Summons

[Mithrus]

A thought occured to me while responding to another post. IMO, summoning can be a touch overpowered considering that a stack of summoners could send endless horde after endless horde with no real investment to loose. I was able to beat Mardero (with combat5+) with roughly 20+ sand lions...Net cost to me: 0. Look on my opponent's face: priceless.

Seriously, perhaps we should have each summon cost a nominal fee to represent reagent costs? I am thinking something like 5 each cast. Not enough to really hurt anyone unless you are producing them in huge quantities. Late game even the Khazad can't produce enough units to beat out a stack of summoners.

I can see this not applying to spells like fireball/meteor swarm simply because there are anti-fire spells that make the efficiency far less useful. Perhaps make those spells cost 1 each cast (perhaps 3 for meteor swarm), as a way to also incur some restraint.

 

[Civkid1991]

Net cost to me: 0

Actually it caused you a lot... if you think about it ... this took you so many (game) years (or turns) to train a summoner and during the process in order to upgrade units you have to pay a price in gold.

 

[Silverkiss]

And the hammers to build a Mage Guild, and to build a worker to build a Mana Node(if necessary), etc

 

[Civkid1991]

oh and time and hammers if you are building the mage guild wonder thing (cant remember the name at the moment) and the hammers for building the adepts.

 

[Silverkiss]

Catacomb Librarus ?

 

[Bringa]

While you're all right in saying that building summoners costs a lot (time, hammers, money), the original poster made a somewhat different point: when you go into combat with any other unit, you always incur the risk of losing that unit or having it wounded. You don't risk that with summoners at all. Unless the enemy actually gets close enough to injure you, your summoners were never endangered. That hero his enemy lost could have been killed otherwise too, but chances are he would have had to burn a few normal units.

I'm not sure if summoning is that overpowered, though; the units are rather low in strength, aren't they? At some point sufficiently strong enemy combatants (I love that word ;P) will have sufficient xp to make most of these combats 0.1% combats for the summoner, effectively feeding xp to the enemy.

If summoning was actually found to be imbalanced, I think the best way to deal with it would be to introduce an "anti-summons" promotion.

 

[Civkid1991]

While you're all right in saying that building summoners costs a lot (time, hammers, money), the original poster made a somewhat different point: when you go into combat with any other unit, you always incur the risk of losing that unit or having it wounded. You don't risk that with summoners at all. Unless the enemy actually gets close enough to injure you, your summoners were never endangered. That hero his enemy lost could have been killed otherwise too, but chances are he would have had to burn a few normal units.

Well this is what assasins are for... you have to use units that can bypass the stronger units.

Catacomb Librarus ?

yea that's what i was talking about.

 

[Mithrus]

Assassins/Shadows are nigh worthless in this circumstance considering sand lions see invis. I also count it a wash as far as the amount of hammers/gold to upgrade units to tier 3. Pretty much every tier3+ unit requires some kind of building/resource to build, and most of the time you will spend the cash to upgrade the units to the current tier simply to transfer the exps etc.

As far as the amount of time it takes to get a mage/summoner, I agree it does take a significant amount of time investment to get an adept to a conjurer to a summoner. This translates into a significant loss when one is destroyed. That isn't my focus, however. That fact doesn't change the fact that a stack of X conjurers could barrage a city (with walls intact etc) and win "eventually" because as long as they can kill units faster than they can be produced, you will win. This is especially true for non-city conflicts. There is no cooldown period for summoners, and for the civs with the summoner trait, it gets even better. Your surviving units get promos (which heal) and can then be used again next round. Standard units will always loose to attrition under these circumstances. Something people don't perhaps realize: even attacking with a 0.0% chance of success can wound the opponent. That makes the next summon have an even better chance of victory, etc.

My overall point I'll reinterate: on a per use basis, conjurers/summoners have no risk or investment cost to restrain them. All other combat units have to worry about that counter-attack if they get wounded. I'm offering a solution that will hopefully add some additional balance/restraint. Perhaps just have the cost be the tier of the spell if you think 5 it too much (personally, I think 5 for tier2 and 8-10 for tier3 isn't all that much in the late game).

 

[Silverkiss]

Sand Lions can only be summoned on Deserts, so thats a big restriction for them.

 

[DarthCycle]

I think the problem with summoning is actually different: I would like to see the AI use it way more. As it is, the players are the only one using the feature properly; as in having lots of summoner in order to have a horde of summoned units every turn.

I agree that assassin is a good counter, and to my delight, the AI does use it against my summoner in a stack. I now have to carry a weakling in my stack to protect from assassin.

It's all about balance: a feature is not broken if both side can use it. When only side does take advantage of it, then it can become a balance issue

 

[Civkid1991]

Sand Lions can only be summoned on Deserts, so thats a big restriction for them.

well if you have the first spell in the fire sphere that shouldn't be much of a problem

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

It's all about balance: a feature is not broken if both side can use it. When only side does take advantage of it, then it can become a balance issue

This is untrue which a simple logic excercise demonstrates.

• There are two sides, White and Black.
  
• Each side takes turns.
  
• Each side has a buttone labeled "I win".
  
• The first player the "I Win" button, wins the game.
  
