Experimental version

[Seravy]

Effectively you say "starting spells+retorts>more starting spells". I agree. (for the same reason you said, because retorts multiply)

But Catwalk said "starting spells+retorts is still good because starting spells are too high"
and I said "if starting spells+retorts>more starting spells then retorts are too high, starting spells are irrelevant".
afterall, if S+R>S+S then that means R>S which contradicts a statement of "S is too high". Or at the very least implies that If S is indeed too high then R is off the chart and is a greater problem.

Starting spells usually don't multiply each other - only a very few of them do, more than 2-3 is unrealistic. So if that effect is the source of "too much starting spells" then we are out of luck - lowering starting spells to 0-1 is not a path I'm willing to take for reasons explained above.

[Nelphine]

Yup agreed. We've discussed why AI need 3-5 starting spells of at least one realm, and without destroying that, there's no way to prevent humans getting the 2-3 starting spells they need.

However, most of my 4 book strategies aren't so strong as to be guaranteed impossible wins (or even likely). They're simply a way to make it possible to win impossible. Even extreme it still loses sometimes. So I don't think it needs to be changed for my life play.

Sprites (before they got upgraded with experimental) are strong enough to qualify as a 2 book strategy. Sure, 4-6 books helps out, and there really aren't enough 2 pick retorts NOT to get extra books, but, sprites are .. very strong with multipliers.

[zitro1987]

This discussion of incentive few books many retorts can be tempered with an intuitive, generic bonus for every book after the 7th or 8th or 9th.
*We already have something with books granting 3 power instead of 1.5 past an 8th book

It seems like that may not be enough and enchancing the bonus above too much may result in insane AI starts, so maybe let's add a more subtle one that benefits the later game:
*Each book past the 8th (regardless of distribution of book colors) grants +5% power investment, spell-weaver style. Having overall +10% power is kind of decent.

Other than 10 books of a color being fairly weak (can we add more starting commons for 10 books?), I really really don't see an issue between the bonuses of say 6 books through 9 books. They are strong bonuses, the incentive for more books of a kind is already there.

[Catwalk]

I still get all I need with 4-6 books, the benefits of going higher are minimal. If you want high books to be as potent as medium/low book strategies, you need to stop giving the player all they need with a handful of books. And yes, I meant starting commons. You get way too many.

It is a good point though, you also get too many spells too fast in general as you add books. The guaranteed spells (a good feature) matter little because you're already getting so many spells with a medium number of books. Solution? Don't give 4x10 for having 10 books, and lower spells across the board.

[Seravy]

Don't give 4x10 for having 10 books, and lower spells across the board.

I won't do that. Each realm has been designed to work well if they have all the spells, and have many "one of a kind" important spells. Even with 1-2 guaranteed spells, if not all spells are known, those can be missing. (If we had like 6 guaranteed spells in each tier and no randoms, then it could work but in such a system no one would ever get any of the weaker spells and that's boring)
Besides, I can't help but feel "high number of books are not good enough so let's reduce the amount of spells in them further" is self-contradicting.
If there is no "this book gets you all the spells in X rarity" feature in books 7-10 they'll be even less worth picking.

I believe low books are a horrible long term strategy, and only work if paired with some sort of an early game abuse. Play some late game strategies and you'll realize you need those books.

(PS : If you want to play with fewer spells, I can tell you where the pick tables are and you can try any setup you like - it's easy to modify now that the system is enabled.)

[Nelphine]

I agree with Seravy, we can't reduce the starting common spells, due to AI limitations.

I agree with Catwalk, we get too many spells (basically, as elsewhere, I don't consider uncommon or rare to be particularly important, which means the difference between book 4 and book 7 isn't very large, which is why I use 4 book strategies - I get all the commons I need, and I get some very rares).

I've suggested trying 3 spells per book for the first 4 books; I've also suggested reducing how many very rares you get - 1 very rare on the 3rd book, access to very rare on the 4th book, 2nd very rare on the 6th book, and all other very rares come in books 8-10.

I've also suggested reducing the numbers on retorts (especially spellweaver is monstrous, as per my sorcery discussion.)

[Seravy]

If we say "fewer spells than all 10" we have to take them from somewhere.

Early books (1-3) - We can't take away from here for AI reasons and because they already provide only the bare minimal amount - there is nothing to take away.
Medium books (4-6) - We can't take away from here either - that breaks 2 and 3 realm wizards., both for the human and the AI. Keeping them at least as good as mono realm is essential.
High books (7-10) - We can't take away from here if the goal is to increase this part.

Which means it cannot be done.

[Nelphine]

That's why I presented multiple options.

[Catwalk]

Also unsurprisingly, sprites can completely tear up AI wizards now. They're an excellent combo with Call Centaurs, Sprites soften up targets with heavy damage on full figures and centaurs clean the floor. I'm taking out nodes and lairs at the same rate as before.

[zitro1987]

Your 'experimental 3' files version allows you to choose up to 9 common starting spells, but you get 5. It will need to be fixed on the selection display.

Also, the 'guaranteed uncommon on turn 1' only shows as a non-intuitive 'available'. 'Early Research' may be more intuitive for player.