Dom 5 wishlist

[kristoffer]

Hi,
Feel free to add wishes and ideas here. Discussions are welcome.

[Althaea]

Since the Bane Venom Charm is being brought up, I feel I ought to add my voice to that choir. I have been lucky enough to not experience it much myself though then the number of games of Dominions 5 I've played have been fairly limited in number and the people I've played with largely sporting enough not to use it. I was at the receiving end of it in Dominions 4, however.

And the way the mechanics work out right now, the Bane Venom Charm is toxic to the game itself. For how cheap and reliable it is, it is too strong. It could be raised in cost and forging requirements as well as research.

But personally I'd even suggest making it into an artifact. At its current cost and forging requirement (or even a bit higher) and as an artifact it would still be useful. And if there could only be one Bane Venom Charm at play it'd feel much less cheap to be affected by it. It would still be underhanded to use it, but in a much more respectable sort of way.

[Cruxador]

Numbers and actual balance aside, I categorically disagree with the notion that an option in the game should be mechanically limited on the grounds that someone doesn't consider it to be a suitably "respectable" or "sporting" option for war.

As for the numbers, it's cheap but not that cheap. I'd rather see the effect diminished in magnitude and if possible moved after patrolling in the turn than see it moved up in research, especially all the way to artifact. But I think if people are consistently not using it, which has been my experience too, that's decent evidence that other factors do limit its use, the most obvious possibility being the inherent penalty of worsening a province that you hope to gain.

[Althaea]

It's one thing to be sneaky. The game allows for that just fine. I'm never going to argue for removing or inhibiting the capabilities of sneaky units or those with glamour, for example, and I think assassins and spies and the like could even stand to receive a few buffs. However, in this case the game mechanics coincide to make the Bane Venom Charm not just sneaky, but downright unfair.

I'm not sure how reasonable it is to request for the effects of Bane Venom Charms and the like to occur after patrolling, in terms of engine limitations or what-have-you. If it could be done relatively easily then that would be a perfectly viable solution, too, possibly eliminating the need for tweaks to the Bane Venom Charm at all.

Of course, it's also an issue that patrolling commanders could then pick the Bane Venom Charm up and then do the damage themselves.

I've previously seen someone suggest that the Charm could be cursed to avoid this. If so then the description could probably be tweaked to reference this.

edit: In terms of not seeing it used, I honestly think a very significant factor in my case is that some people are outright unwilling to use it. I'm one of them, at least, and more than once I've seen others say things to that effect. Using Bane Venom Charms effectively is often considered a rather mean-spirited to do.

[Nombrilist]

Honestly, it's a very strong offensive tool, contra some comments upthread. Judicious BVCs can wreck economies, recruitment and research centers, and armies in the field. It can also break strategic stalemates and counter turtling. And it's a strong defensive tool as well, not just a spoiler - both for deterrence and attrition. If people are only seeing it being used as a spoiler, that really points to loss aversion more than anything else as the limiting factor, as it can be put to very good use with strategic parity or advantage.

I agree with Cruxador that there's more keeping it out of play than a perception it's "not sporting". There's a very strong loss aversion tendency in most metas, and that's probably as much or more of a limit on its use than anything else. However, that can be self-defeating; while deploying BVCs offensively may deprive you of the fullest spoils of victory, 1/4th the income you'd get from conquering someone's capital is still far more than none and being knocked out of the game.

Having said all that, I could see a nerf on it. Cutting it down to #leper 5 from its current #leper 10 would give the high-end monsters with #leper 10 a bit more oomph and uniqueness than they currently enjoy. Cursing it as well would also make it more expensive to use - when it can be transferred, you can pass it from scout to scout rather than spending the extra gems to summon a black servant or the like.

[MORROGANDER]

I want vampire queen in one of the MA nations, is it too much to ask? Yeah I know she isn't meta but she is a vampire for role play reasons....

[Cruxador]

Originally posted by algulod:

I'm not sure how reasonable it is to request for the effects of Bane Venom Charms and the like to occur after patrolling, in terms of engine limitations or what-have-you. If it could be done relatively easily then that would be a perfectly viable solution, too, possibly eliminating the need for tweaks to the Bane Venom Charm at all.

