Balance

I've only just come across this game and the concept sounds mighty interesting.

For some reason it reminds me of an old SSI game called 'Sword of Aragon' In that, as I recall, the main thrust was around building an army, with a good choice of weapon and armour types, which you could train up ready for battle. The units, which you could name yourself, gained experience with battle and lost some of it when diluted with additional new troops. Magic played a part but not, I think, a big part.

And that is my point here. Getting a good balance between magic and the mundane. If everyone is hurling 500 point fireball spells around, the effect eventually becomes stale and repetitious. Magic needs to relatively sparse so that, when it is used, it has a dramatic impact. A side not using much or any magic should be able to secure a 'victory' just as equally as a side using a lot of magic.

MoM was a good game but, from my memory of it, the magic was a bit overplayed (but to be fair it was called master of MAGIC).

And it would be good to be able to name your units as you see fit so as to better identify with them and care what happens to them in battles.

2,610 views 2 replies
Reply #1 Top

Magic was actually pretty nerfed in MoM depending on what setting you used.  It took a lot of research to get an attack spell worth a damn at normal and weak.

Reply #2 Top

Quoting psychoak, reply 1
Magic was actually pretty nerfed in MoM depending on what setting you used.  It took a lot of research to get an attack spell worth a damn at normal and weak.

Its true.  I always played on powerful, in which case magic was a very big factor.

I always felt like the AI cheated on weak.  Like it took me so long to get any good spells but the AI was just firing them off like nobody's business.  I feel like it didn't scare the way my magic did.  But maybe thats just because the AI seemed to use a more random selection of spells.