Game mechanics

[Catwalk]

I do think the book system works quite well, and the starting spells is the same as the original game. While I'd prefer a special bonus that starts after 8 books of any realm (+2 power for 9th book, +3 power for 10th, +4 power for 11th, 12th) to lessen frequency of retort-heavy wizards

I was also against getting that many commons in 1.31. Right now I'm playing around with a combo on Impossible difficulty that absolutely blows everything out of the water from turn 1. I don't even have to research a single spell, my toolbox is complete from the get go. I always loved the development phase of MoM, but even in 1.31 you had far too much of your toolbox ready right away with strong combos. So far, it looks like CoM increases this trend.

I like terrain exactly as it is, and the production bonus of mountains is very strong thanks to the 'sawmill' multiplier mechanic. You'd have to play a few games to really notice

I agree that the sawmill does effectively serve as a multiplier effect, that is indeed a practical way to remedy this problem with simple means. That said, don't you find it boring that forests and hills are identical?

I like the buying incentive the way the mod has it, it takes away some incentive from changing gold to mana, especially for non-alchemists

What do you mean by buying incentive? Should players be encouraged to buy stuff? Buying was already ridiculously powerful in 1.31, more so now (also in my test game). This means that it doesn't matter where your production is located, everything is central and you can spam resources anywhere.

Artificer is slightly below average unless strategically used by a good gamer with a good plan. It probably should stay the way it is. Guardian is not boring given the much more aggressive dynamic of 'Caster' mod.

Why should it stay as it is if it below average? What is the good plan a good gamer would use strategically? And what does strategically mean, isn't everything strategy?

The spellbook reductions are huge. This game sees things cast far far more often than other variants - there is no need to increase it.

But I can get specialist instead, equating 7 books worth of reductions. Or Conjurer, or Archmage, or whatever else. I'll have to test more, but it seems like a very weak option to go above 4 books at any point. You're better off picking up another colour or another retort. Feel free to show me a combo where more books is warranted.

Spells have been hugely rebalanced. It is reasonably possible to make strategies out of anything you get - and since you can't just pick, you are forced into an adaptable strategy based on what you do get. You do not want to give use the choice of what spells will show in your soellbook. Ensuring you get the spells you really want IS why you choose more spellbooks, and it is huge.

This is exactly how the mod currently works, though. With just 4 books, you get to pick anything. Do you disagree with that?

Max population currently is the only thing that matters (see ongoing outpost discussion in the main thread). Buy after that production is far more important than food. No need to alter food vs production bonuses.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Max pop is more important than production which is more important than food? As far as terrain goes, max pop and food are the same thing.

Wizard random generation is done BEFORE portrait choice. Then the game chooses the portrait closest to what was chosen. You can get strange combinations but its very rare. Seravy did a spectacular job with this.

Excellent, very good way to settle that.

There's been tons of discussions on artificer. I recommend looking them up before going further. You may still have valid arguments but its not a build I ever cared about.

Do you know where I should look? And surely all builds should be supported, regardless of personal preference.

I think Guardian is silly too, but Seravy really likes it. Its a VERY good pick for AI, so it really does have its place.

I don't like having an AI option, picks should ideally be balanced so they work both for the player and the AI. Maybe change it so you get the bonuses whenever you're attacked, not just when your cities are attacked?

[Seravy]

- Good that cost reductions are lowered, but I feel they're too low now. I suggest upping the cost reduction to x3 and the research bonus to x10. These bonuses are now all you get from going past 4 books, so they should matter. As is, I think the balance is too heavily against specialization.

I don't think so. Books give you spells of high rarities. Most realms have several important one-of-a-kind rare or very rare spells. So each missing book weakens the wizard significantly.

- I really like what you've done with spell availability, thumbs up. Personally I'd remove the 1 random higher level spell, as I'm not a fan of chance. EDIT: I may have spoken too soon, is the higher level spell random or can you choose it? If so, thumbs up on that too.