Yeah, hence the "if possible". I guess technically anything is possible, but if it would be a massive time-sucking rewrite of basic turn code then obviously that's not worth it.

edit: In terms of not seeing it used, I honestly think a very significant factor in my case is that some people are outright unwilling to use it. I'm one of them, at least, and more than once I've seen others say things to that effect. Using Bane Venom Charms effectively is often considered a rather mean-spirited to do.

Maybe that accounts for some of it in your experience, but I don't typically play with people who do things like that. Outside of a roleplaying game, I would consider something like that to be pointless at best, and at worst you're playing in poor faith since you're not actually making the fullest possible effort to win but prioritizing tangential goals instead. Plus, it's just disrespectful. Not that I would necessarily refuse be so vindictive as to never again play with someone for such a minor instance as not using one particular item, but still. It's not the mindset in places I usually play and if I found out someone was avoiding using options on such basis in my own community, I would think less of him for it and say as much.

Originally posted by Nombrilist:

I agree with Cruxador that there's more keeping it out of play than a perception it's "not sporting". There's a very strong loss aversion tendency in most metas, and that's probably as much or more of a limit on its use than anything else. However, that can be self-defeating; while deploying BVCs offensively may deprive you of the fullest spoils of victory, 1/4th the income you'd get from conquering someone's capital is still far more than none and being knocked out of the game.

Some degree of loss aversion is psychological and not based in valid strategy, but I do want to point out that it's not always invalid. Obviously if it's do or die, then it's better to lose something than everything. But there are plenty of cases where it's not a risk of being eliminated, and then it's better to lose less, and hopefully have a better chance at winning the game than to win the war you're fighting now but be relegated to irrelevance. Of course, the flip side is that people may not be willing enough to sacrifice to claim the thrones they need. For the most part I don't really see that happen much, but then again I'll always notice when someone does take the daring throne rush and pull it off, whereas I wouldn't necessarily notice if someone takes too long gearing up for one and the situation changes to prevent it from happening.

[Marjanaama]

Much has already been said about the Bane Venom Charm here. BVC being cursed and nerfing it in other ways would be appreciated.

Nerfing it would also allow other leper units like Harvester of Sorrows actually see some use, as they are currently outclassed by BVC in every meaningful way expect stealth modifier and mage turns (lower cost, far lower research levels, diseases enemy commanders on pickup).

[Althaea]

Originally posted by Cruxador:

Maybe that accounts for some of it in your experience, but I don't typically play with people who do things like that. Outside of a roleplaying game, I would consider something like that to be pointless at best, and at worst you're playing in poor faith since you're not actually making the fullest possible effort to win but prioritizing tangential goals instead. Plus, it's just disrespectful. Not that I would necessarily refuse be so vindictive as to never again play with someone for such a minor instance as not using one particular item, but still. It's not the mindset in places I usually play and if I found out someone was avoiding using options on such basis in my own community, I would think less of him for it and say as much.

I consider it the exploitation of an oversight at best. I suspect the way that BVCs are used in the community is at all in accord with how they were expected to be used by the developers. They permit you to do a tremendous amount of damage for very little cost and effort with very few ways of being properly countered.

Do you also think ill of your opponents for not breaking down laboratories and fortresses to deny you their use? Because abusing Bane Venom Charms in their current state isn't much different from that. Just because you can and that it's technically beneficial doesn't mean you should.

I've seen more extreme strategies mentioned that what's being innocuously implied here. For instance, it is apparently a popular Asphodel strategy to give Bane Venom Charms on their plentiful Harpy Scouts and use them to render capitals utterly worthless. Sure, if they stay in one place they can be patrolled out, but there's the nasty thing - they can run off before they're caught. And what does a nation like Asphodel, or Therodos, or the Ashen Empire, or Lemuria or LA R'lyeh care about reducing the population of some hypothetical future conquest?

If the game's mechanics were tweaked so that this kind of abuse was not possible, so that a BVC-carrying scout could be caught before inflicting damage, or if BVCs were simply rendered notably more expensive and significantly weaker, I would have much less of a problem in terms of both using the tactic and having it used against me. As it is, it's just abusive and enables griefing strategies, and it is ridiculously more effective than similar options such as Blight or Rain of Toads.