• White moves first.

Want to play? I'll take white.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

If you have enough summoners to take down a strength 15 hero like Mardero, you're probably in a doublewin situation anyway. You can just as well say that Immortals are overpowered because they can never be killed. Summons are a feature of the game, and they're a feature that are substantially different from anything in vanilla Civ. That's not a bad thing.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Assassins/Shadows are nigh worthless in this circumstance considering sand lions see invis. I also count it a wash as far as the amount of hammers/gold to upgrade units to tier 3. Pretty much every tier3+ unit requires some kind of building/resource to build, and most of the time you will spend the cash to upgrade the units to the current tier simply to transfer the exps etc.

As far as the amount of time it takes to get a mage/summoner, I agree it does take a significant amount of time investment to get an adept to a conjurer to a summoner. This translates into a significant loss when one is destroyed. That isn't my focus, however. That fact doesn't change the fact that a stack of X conjurers could barrage a city (with walls intact etc) and win "eventually" because as long as they can kill units faster than they can be produced, you will win. This is especially true for non-city conflicts. There is no cooldown period for summoners, and for the civs with the summoner trait, it gets even better. Your surviving units get promos (which heal) and can then be used again next round. Standard units will always loose to attrition under these circumstances. Something people don't perhaps realize: even attacking with a 0.0% chance of success can wound the opponent. That makes the next summon have an even better chance of victory, etc.

My overall point I'll reinterate: on a per use basis, conjurers/summoners have no risk or investment cost to restrain them. All other combat units have to worry about that counter-attack if they get wounded. I'm offering a solution that will hopefully add some additional balance/restraint. Perhaps just have the cost be the tier of the spell if you think 5 it too much (personally, I think 5 for tier2 and 8-10 for tier3 isn't all that much in the late game).

This issue has been raised before. It's one of those things where some FfH fans agree with your core point. And the other roughly half of the fans see no issue at all.

Version 0.16 made some adjustments to sumoned unit strengths, but FWIW I remain in your camp. Summoners are a Sameness Attractor which is Unser-speak for a feature so appealing to players that they make use of the tactic game after game. Summoned cannon fodder is just soooo useful, I create them game after game after game.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

If you have enough summoners to take down a strength 15 hero like Mardero, you're probably in a doublewin situation anyway. You can just as well say that Immortals are overpowered because they can never be killed. Summons are a feature of the game, and they're a feature that are substantially different from anything in vanilla Civ. That's not a bad thing.

Oh come on. 5-6 summoning units plus, possibly, one decent conventional unit can kill any single unit in the game. Even Marerdo. That is no doublewin situation, that is 3 cities with temples each bulding two priests. That is not a doublewin situation. That is the end result of playing smart - of building units that cost the fewest hammers to make in relation to the hammer cost they inflict on the enemy.

Concerns about summoning has nothing to do with what does and does not exist in vanilla Civ. It has everything to do with two mathematical realities:

• Summoned units cost the owner 0 when destroyed.
  
• f(x)=1/x approches infinity as x approaches 0

Therefore, any manufactured enemy unit killed or damaged by a conjured unit (or a fireball, etc) has a ROI (return on investment) that lives in the neighborhood of that 1/x function with x approaching zero.

All else being equal, the nation that fights with summoned pawns will pwn the nation that hand-crafts their pawns.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Summoned units may not cost any hammers to their owner when they're destroyed, but they do have a slight cost. Firstly, the summoner cannot summon again that turn. Secondly, the attacked unit gets experience. Balancing such factors directly with hammer value is impossible, but at the very least the equation

• f(x)=1/(k+x)

with k being any positive constant is a more accurate representation of value. So long as x does not become negative, there is a maximum value for summons, and it falls quite short of infinity or anything resembling it.

Really, I just see summoners and conjurers as low-budget immortals that are still somewhat vulnerable. Also, keep in mind that a summoner or conjurer cannot gain experience through their summons' battles.

Regarding the potential doublewin situation in which Mardero was killed, if he had no contemporary units guarding him, I see no imbalance in summoners taking him down. Surely some units would have had to been sacrificed to bring him down, but I doubt it would have taken many. You yourself advocate that even 0.01% battles can deal surprisingly much damage to their target. Consider also that no experience is gained by taking down a hero with a summon.

 

[Gamestation]

No one is even mentioning the power of wraiths yet. (note: wraiths reduce exp of those they fight) See how many civs you can kill with 9 wraiths a turn (3 summoners, 3 Veil high priests, 3 Veil inquisitors).

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Heh, how many Civs can you kill if your foes also have nine tier-4 units at their disposal? Three Veil High Priests, three Veil Inquisitors, three Summoners... versus three Immortals, three Sparaiatoi, and three Flurries? Tough call.

 

[Silverkiss]

Unser, about your points of all players use summoners: I never used them.

 

[Oldfrt]

It comes down to balance. The hammers & time you spend on gaining summoning units can be spent on other units.

I have played a few games where I went heavy into summoning and it worked well for a while then all of a sudden I got swamped, surrounded & had 10-12 summoners/priests almost wiped out by then enemy.

What it comes down to is game play and your strategy. If you stick to one thing you will find it wont work in all situations.