think I had more cities too, I'll go take a look.

EDIT: Nope, I was a bit behind on cities. I do agree with Inquisitor being a mistake, as detailed above.

Honestly, I haven't bothered with nodes much. I consider conquering cities a more profitable strategy indirectly - while the city might not provide as much (especially on power) as the node immediately, it will be worth more on the long term, and comes with two major advantages the node cannot do. One : I can use it to build units and strengthen my military. A node only provides resources, but you can't buy (often higher tier than your own) units there, making it a liability you have to defend because it cannot defend itself. And Two - the more important one - every city stolen from an enemy wizard reduces the amount of resources actually needed to win massively. Ultimately, the cost of winning is proportional to the total resources your enemy has when you fight them - each city they are allowed to keep provides more than twice as much resources for them as they do for you, and this amount even grows much faster, opening the gap.
I also had three other reasons for ignoring nodes - I don't have experience with using bears for this purpose and I didn't want to reload except on misclicks so I avoided risk - If I misjudge the number of bears needed, that leads to unacceptable results. Plus, I have Cult Leader so my power income is guaranteed to be good from cities anyway, all I have to do is make sure I build parthenons, shrines and cathedrals earlier than usual. Finally, I expected to steal nodes from enemy wizards anyway - this hasn't actually happened unfortunately, as I crushed them way too quickly - the purple wizard has at least one node though which I can eventually steal.
I did take out a few lairs and dungeons but nothing particularly big.

[Catwalk]

Would you be open to a point of view saying that everything you just wrote above is terribly ineffective? I assume, of course, that we're talking about chances of winning and not personal preference. Would it be fair to say that you often tend to be very fond of the long-term perspective? I often see you playing long games, and somewhere I think you mentioned 1415-1420 being a typical game length for you.

Also note that apart from me picking Inquisitor by mistake in that game (I have since ditched it), Sprites are incredibly effective at taking neutral cities. Neutral cities and lairs are not an either/or proposition, my strategy lets me get both. If yours only lets you take cities, you will fall far behind.

[zitro1987]

Early spell spam (particularly summon) issue:

Idea 1 - What if the first 5 books you select only grant +1 skill instead of +2?
Idea 2 (best combined with idea 1) - What if archmage has a lower (or no) initial skill bonus but a higher percentage skill investment bonus?
Idea 3 - Starting city begins with sawmill (so everything starts faster, not just spells)

[Catwalk]

I'm not even using Archmage, Spellweaver is far more powerful for summoning.

The real problem with spamming early spells is that you get spells for free. This was poor design from the start (in the original game), and it should be fixed. I saw it argued somewhere that guaranteed spells was a bad idea, as then you use the same spells over and over. But that's exactly what we do with common spells. Having guaranteed and immediate access to common spells allows you to develop a precise game plan that you can implement from turn 1 with zero spell research. With just 6 or so books you can have all necessary tools available right out of the gate.

We should give the spell selection system a major overhaul, using a mixture of starting + guaranteed + random spells. You should get very few starting spells, and only if you pick a very high number of books.

[Seravy]

Would it be fair to say that you often tend to be very fond of the long-term perspective? I often see you playing long games, and somewhere I think you mentioned 1415-1420 being a typical game length for you.

Yes, probably. 1415-20 is where the game starts - rares and very rares appear, etc. Anything before that is the build-up. (for Extreme and Hard, anyway, I haven't played much on impossible until we started these tests.)

"rush" strategies are a different story, those aim to win before the enemy gets to actually play the game, that's the whole point. I'm not a fan of these, but I admit they should be part of the game - as long as they are not overpowered and unstoppable. But they should be a marginal tactic played by specific realms and races, and not the core game. These should be winning before 1415, but any less than 1410 on impossible is probably signaling it's overpowered.

