Vote

[Slobby]

Originally Posted by Executor

Under the same limitation? Yes, affected the same by the same limitation? No.
It breaks the effectiveness of their thugs. A hammers 25% forge bonus is not always just a 25% forge bonus. Take fire brend for example, their price went from 6 to 10, that a 40% increase in gems. As did rainbow armor. Frost brend isn't much more expensive but is less valuable given that is isn't even AP and had a reduction in damage and son on...

I fail to see how it doesn't screw them up royally given they pretty much have to rely on thugs since they can't really depend on national mages with great paths or excellent troops.

Taking away a 25% forge bonus does not take away from the effectiveness of their thugs. Their thugs are just as effective. Taking away a 25% forge bonus takes away from their ability mass produce thugs (and this is relative to the pre and post hammer nerf!). The thug effectiveness is just the same.

And there are so many limitations on top of this. The fact that their thugs are what 250-350 gold. So there is monetary constraint. Looking over their starting gem income there is also gem constraint. There is no guarantee that you'll get the optimal gems you need.

Also consider they're aiming at what a min 3 item forge? To get to their 'optimal' thug producing point they need 3 hammers to kit out a thug/turn. That's an investment of 37 E gems. And of course since we're talking about an item that makes forging economical so continually input E gems into the equation as they're making more and more hammers.

I feel as though while making this explanation I coulda made thugs taken my glamour troops and rushed someone by now secured more gems kitted more thugs made more glamoured troops and hit the next.

I could be wrong, but I think the pace of games may just slow down a hair without hammers, so it'll all be compensated through time.

And regardless if QM feels that they're suxor and chooses to buff it is what it is. Although I think if anything the thuggy mages should be reduced in price and/or given better gear and left at the same price. As I said previously if a strat for a nation is broken due to the removal of hammers then the nation itself is the problem not hammers.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Executor

Ah, what a lively debate!

Meh, who cares about complete balance? I don't give a crap if someone else has a enc 50% or const 20% site, it a luck factor, like a plague hitting your cap at turn 3 which pretty much means you're done for in most cases (yes it can happen even with luck), or constantly getting rapped by knights, but that's what makes it so fun.

You can have every single bonus site in the game and lose rather badly when everyone dogpilles you, which frankly happens quite often to nations that stand out sadly, which would presumably be nations with bonus sites for example. It could be in possession of a complete newb who doesn't realize it's potential... Anyway, those sites are quite rare and exist to spice up the game a bit.

And yes, I realize having hammers demands the first 35 turns earth income go to hammer forging, but having death gems demands them being saved for Tartarians, and having nature gems saving them for GoR and GoH, and so on... Every path is bound to have some item/spell/summon more demanding and more worthwhile than the rest, and removing one will just make the next in line stick out again, unless you're determent to make all paths as useless as fire.

Now as far as balance goes, my interest there is that items/summons/spells get reasonable prices (for example I think CBM 1.3 or 1.4 had vampire lords cost like 40 slaves, which was absurd), and rather not eliminate parts of the game.
Personally, the removal of hammers and discount sites came rather unexpected to me as I've never heard of a complain regarding those before the change was actually made.

There's was something else I wanted to say, but the thought fled my mind...

Removing all this things makes the game just duller me feels.
But luckily CBM is just an optional mode so I'll be sticking with 1.6 for now.

I think this post best sums my views. A perfectly balanced game is boring. A nearly balanced game is chess, but how many people talk about the last thrilling game of chess they played? What people want is flavor, with manageable balance.

The issue I have with the path CBM is taking is that a mod that is a commonly accepted standard is starting to go down a path of removing things from the game that a subset of the community wants. Even if we are looking at a 50/50 split between removing something and keeping it, you are far better served leaving it in.

[Adept]

What an interesting thread.

I'm going to create a mod for my Dominions group's next game that addresses some balance problems.

Most significantly forging cost reducing items will be removed. The Forge of the Ancients will lose the discount effect and quite likely be moved to a lvl 9 construction. Price halved to 40 earth gems.

Gem generating items will be modified for other purpose or removed.

***

The reason for the above is that the gem economy is at least as important as the gold economy and control of resources. The forging cost reductions and especially the damnable Forge of the Ancients really messes up that part of the game. I want the cost of a Staff of Elemental Mastery to be the full 50 gems.

***

The other thing that will be fixed is werewolves. The general setting material in Dominions (since the original) has skin shifters dropping their weapons and using claws and fangs in close combat. For some odd reason though, a commander werewolf has access to all equipment slots.

