Summoning Trait, too good or just too good?

[xanaqui42]

Sorry, my bad. Still, does anyone really want to make the argument that Summoning is stronger than Philosophical? Or that the Sheaim are more powerful than the Calabim?

1) Sure; why not? Once you have Summoning (the technology), I think that Summoning is the most powerful trait in the game. It allows you tripple the number of expendable units. Obviously, until that point, Philosophical is stronger.

I'm actually mostly curious why you're displaying Philosophical as a very powerful trait; there are a number of traits that I consider stronger (Financial, Arcane, even (in some settings) Barbarian). Is it because of the tech rushing potential, Cassiel, the Altar of the Luonnotar victory (or something else)?

2) I'd say that if/when the Armageddon counter is around 75 or so, the Sheaim are stronger, yes. However, the Calabim player should know that and ensure that the Sheaim aren't around to celebrate that point in the game.

 

[xanaqui42]

This may look unbalanced in Vanilla but it isn't in FFH. 10 units of any other kind (including conjurers, since you were standing on desert) may toast your conjurers pretty easily before they summon 30 lions, and it would take you quite a long time to replace them.

While this is true, it really just means that you need defensive units for the Conjurers. Without getting into details of the better methods (Rangers with Birds work very well), the most obvious one is to use some of the just-summoned units to achieve this aim. Alternatively, with a high movement rate for your summoned units and the 3 turns from the Summoner trait, there's no reason why you can't just have your Conjurers behind your lines, inside your territory, or even defending inside your own cities (while continually summoning).

 

[Bitwise]

What if the AI made better use of Rings of Warding? Would summoning be so powerful then?

 

[xAlephx]

1) Sure; why not? Once you have Summoning (the technology), I think that Summoning is the most powerful trait in the game. It allows you triple the number of expendable units. Obviously, until that point, Philosophical is stronger.

Without question, Philosophical is stronger for the tech rushing early-mid game - Summoning requires a while to hit, and Philosophical can give you a HUGE early edge. I wasn't doing this until recently, so I didn't get it, and I'm sure I still lack a lot of understanding. Tech pops are the way to go, early.

Philosophical has additional internal synergies with a GP strat due to its ability to speed production of the early buildings allowing more sages, and it also makes some of the most expensive civics you're likely to use free. It is the most powerful trait in the early game because it gets you to the middle game faster than anyone else, likewise speeds the middle game substantially, and is still quite helpful in the late game (if you've bulbed all the techs you want and have academies in your major research cities, a great sage super specialist with library, academy, and crown is nothing to sneeze at).

In contrast, summon gives you longer lasting summons, which lets you have more. If you're rushing summoning, then when it hits, it is savagely strong. It doesn't stay that way, however. It gives a massive spike in power for a while, and then the fact that your summoned troops aren't gaining battle experience takes their short lifespans/high numbers from a high point to a liability. This is a pattern seen throughout the game.

There's a lot of times when particular civs spike in power. Sheaim require the Summoning trait to make the Summoning tech dominant. Vampires become dominant (without cost in traits) once they hit Feudalism. Amurite mage rushes (facilitated through Dain/Philosophical) can come a LOT sooner than Sheaim conjurer rushes, and fireballs will definitely get the job done in the early game. The Hippus will Pillage you from one end to the other incredibly early with their Horsemen if you're unlucky enough to start out next to an angry Tasunke, and once you're pillaged out you're next to dead. The Elven Kingdoms under Amelanchier become nearly impossible to assault once they are covered with Ancient Forests and inhabited by invisible treetop Rangers with poisoned blades. Loki will peacefully convert nearly a whole AI civ for you in the early game without even declaring war. Wood Golems are more or less unstoppable when they first arrive on the scene. The prevalence of wolves in current editions makes the Clan of Embers worg spam horribly dominant from year 1.

I'm not saying Summon/Summon isn't powerful, but I don't see that it is out of line with these. And it comes at the cost of a trait.

Daladinn - my point in bringing you up was that you are not a good example for how most people play and shouldn't be taken as a pro or con of a particular race or strat. I think your response proves that. I assume the victory tool of your strat is to mass spam Chaos Marauders and fireball Witches through Planar Gates?

 

[Grey Fox]

In contrast, summon gives you longer lasting summons, which lets you have more. If you're rushing summoning, then when it hits, it is savagely strong. It doesn't stay that way, however. It gives a massive spike in power for a while, and then the fact that your summoned troops aren't gaining battle experience takes their short lifespans/high numbers from a high point to a liability. This is a pattern seen throughout the game.

The summons do have a short life span, especially if you summon for all 3 turns before you attack (which means 1/3 have 1 turn life, 1/3 have 2 turns life, etc you get it). But the summons DO get experience, IF they live and win battles. This means they can attack again, and stronger cause the promotions usually heals them up.

Plenty of time in my Sheaim game did my spectres get up to Combat III after a win.

 

[xAlephx]

True, I oversimplified. However, all that experience is gone in 3 turns.

edit: Or, for even more precision - 3 turns unless its a law or chaos 3 summon.

In any case, not the main point of my post.

 

[daladinn]

Daladinn - my point in bringing you up was that you are not a good example for how most people play and shouldn't be taken as a pro or con of a particular race or strat. I think your response proves that. I assume the victory tool of your strat is to mass spam Chaos Marauders and fireball Witches through Planar Gates?

actually it was...
1 - chaos mauraders and tar beasties as defensive troops.
2 - mobius witches for free research vats (26 research per and they keep coming , for free)
3 - four horsemen and avatar as main sources of destruction to my enemies.
4 - sending hyborem to hit the civs that the barbarians are ignoring

its nice really , letting other people end the world with you ....