I think I have to admit sprites are better than bears - and I don't really mind that, since they are less versatile, more luck dependent, and require a lot more skill and knowledge of the game to use effectively. (Yes, the last two doesn't matter much for us, but matters for others)
The question is more along the lines of "are they just very good, or outright overpowered" at this point. Which I'm not ready to judge yet, I'm going to post a new thread about why - if the forum allows. What's up with all the downtime nowadays? (I also have to download your save file and check it - I decided not to continue the war bears game. Playing Nature rush without spiders is sad.)

One more thing about sprites, they are supposed to be ineffective against wizards. If they aren't and work as a rush tactic, that's a problem, but I don't think it's the case, I believe it's more along the lines of "too much treasure buys too much stuff that wins the game".

The real problem with spamming early spells is that you get spells for free. This was poor design from the start (in the original game), and it should be fixed.

This is a train of thought that I often ride on...only to get slapped in the face by reality. The AI needs the starting commons and would completely fail without them. The main reason why they don't get stuck on islands is the starting spells, for one. And honestly, the ability to pick two books for a starting common makes the game more varied and interesting - losing this feature would be sad. Commons spells have a high availability - even if you don't get them at start you'll most likely get all 10 of them with as few as 1 book - by trading, looting wizards, and finding them in lairs. So a spell being 'guaranteed' doesn't have a lasting impact. In fact, 6 books are enough to make sure you have all 10 spells.

[Seravy]

...nope, can't post a new thread, getting "parser error" if I leave this thread.


So it goes here instead, as one of my ideas has been in zitro's list, might as well.

I believe there is a significant problem with early game balance in general.
Summoned units are designed to be more powerful and cost effective than normal units, because the capacity to produce them is a lot more limited.
The player only has a summoning capacity equal to their casting skill, while they can produce unlimited amount of normal units, as far as their cities and gold allows.
This system works out fine for the most of it...but it breaks the early game. The assumption of summoning capacity<production capacity is false for the early game - in fact the opposite is true.
While the player has a capital that generates a mere 4 hammers, they have a casting skill of 10-30, and a mana income of 10-20, several times larger. This unbalances early summoning strategies.

What can be done? I see three main ways to fix this problem.

1. Reduce starting casting skill.
This is bad - Archmages can bypass it, and what's worse, players become unable to cast their starting common spells in combat. It's against the mod's goal to increase idle early turns.
2. Make capitals start with a Sawmill already built.
The game is designed for "Sawmill first", so everyone inevitably builds it anyway - the turns spent on building it serve no real purpose in the game.
The downside, as every player builds it first, and higher difficulty AI will finish faster, the AI effectively has free turn advantage through the current system - intentionally. If the AI can build their sawmill in 5 turns and the human player takes 10, the result is the same as if the AI started the game 5 turns earlier. I believe this is easy to compensate by giving the AI a higher starting gold advantage.
3. Make capitals start with more population.
This results in the same effect - more hammers to start producing normal units earlier to balance out summoning.
However, it does not force everyone into "sawmill first" - with a higher population, not building the sawmill first becomes an alternative. This solution maintains the AI's advantage - and even escalates it in a sense, as their bonus is applied to a larger production and gold income.
I suspect this can unbalance some races - especially Klackons and Dwarves who'll benefit much more from the extra people than any other race.


Both "2" and "3" comes with the risk of early normal units becoming too effective against the AI - the AI still does and will always do a "settlers first" strategy, which is automatically beaten by "military first" if the produced military manages to find their way to the outposts - 1 swordsmen might be enough to stop a magic spirit from destroying it, but against a real force of 2-3 swordsmen, it is not going to hold.
Most wizards will be able to strike back using summoned creatures, and eliminate the early swordsmen - but the Life wizard will be in trouble. For them, forcing a "units first" tactic might be necessary.

If either is implemented, the "first turn for aggression" and "early turns when capital doesn't need large garrisons" needs to be reduced as well.

...and after we decide on this, we can rethink the "is conjurer+specialist+spellweaver overpowered" and "are sprites overpowered" discussions - I'm pretty sure having a "late start" on normal units was a massive contributing factor to the effectiveness of both.