Game balance suggestions.

[apoger]

>1 CoP = 1 Astral Gem. 10 Water Gems = 1 CoP
>2 CoP = 2 Astral Gems. 10 Water Gems = 1 CoP
>3 CoP = 3 Astral Gems. 10 Water Gems = 1 CoP

I'm missing something here.
Yes I see that X CoP = X pearls... but where are the 10 water gems comming from every turn in order to increase the number of CoPs (by turn 4)?

Are you assuming a water gem income of 10 water gems on turn 4? That's a pretty big assumption for most nations. Furthermore there are plenty of useful things to do with such an income.

Again I understand that the clam ramp-up can pay off eventually, but I fail to see how it is a "broken" strategy, let alone a particulaly good strategy (IMHO). It's a very long term investment that ties up valuable resources. If you are going to convince me that this is a broken stragegy you will have to be more convincing.

[aldin]

I need some help understanding this too Zen. From the clam's description it looks like it only produces a pearl each "season" - every three turns. Also, don't you have to have the clam equipped on a commander, and only one per commander? Cheap researchers could fit much of the bill, but even then the upkeep cost will be pretty severe to have 100 leaders with clams.

What am I missing?

~Aldin

[Sammual]

Originally posted by aldin:
I need some help understanding this too Zen. From the clam's description it looks like it only produces a pearl each "season" - every three turns. Also, don't you have to have the clam equipped on a commander, and only one per commander? Cheap researchers could fit much of the bill, but even then the upkeep cost will be pretty severe to have 100 leaders with clams.

What am I missing?

~Aldin

It is 1 pearl per Turn.
You can have 2 Clams per commander.
If you give each 'Defending Only' Commander one Clam you can get a HUGE Astral income by mid game.

Sammual

Yes, not from just that source, and you can alchemize. Depending on what you play, but with S&A it's not uncommon to get 1 to 2 gem events a turn. Also (again with S&A) searching yields quite a few gems.

Obviously it was used in Dom1 by at least a few people so it isn't totally discredited eh Alex? And I didn't say it was a broken one, Windreaper seems to feel so. I wasn't crying for the nerf stick, just that it's very easy to get a non-provincial gem income with them. You wanted to understand why and I was trying to show you. I found it gives, like I said, fairly decent returns with just 20 turns. As most of the time a 21 Astral Gem Income for 154 Water gems is a good trade in my mind. But I'm not biased towards Sea Trolls (because of mage casting time), Winter Wolves (unless I'm playing a Cold Nation) and saving up for Murdering Winters.

[ January 10, 2004, 16:19: Message edited by: Zen ]

[apoger]

>Obviously it was used in Dom1 by at least a few people so it isn't totally discredited eh Alex?

Just because something is used, and even used to good effect does not mean that it's efficient.

Nor did I ever say that this technique has been totally discredited. You are reading more into what I wrote than was written. I stated clearly that I understand that the CoP ramp-up works. What I question is the time and effort spent versus other applications of the needed resources.


>I found it gives, like I said, fairly decent returns with just 20 turns.


I'd say a CoP takes 20 turns to pay it's own costs. After that it provides an income. Tying up resources for 20 turns in order to invest for future income does work. However I wonder if that investment spent is better used towards shorter term goals such as expansion and enemy elimination.


>As most of the time a 21 Astral Gem Income for 154 Water gems is a good trade in my mind.

It woud take the clams 14.6 turns to pay back those 154 water gems. Thats 15 turns beyond the 25ish that it took to make them. So it's about turn 40 that this set-up starts to turn "profit".

In the meantime 154 water gems could have been 72 winter wolves. That's a respectable amount of firepower. More than enough to help acquire many provinces. More provinces is more income in gold and gems. Those water gems represtent attack strength, defense strength, and expansion potential. Those are hard things to justify giving up for a very long term investment. IMHO.

[ January 10, 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: apoger ]

[Jasper]

Boy, it would sure suck to have someone nail you with Fires from Afar if you tried this! The threat of that would make me reluctant to try this with anyone but Atlantis or R'lyeh.

It is definitely a long term investment, although Water gems don't really have compelling uses early on and the underwater races are more assured of surviving until turn 40 than most.

I think Pearl Clams are usefull enough that I build them when I have water gems sitting around, but I don't see it being worth the oppurtunity cost transmuting gems to water in order to forge them.

[stiger]

Originally posted by Jasper:

I think Pearl Clams are usefull enough that I build them when I have water gems sitting around, but I don't see it being worth the oppurtunity cost transmuting gems to water in order to forge them.

Second that.

Do alchemy on pearls (as suggested) - and the cost of each clam becomes too high. 20 pearls = 1 clam = 1 pearl a turn = 20 turns for a clam to pay back its initial price in pearls. Even less tempting with other gems as it's 4 to 1. That's just too long investment to try after turn 20 I think as not even underwater nations are that safe...

Still I understand const2 could be considered too low so no harm in making clam actually produce a pearl once per season, not once per turn - that's quite reasonable.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by stiger:
Still I understand const2 could be considered too low so no harm in making clam actually produce a pearl once per season, not once per turn - that's quite reasonable.

If the clam of pearls cannot be expected to pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time then it becomes a pretty useless item to forge. Since one astral pearl every three turns makes it take 60 turns to pay off, it is really almost worthless at that point.

[apoger]

I think the cost is correct now.
It's just cheap enough that I consider using them, but expensive enough that it's not a clearly superior choice. IMO.