 

[xAlephx]

Were you just delaying for fun? If you don't need any higher techs than KotE, Veil, and Hyborem to smash the world, why not go on a razing rampage to drive the AC higher even faster?

 

[daladinn]

no real need , with the prophecy it goes up by 1 or 2 every turn plus any cities not doing anything important are building the rituals.

 

[Bitwise]

What if the horsemen and avatar come after you? (seems to happen to me in all my Sheaim games).

 

[daladinn]

then i kill em , lol .... mu ha ha

 

[xAlephx]

No, you need a "b" sound at the beginning there. It's "bwahaha."

That's a rifftrax quote, if anyone cares.

 

[xanaqui42]

Without question, Philosophical is stronger for the tech rushing early-mid game - Summoning requires a while to hit, and Philosophical can give you a HUGE early edge. I wasn't doing this until recently, so I didn't get it, and I'm sure I still lack a lot of understanding. Tech pops are the way to go, early.

Philosophical has additional internal synergies with a GP strat due to its ability to speed production of the early buildings allowing more sages, and it also makes some of the most expensive civics you're likely to use free. It is the most powerful trait in the early game because it gets you to the middle game faster than anyone else, likewise speeds the middle game substantially, and is still quite helpful in the late game (if you've bulbed all the techs you want and have academies in your major research cities, a great sage super specialist with library, academy, and crown is nothing to sneeze at).

In contrast, summon gives you longer lasting summons, which lets you have more. If you're rushing summoning, then when it hits, it is savagely strong. It doesn't stay that way, however. It gives a massive spike in power for a while, and then the fact that your summoned troops aren't gaining battle experience takes their short lifespans/high numbers from a high point to a liability. This is a pattern seen throughout the game.

I'll obviously have to play with Philosophical more to see your point. I find a Great Person strategy in the early game to be nice, but it impedes growth.

I guess two notes with Summoning are:
1) With Conjurers with Combat V, they can be reasonably promoted.
2) There's another spike at Ethereal Call (with Summoners). Note that I rarely see this spike, since the game's virtually always over before then.

On the other hand, my Calabim strategy can be summed up in the following way:
1) Get lots of Vampires. Get a number of them to Combat V
2) Use those Combat V Vampires to summon the real attacking force.

So I may just be overly partial to expendable units.

 

[Grey Fox]

I'll obviously have to play with Philosophical more to see your point. I find a Great Person strategy in the early game to be nice, but it impedes growth.

It doesn't hinder growth if you can't grow anymore, and in the late game it doesn't hinder growth cause of the same reason, OR you are using sacrifice the weak.

You have to micromanage, when do I need growth, when do I need to max production, when do I need to max gold/research output. But so far, I'm loving this Great Specialist strat.

When it comes to summoning, yeah a giant army of skeletons is pretty nice. But that isn't enhanced by the summoning trait at all. I mean they last the whole game if they could.

 

[xAlephx]

Double post, my bad.

 

[xAlephx]

I'll obviously have to play with Philosophical more to see your point. I find a Great Person strategy in the early game to be nice, but it impedes growth.
.

Try Polycrates' take on it, here.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=222544

About the only two things which aren't in his initial post are when to found Veil (I'm thinking after Sorcery, but you could go even sooner) and the use of gambling halls instead of public baths (absolutely stunning when you're storing 70-90% of your gold and using sages for research).

It does slow growth on one hand, but it also speeds growth by allowing you to get by with fewer workers (although unless I have vinyards or gold mines nearby I will definitely also be using cottages in the early game). Fewer workers means fewer turns of a city not gaining population, as well as more time to work on other things (like more settlers, to found more cities and spam your cheap elder councils for more sages). Additionally, in the early game it is really easy to hit happiness caps when using farms, so either way you cut it there are hard limits to useful growth.

Sages give 3 beakers off the bat, which is excellent - it takes a cottage a long time to growth enough to surpass the cumulative research output of a sage when both are looked at over time (is that amortized or prorated? I forget) - AND you're also getting 6 GPP/turn without delving into Pacifism. 18 years after your first sage goes down you have an Academy, which drives an even bigger wedge between your research output and those poor devils working the land for cash. Push for writing, to get libraries for more sages, start bulbing magic techs and suddenly you're decades ahead of your opposition, research wise.

Previously on Monarch and above I had a long inertia gathering period, where I am behind the computer on points but positioning myself to explode outward. In my first game using Dain, the first time I encountered another party I had triple their points.

Edit - and as a postscript - better get on the Philosophical bandwagon now. Come BtS, there's going to be an espionage slider to spend your cash on, and running a near-cashless system of research specialists is going to really open up your spying options. I've also heard that you'll be able to pick traits for leaders in that edition... phear my Hidden Philosopher!

 

[Grey Fox]

Edit - and as a postscript - better get on the Philosophical bandwagon now. Come BtS, there's going to be an espionage slider to spend your cash on, and running a near-cashless system of research specialists is going to really open up your spying options. I've also heard that you'll be able to pick traits for leaders in that edition... phear my Hidden Philosopher!

Actually you can pick any leader for any civ.

 

[xAlephx]

Wow. I predict an explosion of Eidon Logosi, Varn Gosams, and Charadons. And possibly a few vampire Cardith Lordas...

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Try a centaur rush as Tasunke, or let Keelyn take control of the Amurites... nice possibilities with FfH.

 

[xAlephx]

I just posted this in my Perpentach thread, but Varn with the Balseraphs is going to be tough.

Sorry that I'm getting increasingly OT here. In any case, I think the proof will be in the pudding on this one - I could definitely see Tebryn as an amazing Amurite leader (for super wizards AND super conjurers), but I think we'll have a good sense of how powerful summoning is by how often its leaders are chosen.