It's random for now. I did think about bringing back "guaranteed spells" in some way but I couldn't make a decision about it yet. On one side, it makes strategies built on specific spells more viable...but on the other side it reduces replayability because you can always be sure you have that one specific favorite spell all the time. And while I'm also not a fan of chance, random spells, especially the one in the tier you cannot trade for, make games a lot more diverse and gives you a reason to play the same wizard again.
The other problem with guaranteed spells, it makes picking a larger amount of books weaker. If you can be sure of having the important spells, there is no need to get more books.

- I like 1.5 power per book from the fortress, but how about going up to 2?

This can actually allow you to use all your starting skill immediately which is nice. The only downside I see, stacking 6 retorts becomes even stronger than before, the greatest balancing factor against that is the low starting power income (and skill). Oh, and there is the power level of common summons compared to starting units, I'm not sure letting the player (or the AI) get even more of them is good, basic units (swordsmen and the like) are already pretty marginal because the casting capacity at start exceeds the production capacity greatly.

- Have I understood it correctly that you get no starting spells anymore?

You still get the commons, but not uncommons and rares. It's 1 common/book starting at 2 books.
Your suggestion (start commons at 4 books) is actually better on the human player side, unfortunately it would destroy the AI - it relies on the starting spells heavily to have a good early game (common summons, water walk type spells for settlers etc)

Terrain

I feel the production (and population) capacity of cities is already very high. Forests and Hills are intentionally weaker - they are the primary targets for Change Terrain - deserts and swamps are not that common on normal land type (they are on Dry or Wet though).

I know I'll cringe when I see Ariel as a Death/Chaos Warlord.

That cannot happen. The wizards generate their books and retorts first, and THEN pick the best matching portrait. In the above example they pick Sharee first, and if it's taken, pick someone else with chaos or death books - if one with warlord exists, that.

Economy

While I also feel buying might be a bit too effective, I couldn't come up with anything better. I don't like variable costs because of the change production problems (which cannot be disabled easily, if at all) and because if I had to wait a few turns before buying, I would forget doing so when I finally can. It's hard enough to keep in mind all the stuff I want to do already - I often forget buying something even as is. There is a lot going on in the game at the same time, and it's quite hard for the human player to not miss any of it. Also, this allows the player to find a good use for their gold, which wasn't the case in the old system.

but Artificer feels too weak without it.

I was considering to move the "25% cheaper arcane spells" part of Runemaster to Artificier (in addition to items being 50% cheaper). It doesn't make much sense that you get a discount on dispels in the same retort that makes them also more powerful. The only problem with it is, cheaper Spell of Mastery feels wrong for an Artificier - cheaper summon hero and dispels and even move fortress feels like a good match though.
It's also questionable if Runemaster is still worth the 2 picks without the Arcane discount but it's definitely worth more than 1 pick. If we did this, it might be a good idea to increase the dispel resistance part of the retort to make up for it. Or, split up the effects so that non-Spell of Mastery arcane spells belong to Artificier but SoM stays with Runemaster somehow.

I really like making fortress combat more difficult, but it feels out of place that any wizard can cast lightning bolts.

I was considering to have different effects for each realm, but ultimately, direct damage is the only thing that can provide an effective protection against early enemy attacks and prevent tactics like using 1 sprite that attacks each turn and waits until time out.

That said, don't you find it boring that forests and hills are identical?

Forests enable Forester's and Animist's Guilds, and benefit from Gaia's Blessings. Hills don't.

I've used Guardian a few times and it's a pretty powerful retort. It makes your cities near invincible. It works even better if you know some city defense spells (cloud of shadow, heavenly light, flying fortress etc)

[Catwalk]

I'll have to comment more later, still working on perfecting my FMS (Focused Magic + Sprites) strategy. I'll also limit my responses to one or two topics at a time, it's difficult to discuss many different things at once.

How do you feel about my objection that you can spam production anywhere and the individual production of a particular city doesn't matter much? You can easily make any city a resource powerhouse no matter how crappy its production is. It's too bad that the exploits preventing variable costs can't be stopped, I'll try to think of a different way to solve that.

