Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good? - Page 9

LoloMo · #81 September 14th, 2007, 11:31 PM

Here is a suggestion, replace the Clam item with a "Summonable Clam" unit which produces one astral per turn.

It can be placed in the construction tree with the same W3N1 requirements.

This way, you can add another variable to it, its upkeep cost. It would also make the the "Clam" unit vulnerable to assassination spells. It can be made immobile, feebleminded, vulnerable to fire, cold, lightning, poison, etc. Maybe even add the cause misfortune attribute if there is one.

The big thing would be the upkeep cost. If the upkeep cost is say 40 gold per turn, that would certainly restrict the magnitude of clam hoarding.

jutetrea · #82 September 14th, 2007, 11:51 PM

Ideas not bad, but I think 40g (600 base) is too high per, possibly 10 (150) - 15ish(225).

It would reduce the effectiveness of, or at least add to the idea of carrying gem producers with an army. Scouts etc with gems would still work though.

If going that route, could also give it a moderate chunk of HP (20ish), keep it mobile and very vanilla but give it disease, 2 move, terrible stats and possibly afflictions.

heck, just increase the naiad cost a bit and give it the enchantress' gem producers ability. Make it cost a good bundle (40-45ish) but give a useful unit added utility. Take longer to pay back the investment, but in the meantime you get 3W3N that you might need anyway. If someone wants to make 100 of em, go nuts. Not really a great idea, as I still think the first 10-15 clam-type effects shouldn't incur a real penalty.

Micah · #83 September 15th, 2007, 12:12 AM

Empowering a shaman to clam once you hit construction 6 is only 85W, plus another 35 for a Naiad after that (for 2/turn), or 10 clams worth of water gems. After that everyone's able to forge them. While a 10 pearl/turn advantage is really nice it's hardly game-breaking. That's also a worst-case scenario as far as finding indy mages or access to Naiads goes, especially since enchantresses are fairly common. The clamming nations also get a slight bump in early-game production, but non-clam nations can make that up by casting a gem global with their stocked gems once the research is available to do so. Again, an advantage for the clammers, but not one that's broken compared to other game options, especially considering how lousy water magic is. If your nationals have W they're giving up some other path that's more useful in other areas.

Xietor · #84 September 15th, 2007, 12:46 AM

The issue is they are unbalancing when being made at 2-3 a turn and start to number well over a hundred, amounting to a free wish every turn.

Micah · #85 September 15th, 2007, 12:49 AM

Yes, my point was that by the time that happens any nation can have 90 clams, compared to the 100 that a naturally-clamming nation can have. Not a big deal.

Xietor · #86 September 15th, 2007, 12:52 AM

Not everyone wants to clam though. Personally I find it boring. And i do not like to see any one strategy as necessary to win a game.

And not every race can use the astral gems. It takes s9 to wish.

Micah · #87 September 15th, 2007, 01:16 AM

Xietor - When you're talking about popping wishes every turn the cost to empower a wisher is pretty trivial. Assuming you can find an S1 mage to start with it's only 210 pearls to get to S5, which is about the highest nationals go...2 wishes, or 2 turns of income at that point of the game. I can't see how this could POSSIBLY be a realistic argument given your proposed gem income.

Likewise, you not liking a tactic is not a valid reason for it to be removed. Some people don't like SCs, some people don't like blood magic (which, incidentally, is a much bigger MM issue than clams, especially if you want to blood sacrifice), some people don't like blesses. I'm sure people don't like a lot of other stuff in the game as well, but each of these things adds more variety and complexity to the game. If clamming was *broken* then there would be an issue with it, but it's not unbalanced, it's just something you don't like.

Also, given the moddability of Dominions it's a very easy fix to get rid of the clams with a simple mod for the games you play in, so I'm not sure what the big crusade to get rid of them entirely is about, since they're not really unbalanced (incidentally I think the aquatic nations need the help given their very limited expansion options during the midgame.)

Xietor · #88 September 15th, 2007, 01:20 AM

Micah,

your points are all valid. I am just stating my opinions, but obviously every player has different opinions on issues-and they are all valid. How to make a game "better" is all subjective.

I have made my last post on this thread.

Velusion · #89 September 15th, 2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Micah said:

Likewise, you not liking a tactic is not a valid reason for it to be removed.

This isn't directly related to clams (since I agree that mods fix the problem I have with larger games and think they are fine in smaller games) but...

Not liking a tactic *is* a valid reason for you to advocate for change. Everything is subjective. If a tactic is easy/boring/etc... I don't see why someone shouldn't champion change if they feel it improves the game.

Again I'm not saying I completely agree with Xietor in this case...