Summons

[katika]

but then, its not that simple....
if the summons stick around for three turns-
then you can have three summoners in three corners of your empire able to summon an army of say, three demons at just one of those summoners.
or using just one of three for all three summons so that one can maximize his combat.
it doesn't seem like an intended side effect

though it does seem like a soultion to the "triple horde" effect

That same "problem" exists with skeletons and tigers. As is, the situation is three times as bad because each summoner can get 3 tier-3 summons. This would limit it to 3 per turn, but still allow for 6 other units. This might encourage players to pick more magic spheres because +50% str, +2 move probably isn't better than 6 additional tier-3 summons with fewer promotions.

There are a few potential problems: twincast, fleshgolems, Eaters of Dreams. It seems to me that the Eaters of Dreams wouldn't be nearly as effective with limited summons, and aren't there only 3 leaders with summoning (two of whom are Sheiam)?

 

[Silverkiss]

Ya, Summoner was meant to be a Sheiam-only trait. Keelyn got it because of flavor. (And it fits well, in my opinion.)

 

[MrUnderhill]

Doesn't Hyborem have Summoner, as well?

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

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.

I agree the function is not a pure 1/x. That's whay I said teh game mechanic "lives in that neighborhood". I agree I can be too coliquial.

Experience does not matter, does it, if I can already destroy the most powerful hero in the game without the benefit of high experience?

Besides, the summons do gain in experience, because the unit that summons them gains in experience over time, without combat.

I am not opposed to the mechanism of summoning or spell casting. I do feel it is important to not be so in love with the mechanism that we fool outselves as to how it really works.

The "problem" withthese units is that they are distictly more effective then their alternatives. Game after game after game it is the spell-casting units that spearhead my militaries ... regardless of all the differnt civs and their different rules.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

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

I hope no one thinks I believe I have perfect understanding of every FfH player.

 

[Silverkiss]

I don´t think that, I just wanted you to know ;D

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

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.

I do not build one type of unit. Casters form the core of my armies. You will find them where I really, really need the offensive punch. Or you will find them shredding that big stack of attackers. Most games I lose 0 casters. This changed substantially with the wonderful new 0.16 assassins (curse you assassinssssssss) but that just means I build a few more adepts and put 'em in the root cellar until properly aged.

Sure, instead of building a dozen Adpts, I could build a dozen more 0-5 exp Axemen. Twelve extra garrison units don't help me much crushing the opposition in the endgame. This big "cost" people talk about to build a caster corps ... it is an extremely bearable cost that bears lucious fruit.

Well, no need to go through the rest of the thread and answer each comment ... I've made my point. Casters = hyper efficient, effective units.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

I don´t think that, I just wanted you to know ;D

 

[Mithrus]

Here's another thought on balancing summoners: just introduce a small chance of failure. Nothing too major, say roughly 5%, perhaps reducing it to less with some techs. My primary point in bringing this topic up was to see if other people you fought against summoners noticed if they were overpowered. I am specifically interested in PvP experiences, not PvAI, as we all know the AI currently is sub-par.

Here is one of my favorite tactics when using summoners: Learn fire/nature, maxing both out. This gives you a nice offensive unit (sand lions) and a solid defender (guardian vines). Pretty much can focus on raising Combat after that.

As far as sand lions requiring deserts, I have yet to see that ever become a real hindrance, since scorch is also available. Worried about a counter-attack? Just spread out the guardian vines to surround your summoners. And best of all, flood plains count as desert, yet give no defense penalty