[Seravy]

How do you feel about my objection that you can spam production anywhere and the individual production of a particular city doesn't matter much? You can easily make any city a resource powerhouse no matter how crappy its production is. It's too bad that the exploits preventing variable costs can't be stopped, I'll try to think of a different way to solve that.

As long as the city is one you built, I don't mind much. Gold is meant to be spent on building up cities and the further away it is from your center, the more risky it is to invest into it. On the other hand, targeted, smart use of gold is one of the main things in the game that the human player does better than the AI, so any increases to the cost of it would make the game considerably harder - whether we want that or not, is a question.
What I do mind is the ability to conquer an enemy city then buy the best available unit there, which allows the doomstack to keep going. But the gold earned from the conquest pretty much guarantees you can do that, even if it's more expensive.

[Seravy]

I'll have to comment more later, still working on perfecting my FMS (Focused Magic + Sprites) strategy.

That's exactly one of the reasons why the fortress lightning has to be direct damage.
However, I think it might be possible to change the displayed animation and sound while keeping the damage type the same. Heroic Shout's animation, and calling it a "sonic" attack might make it feel less like Chaos?

[Catwalk]

How would you feel about a balance where the city's own production is the primary means of development, and gold can be used to boost that development whenever / wherever it's important?

Also, would it be possible to distinguish between gold rush cost for building and units? For example, units could cost 50% more to rush per hammer needed.

[Catwalk]

FMS isn't all that strong for taking enemy capitals btw. It's strong for taking out a bunch of lairs and nodes with minimal casualties, building a huge resource base much fatter than otherwise possible.

[Seravy]

FMS isn't all that strong for taking enemy capitals btw.

Without fortress lightning, it would be - at least against capitals without ranged units, especially if the wizard doesn't have Chaos or Nature (Fire Bolt and Fairy Dust are effective against sprites. Other common spells are ok but not that good), or has no mana for combat spells - it can easily happen in the first 30-40 turns if they have Archmage or Astrologer and spend it all on overland summoning.

How would you feel about a balance where the city's own production is the primary means of development,

It would be better but then we are back to where gold is worthless. What makes gold work as a currency now is that you can instantly and without limitations, get what you need for it. A system like MoO where you can allocate gold to increase production over time is more balanced but...reduces the relevance of money a lot. As far as I remember I didn't have much use for it in MoO - was over 15 years ago though so I might be wrong.
It's a fact that gold is the most abundant resource in MoM, and other than alchemy (not really intended to be used frequently) and maintenance (amount spent on that is limited by how much you can produce), there isn't much way to spend hundreds of gold per turn except on production.

(also such a change would reduce the relevance of mithril and adamantium a lot- as well as increase it on the starting city-, and I'm not sure I like that.)

Also, would it be possible to distinguish between gold rush cost for building and units?

Most likely yes and that would be a pretty good solution to the rush buying units problem. It makes sense too, trained soldiers aren't as easy to buy for money as buildings.
Question is the effect on AI - and how the "buying decision" procedure needs to be updated. As is the AI buys anything if gold>X*remaining cost, where X is a high number, except on a few selected, critical buildings. This favors spending gold on stuff that's either cheaper or has fewer production remaining. If units are more expensive, rushing buildings only might be better, but then they lose their ability to use the gold in the late game. Overall this change might hurt the AI a lot because it has much more gold than the player, and they build up buildings faster. In the endgame they have a bunch of maxed cities and zillions of gold income per turn to spend on units.

[Nelphine]

As a note, I use alchemy almost continually - at least every 3 turns - from about 1403 onwards. I always have huge gold income and just sit my mana production to 0.

Also, I don't think it would hurt AI much to have unit buying cost increased. AI tend to be swimming in gold, and units are cheap compared to buildings. Even if you triple the cist to buy a unit early, the AI easily has the gold to cover it. Will they do it as often? No. But I don't think that will matter given how many units they have anyway, and especially given their city troops are never the main concern.

[Catwalk]

Alright, I'm hopping out of this topic for now and will revisit it later when I have more testing experience.