Why are Sages fair? Opinions wanted!

[Yvelina]

I voted no. Sages are certainly nice, but in no way a requirement for victory.

I play Vanheim, and it is arguably one of the nations that needs a bit of help with research. But I also play with magic 3, and on that setting, sages are not much better than quite a few other indies, for example, shamans or amazon priestesses. There comes a time, often as early as turn 20, where I start building mages for their combat value, rather than their research ability.

And, as an aside, I cannot recall a game in which I found no decent indy researchers. In my current game, I had found two sage provinces by turn ten, and on turn 15, I took a onyx amazon province from my first opponent. Two turns later, I stopped building sages - I thought I needed the amazons and my national mages more.

[Endoperez]

Gold/RP calculator gives these results (Magic 1, 50 turns):

1 Arcoscephale - (Golden Era) Philosopher 0.65
2 Man - Daughter of Avalon 0.75
3 Independents - Sage 0.80
4&5 Tien Chi - Master of the Dead 0.85
6 Mictlan - Mictlan Priest 0.91
7 Pythium (Serpent Cult) - Serpent Acolyte 0.91
6-10 Other independents - Conjurer 0.91, Garnet Priestess 0.94, Jade Priestess 0.94
11-13 Various Tien Chi themes - Master of the Way�0.94
14-15 independents - Witch 0.94, Lore Master 0.95
16 Jotunheim - Vaetti Hag 1.01
17 Pangea (Carrion Woods) - Black Dryad 1.02
18 Abysia (Blood of Humans) - Newt 1.02
19 Pythium (base) Theurg Acolyte 1.02
20 Ctis/Indep - Shaman 1.03

From this, it seems that sages are one of the best researchers, but that there are lots of other options. However, the fact that nations/themes with the best researchers are often not played in competitive games seems to show that people rely they can find Sages or almost as good independents.

Going only 10 turns introduces lots of other independents and some more national troops, including Harab Seraph, Initiate of the Deep and Seithkona. However, many of the national researchers from the top 20 of 50 turns remain in the list, and the very top doesn't change much. Sage is still great.


Without playing games but looking at these numbers, I would say yes. Nations that can research fast/economically aren't played as often as they should if the magic really rules the game, and sage is in the very top both in short and long time invervals (?).

So, I hope that is good enough explanation for why someone without MP experience voted on this. You should really add "I don't play MP but am interested in the result" for those like us that don't play multi�player...

[PvK]

I'm with thinktank on this. Sages are good, but you're not "already screwed", except by that very outlook.

Sages are not fundamentally better than other good provinces of many other types. Sages help research a lot, but they can be made up for in other ways.

Sage provinces can be taken from enemies, or fought over by multiple enemies who think they are super-important to have. They can also be hit by Fires From Afar, assassins, etc.

PvK

[Ironhawk]

I dont think sages are terribly unbalanced. But that said, I also like Chazar's suggestion to drop them proportionally from 4 to 3rp (and associated gold). It would allow them to keep thier place in the game but also more accurately reflect the differences in research abilities of the various nations.

[PvK]

Good idea.

[The Panther]

I believe sages are terribly unbalanced. They are FAR too cheap for the massive research bonus they give you. In fact, they allow some of the poor researching (but powerful) races/themes to go 0 magic or drain and take a chance on finding a library or two. If they take this chance and don't actually find a library, then there is always the next game! So what, it's just a loss!!! This really takes away from the inherent advantages of themes like GE Arco, TC (all), Man (base), non-Neifelheim Jontunheim (?), and SC Pythium (only a slight advantage over base though). Without sages, these races/themes become much more attractive than they currently are.

Obviously, the other approach is to take Magic 3 for a poor researching nation like Yvelina with her Vanheim. It seems obvious to me that she does not want to take a chance on being required to find a sage (by using zero magic or a drain scale) to be competitive. I say this ought to be the only proper way to respond to taking a strong nation with poor researching mages. Why should sages save a player from making that tough choice like the game is typically played these days?

Were sages properly priced, like maybe 150 gold, then this would serve to greater reward the themes that give you cheap researchers. More game balance for the races, in my opinion. More options for selecting the lesser used themes. Better all around for the game.

Furthermore, without cheap sages, you would find people actually building the artifacts that enhance research. I had to do this in my C'tis Miasmi game because the sages would not live in my dominion. But why bother building those things when you are relying on the woefully underpriced sages to produce the brunt of your research for you?

Just my opinion, of course.

[Graeme Dice]

Huzurdaddi said:
You can somewhat insulate yourself from the horror of not finding mages by taking magic-3 scale and playing one of the nations who has decent base researchers ( woe to he who plays Abysia, Nieflehem, or Ulm and does not find Sages).

I wouldn't include Ulm there. Sages in drain 3 are only slightly more effective researchers than master smith's.

[Taqwus]

Aye. On the other hand, it might be helpful for the random magic, if we're talking base earth/fire Ulm. Death and Astral in particular are decent for bootstrapping since the divination spells only require one level and the first boosting items take two.

[Chazar]

Very nice discussion! I now think that sages are a huge advantage, but not in a life-and-death sense (I guess I just exaggerated a bit ).

I also realize that their gold/research ratio is indeed ok, but it is really their quick availability which bugs me. (Because I am convinced now that Lore Masters are ok.) Having them earlier will allow a nation to jump ahead way too quickly...especially in small-map games...since they can be built so quick!

However, changing them to a total 3 RP and 30 gold cost as I proposed earlier might be a bad idea either: the magic scale would then have a much larger impact on sages (drain3 rendering them usesless while magic 3 doubles their effectivity). I cannot decide whether this is good or a bad...??? (Opinions?)
(I do not know if it is possible to make them drain immune, but I guess this would be too much of a boost either...)
(Maybe 4RP/50GP could be a compromise, but might be too similar to Philosophers.)

---

Another option which came to my mind could be leaving their research bonus and cold cost alone, but adding a resource cost of, say, 40 points. It might not be too thematic (you really need a lot of wood in order to produce all those thick books such a nasty sage uses up, you know... ), but it might serve its purpose: Without a proper fortress, one could only produce a sage every other turn. Building a fortress would then snatch away resources from somewhere else, so it is a decision that one has to think about it (unlike now, where capturing a library means building a lab immediately! Miasmas excluded...).

Does this make any sense to anybody else? Why would you consider to take part or not in a game with one of the above depicted mods in place?

[Oversway]

I say this ought to be the only proper way to respond to taking a strong nation with poor researching mages. Why should sages save a player from making that tough choice like the game is typically played these days?

Why do you want to limit the options in the game? If someone wants to take a chance, that should be an ok option. Just like other players won't take that chance. Everyone gets to play their own way...