[Nombrilist]

Originally posted by Cruxador:

But there are plenty of cases where it's not a risk of being eliminated, and then it's better to lose less, and hopefully have a better chance at winning the game than to win the war you're fighting now but be relegated to irrelevance.

Probably a more frequent scenario is honestly not do-or-die, but rather a roughly-evenly-matched war that drags out with back-and-forth losses and gains while other uninvolved nations either win wars or spend their resources researching, etc. and outpace the combatants. I've seen many times when not winning a war while also not losing it shunts nations off to irrelevance when they had been contenders.

Originally posted by algulod:

If the game's mechanics were tweaked so that this kind of abuse was not possible, so that a BVC-carrying scout could be caught before inflicting damage, or if BVCs were simply rendered notably more expensive and significantly weaker, I would have much less of a problem in terms of both using the tactic and having it used against me.

There is something to be said for pre-emptively patrolling important provinces and bottlenecks. There's also something to be said for Mindhunt. These are also points to raise in re: assassins, and just for poking a rival's skulking eyes out.

[Kajuken]

Give black servants a bvc automatically once summoned

[Klomster]

I agree with some.
The bane venom charm having reaper 10 is rather ridiculous.

The harvester of sorrows however has reaper 10%.
If that is a funky thing with the mod inspector, or that those are indeed different is hard to say.

I'd say the bvc should be reaper 5, or 1-5.
(One could also give the harvester a bane venom charm, being undead it cares little for disease. If one wants to be ultra cheesy.)

Regardless, there are way to many nations which home province is too valuable that getting a bane venom charm there for one turn would ruin their chance of winning.
Me and my friends haven't played around with the bane venom charm, and seeing how it is now it seems a bit overly potent.
Death 2, 10 gems. Res 4. Kills loads of pop. Combined with no good way to raise pop this one is borderline broken.
Since i get it if you toss a harvester of sorrow at something, that's a frikkin legendary monster comparable to a pretender god.
But the bane venom charm is described as something spies use to poison wells.
Hardly the same power level in terms of story here.

And res 4 construction is not a big effort.
conjur 7 however is. And the disparity is clear here.
At the moment the harvester is mostly useless.

I'd say the lowering of its potency is the way to go. Then if someone really wants to go for it, just build 10 bvc's and ruin someones day.
Right now it seems a bit like free pop-kill.

[Zonk]

If reaper is nerfed by making it work post-patrolling, then one way to prevent the Harvester being made (even more) useless could be to give it invisibility, so you would need spirit sight units to find it. Thoughts?

[Althaea]

Being invisible does seem fitting for the Harvester of Sorrows. And being that much harder and more expensive to access than Bane Venom Charms makes it less of a balance/griefing concern. Even if it were invisible, by the time it can be summoned most nations will have some sort of soft counter to it (even without changing the turn order).

[BoboYagga]

I am all for having the BVC continue to work to some degree, I think having a viable Machiavellian strategy that can wreck all of your enemies capitals is crazy interesting, and a very mischievous thing to do and I like that it is an option.
I mean how else do you think we keep getting more and more wastelands as the ages go on?

However as it is, I agree that it is too powerful for too little. It needs to be made more balanced, maybe more expensive. maybe less potent.

[Nombrilist]

Talking about how a BVC can be sneaked into an enemy capital for a turn with no prior warning misses a rather important point: even on a flying stealth unit, your border needs to be very close to your capital for that to happen (or the enemy has to be occupying a decent chunk of your former territory), as you'll get advance warning of BVC moves towards your capital the moment the bearer crosses your border. Admittedly, as the years have passed the map-making metagame has tended towards ever-more-interconnected maps that reduce chokepoints and distances between nations, so it's harder to have proper frontiers. But that's an issue dependant on metagame issues.

As far as nerfing it goes, I'd be reluctant to see it go below #leper 5, and I'd argue it's bordering on meaningless if you push it down under #leper 3. At the same time, reducing the #leper value makes a certain amount of sense, as even with centralized food/water supplies and population centers, there's only so much a single plaguebearer should be able to stealthily do to a population in the 1000s in a month, and requiring several such agents acting in concert to achieve the same result as a supernatural disease vortex like a Harvester or Poison Golem seems quite fair.