That is just a minor problem, but the case of the Jotun Giant Werewolf is an atrocity. The Skratti that can turn into a werewolf is an utterly unbalanced commander. The wolf form has way too many perks and immunities, and for some insane reason it's stronger than a male titan or Dragon. >.<

Our current game has slightly turned into a farce because of these recruitable fromt the start SC monsters who can cast quicken self from early on, and get luck and etherealness cast on them by the cheap recruit anywhere hags.

Here's an early game example:

[thejeff]

Most of what you suggest can't be done.
I don't believe you can remove the Forge's discount. I know you can't actually change the gem-generating properties of items. You can remove them, make them unique, or change the paths/cost.

And the Skratti are nice, but vulnerable due to low mr. Even with 2 items that one only has 21, he'll die to a few mages spamming Soul Slay.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Adept

The Forge of the Ancients will lose the discount effect

Unfortunately this is not possible without removing all FotA effects. Tweaking ritual effects (unless they summon something) isn't supported with modding.

Dropping hand slots on werewolves is an interesting idea, though it is unfortunate it would nerf non-giant werewolves which are already a bit borderline for thugging.

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

Dropping hand slots on werewolves is an interesting idea, though it is unfortunate it would nerf non-giant werewolves which are already a bit borderline for thugging.

Doesn't the Skratti's werewolf form have its own monster number, different from the human size werewolves?

[Zeldor]

Well, funny solution to OP werewolves is to have Wolf as 2nd form, not 3rd

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Valerius

Doesn't the Skratti's werewolf form have its own monster number, different from the human size werewolves?

Certainly, just thinking of consistency.

[quantum_mechani]

I will say one thing for certain about this poll- it has caused me to reconsider the removal of powerful bonus sites. While people seem to regard being unique and being removed as interchangeable for items, I personally find the fact that they are still in the game a significant plus, and likely would not have considered an outright removal of them. The reasoning with sites is that their removal is not really removing on option, but it is admittedly removing content. I think sites do have the potential to 'ruin' games, but probably not consistently, so if the general opinion is they should stay, that seems fair enough.

Hammers are a very different matter, and not just because making them unique is not strictly removing content. Almost all complaints I have heard about the change seems as though they can be fixed with a bit of national balance and/or a slight increase in site frequency in games (this while maintaining the benefits in terms of reduced micromanagement, and the bizarre skewed pretender design hammers caused). There may also be repercussions for specific items in terms of worthwhileness of pricing, but this swings both ways- the available prices for things are no more or less finely grained than before, some items can be priced more appropriately while others must be priced less appropriately.

It has been said the most recent CB actually goes in the direction of reducing possible strategic options, but this seems a difficult interpretation to take. Whatever there is not to like about the hammer change, it is hard to argue that not requiring 3-4 e on a non-e nation's pretender doesn't present more options, or that not needing to beeline right for SDRs with a blood strategy doesn't open up new possibilities. It's the fact that these so called 'options' were indispensable that causes the difficulties, and while it's possible that changing them can cascade into making other options less attractive, these are all presumably independently addressable problems.

[Valerius]

As best I can recall, CBM 1.6 and 1.7 have generated the most discussion of all the D3 CBM releases (can't speak for the D2 CBM releases). But when 1.6 removed gem gens many games already banned them. So while there was some opposition to the change, it was following an already strong trend. 1.7 is different in that it seems most people weren't expecting these changes or requesting them. This doesn't mean they're bad - but it does seem like a significant change from the previous, more conservative, approach.

The other change I've noticed (partly as a consequence of 1.7) is you seem to be taking on balance between nations, not just within them. And I think this has been something there has been more of an interest in CBM tackling. There's always going to be a most powerful nation/path/etc. I'm ok with the current top tier remaining there - I'd just like to see less of a gap between them and the rest of the pack.

It also occured to me in following this discussion that it must be gratifying that people care enough about the mod to provide this feedback - certainly better than early on when CBM was greeted with rejection/indifference.

Anyway, there have been some very good points on both sides of this discussion. For me, 1.7 feels like part of the picture. The changes did have balance implications. As is, I'd be inclined to stick with 1.6 or, more likely, change the parts I didn't like and use a modified version of 1.7. But 1.8, by addressing some of the issues that arise from these changes seems like it may present a more full picture. Though if you keep the nerf to brands in 1.8 I'll change that when I admin a game, self serving though it may be.

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

It has been said the most recent CB actually goes in the direction of reducing possible strategic options, but this seems a difficult interpretation to take.

I don't want to derail the thread, but thinking along the lines of increasing options by removing something do you have any thoughts on the fact that tarts are still the optimal choice for SC/magic diversity? Things are much better than before the EDM but I think people still feel the need to get the Chalice or GoH so they can mass produce tarts. I'm not suggesting removing tarts but perhaps giving them less magic diversity so they are more like the EDM summons - mainly SCs with some magic diversity added in.