Question about EA Tir Na N'og

[Torgon]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Very hard to determine .

Don't think you can really put numbers to those values, they depend totally on situation and play style.

Oh, totally agree that it would be impossible to determine across the entire spectrum of all dominions players. But it gives a handy shorthand to compare to two individual strategies to see which one was more hurt by removing hammers..

All the discussion so far has talked about relative scarcity of gems, whether ultimately you're not hurt as much because you had to forge the hammer initially anyway, etc. However, all of these arguments apply to ANY strategy that employs any forging at all.

What removing hammers essentially did is raise the price in gems of any forging strategy by 33%. This is relative to all other currencies, e.g. gold, production turns, resources.

So for instance if one strategy required 1 forged gems/4 gold invested and another strategy required 1 forged gems/10 gold then the first strategy is much worse off than the the second after the removal of hammers. Similarly, strategy one required 1 forged gems/1 ritual gems and strategy two required 3 forged gems/ 2 ritual gems, in this case strategy two is worse off after removal of hammers.

To give a more specific example. Formoria was mentioned earlier. Formoria has the big kings that make pretty good SC. A strategy could easily be built around them. Each one costs 500 gold. Alternatively, TNN can build a strategy around Sidhe Lord, cost 280 gold. Assume that the strategy usually required the king to be outfitted with 45 gems. Assume the strategy for the Sidhe Lord required 15 gems worth of equipment. What happens without hammers? bump the price in gems of both strategies up by 33%. King was .09 gems/gold, sidhe was .05 gems to gold. Now king becomes .12 gems/gold and sidhe becomes .07 gems to gold. For any given 1000 gold investment the formorians now have to spend 29 additional gems. TNN has to spend 17 additional gems. Assuming the same opportunity cost of gems for other purposes(rituals, spells), in this example the Sidhe are better off after the removal of hammers. Change those initial ratios and you get a different answer.

My point is that to create a good argument about whether a strategy is worse or better off after the removal you have to look at an analysis like this. Just talking about when the hammers pay for themselves, or relative usefulness of a specific type of gem doesn't cut it. These problems are similar between strategies. What really changed is the amount of one resource that you have to invest in that strategy relative to other resources: gold, production turns, gems used in summoning, etc.