... but what's the point in 9 very rare spells with 3 guaranteed, isn't is simpler to just have all 12?
I mean, ok, players won't ALWAYS find 3 very rare spells in treasure, but they'll often find at least 1 or 2 so they will almost always have almost every very rare spell and only miss out on one, maybe two. And that just opens up the possibility of being unlucky for no reason at all, if that spell is actually need to win but too situational to pick as guaranteed. (Consecration anyone?)
And with that we've completed the circle and we're back to the "no guaranteed" system, except with some refinements at books 5-7 :
(I'm not sure if book 9 should have 8 or 9 very rares. At 8 the chance of missing out on spells is probably enough to make giving up the 10th book hurt. At 9, it might be still too easy to obtain any missing spells from treasure and trading. But at 9, book 9 is worth picking much more than at 8, because for the 3 rares, it's not that useful except for Nature players.)
so yes, we have lots of options and each have their advantages.
No guaranteed :
Simpler, easier to understand, play, and program.
Forces a choice between guaranteeing a combo that contains rare spells, or picking more retorts.
Forces a choice between guaranteed uncommon spell combos or spending more than 2 picks on retorts/offcolor books.
Mono realm is more reliable but dual/trplie realm is more varied and replayable
Dual realm gets much fewer spells than mono realm.
More guaranteed spells :
AI gets the "powerful" midgame spells you'd rather not see them have all the time, in general, AI is less diverse.
Powerful combos relying on rare spells can coexist with picking additional retorts.
Combos based on uncommon spells are possible even with maxed retort picks.
Mono realm is slightly less reliable, but dual/triple realm is more reliable (at the price of losing replayability, yes the guaranteed combos are options but if I can guarantee a powerful combo, I won't play anything else.)
Not having every very rare is a good though as makes the endgame more diverse, and also reduces global enchantment spam on large games and many opponents. (No one can deal with 4 AIs that each have two of Time Stop, Power Link, Armageddon, Meteor Storm, Evil Omens and Seismic Mastery at the same time, nor is it fun to do so)
So... trying to draw a conclusion, more guaranteed uncommons and rares in books 4-6 seems bad. More guaranteed rares in books 7-10 are unnecessary, as adding more rares to the book without guaranteed works better, making giving up on books 8-10 pricier. Not getting every very rare and having guaranteed very rares instead might be better.
We need to somehow set the numbers in a way that 2-3 realms with 4-6 books in each don't get fewer total spells than mono realm (but do miss out on guaranteed very rares and the cost/research bonus, making it fair despite the added trading potential).
Well, that's a lot to try to do at once but I'll try to fill another table...
I mean, ok, players won't ALWAYS find 3 very rare spells in treasure, but they'll often find at least 1 or 2 so they will almost always have almost every very rare spell and only miss out on one, maybe two. And that just opens up the possibility of being unlucky for no reason at all, if that spell is actually need to win but too situational to pick as guaranteed. (Consecration anyone?)
And with that we've completed the circle and we're back to the "no guaranteed" system, except with some refinements at books 5-7 :
(I'm not sure if book 9 should have 8 or 9 very rares. At 8 the chance of missing out on spells is probably enough to make giving up the 10th book hurt. At 9, it might be still too easy to obtain any missing spells from treasure and trading. But at 9, book 9 is worth picking much more than at 8, because for the 3 rares, it's not that useful except for Nature players.)
so yes, we have lots of options and each have their advantages.
No guaranteed :
Simpler, easier to understand, play, and program.
Forces a choice between guaranteeing a combo that contains rare spells, or picking more retorts.
Forces a choice between guaranteed uncommon spell combos or spending more than 2 picks on retorts/offcolor books.
Mono realm is more reliable but dual/trplie realm is more varied and replayable
Dual realm gets much fewer spells than mono realm.
More guaranteed spells :
AI gets the "powerful" midgame spells you'd rather not see them have all the time, in general, AI is less diverse.
Powerful combos relying on rare spells can coexist with picking additional retorts.
Combos based on uncommon spells are possible even with maxed retort picks.
Mono realm is slightly less reliable, but dual/triple realm is more reliable (at the price of losing replayability, yes the guaranteed combos are options but if I can guarantee a powerful combo, I won't play anything else.)
Not having every very rare is a good though as makes the endgame more diverse, and also reduces global enchantment spam on large games and many opponents. (No one can deal with 4 AIs that each have two of Time Stop, Power Link, Armageddon, Meteor Storm, Evil Omens and Seismic Mastery at the same time, nor is it fun to do so)
So... trying to draw a conclusion, more guaranteed uncommons and rares in books 4-6 seems bad. More guaranteed rares in books 7-10 are unnecessary, as adding more rares to the book without guaranteed works better, making giving up on books 8-10 pricier. Not getting every very rare and having guaranteed very rares instead might be better.
We need to somehow set the numbers in a way that 2-3 realms with 4-6 books in each don't get fewer total spells than mono realm (but do miss out on guaranteed very rares and the cost/research bonus, making it fair despite the added trading potential).
Well, that's a lot to try to do at once but I'll try to fill another table...