Tip: Site Searching Strategy

[Crevan]

And - as I say - manual searching is not good strategy: your powerful mages searching instead of research/craft/cast spells, they`re vulhearble to attack and...man, controlling 10+ mages "search-move-search-look for unsearched provs-move-search" looks too long and boring for me %)

[thejeff]

Not saying you shouldn't use it. It just sounded like you were saying that some sites were only detectable by Akashic, even if you searched with all the other paths.

I usually find Akashic too expensive and try to diversify my magic enough to search other paths with their own spells. Found indy mages, mercs, summons, whatever. There are usually ways to get into most paths, as you suggest.

[Agema]

My tactics...

1) Site searching

Particularly with multipath mages, site searching is a great idea. If you've got 3+ magic paths at 2+ skill, you'll get 3 searches every 2 turns. That makes it both faster and much cheaper in gems than spells. You'll miss some sites with only level 2, but you'll get the vast majority. You can then do some spells afterwards to pick up spares if you think you need to. If you have multipath mages but several paths are only skill level 1, I'd send them out searching as above for a quick income boost, but you need to go round later with spells as otherwise you'll miss plenty. Another thing to consider is that multipath mages tend to be expensive, rare, and often fragile. Into the midgame, you might not want them wandering around as they can be too easily killed.

2) Spell searching

If you only have 2-path mages searching is much less attractive except as an early-game boost. (And when I say 2-path, I mean both paths at skill level 2 minimum.) Switch to spells ASAP. Any paths you can only get level 1 in you'll have to site search anyway, unless you trade for skill boosters.

In water, Voice of Tiamat is a no-brainer, definitely use as soon as possible. It's still 2 gems / path, but it saves a lot of time. Be aware Dark Knowledge costs 3 gems rather than the conventional 2, so gets that little bit more expensive.

I don't like Acashic record much. I just think it's too expensive for general use. There are two "best" times to use it. Terrains that tend to have more sites (wasteland, mountains) is one - don't use it on farmland unless... The other is when you can see some places have a site by the province scales as they increase heat or death or whatever: if you don't think you've got the right path to find it, Acashic Record is the answer.

[archaeolept]

akashic record is very expensive, and probably not worthwhile in a competitive game if you've already done some searches. Really, If you've already searched a path at lvl2, that's probably enough.

Usually you can break into new paths w/ a bit of work, and then use your new mages to site-search. It's better than using akashic record for already-half searched provinces. There are exceptions, of course.

[Crevan]

Exceptions for me:
1. If I play nation with really weak mages (e.g. MA Ulm, I`ll play my next duel with them)
2. If I play long game and may spend lots of gems to search in exchange of perfect sites, useful in end-game battles (e.g. Conj/Const/Blood +50)
3. If there`s some provs, which cause problems - and I don`t know, what`s happen (e.g. increase heat/death/misfortune/unrest)
4. If I can`t find any sites in province with 3-4 detective spells, but game set on "Sp.site freq. 75" (looks like there`s something interesting, yeah?)
So if there`s no exceptions - I`ll use cheap detective spells with single element

[thejeff]

I generally do use the site search spells rather than manual site searching. It's a trade-off of gems for micromanagement.
I'll move mages to search for gems to fund site searching for paths I don't have an initial income in, but that's really it.

It's not the most efficient, but the hassle makes up for it.