You are apparently trying to further enhance the natural benefits of the various main gods. But this is not what is optimal for them, as relic bonuses are calculated on base values.

Take Hades and the Arrows of the Alfar as an example:

Hades: building attack +20%
Arrows of the Alfar: building attack +20%

So the relic improves Hades' building attack from 120% to 140%. That is a gain of 16.7%.

For any other god, it is a boost from 100% to 120%, meaning an effective gain of 20%.

This means that in fact, Hades is the god that benefits the least from this relic! The same goes for many other relics that improve the same trait as the main god.

Ra- 1. Tusks of the Iron Boar (iirc), 2. Mithril Horseshoes 3. pygmalions statue

This means that in fact, Hades is the god that benefits the least from this relic!

yeah, when you work it out in percentages, but in actuality Hades gets the same numerical value as everybody else, except the Hades player is already inclined to use defensive buildings to utilise his god's benefits, but now he's getting even more benefits. Whereas, according to your logic, a norse player will benefit more from a relic that increases archer attack, for example.

I think Khan's method is more suitable and relevant.

[This message has been edited by AdZyZ (edited 03-27-2008 @ 09:10 AM).]

Quoted from AdZyZ:

yeah, when you work it out in percentages, but in actuality Hades gets the same numerical value as everybody else

But the percentages are the relevant values. An extreme example for this, and one that I have mentioned in several threads before, is Artemis' shafts of plague. 15% better archer attack is nice and sounds very attractive. If you were Zeus and could get it in classical age it would be awesome, because on top of your Zeus hoplites, you would get archers that outclass Hades' archers! However, if you are Hades and already have all the other ups (copper+bronze+iron+medium+heavy+champion+Hades+Apollo's SunRay), then it increases your toxote firepower from 11.7 to 12.7, which is a measly 8.5% improvement. This does mean that because of this upgrade, the targets of your tox will die only 8.5% faster, and not 15% faster as the name of the upgrade suggests.

Quoted from AdZyZ:

except the Hades player is already inclined to use defensive buildings to utilise his god's benefits

That is basically a valid argument. However, no god can win by only making units or structures on which he has his bonuses. A Hades that makes 100% tox is as easy prey as a Zeus that makes nothing but hoplites. Diversity is important for any race (except perhaps Eggy). If I am Hades and have a relic bonus on buildings, then my innate building bonus is just being increased a little, but percentage-wise not as high as my natural bonus, although the numerical values of the natural bonus and the increase are the same. However, if I am Zeus and get that bonus, then I effectively have the natural bonuses of two Greek gods, which is an awesome thing. The relic will provide me with the full 20% attack bonus that Hades gets; nothing of it is lost! As far as that bonus is concerned, I can play like a Hades player and still enjoy all the benefits of Zeus. This is definitely to be preferred.

Another good example for this is the Forseti/Bragi/Tyr god path for Thor. You get awesome ulfsarks by going through this path, but still you will find yourself in a weak position, because your unit choice is predictable. By simply spamming infantry-counters your opponent can counter everything that you have your bonus upon. You are left with the choice either to make units that his army is tailored to counter, or give up most of the benefits of all three of your subgods.

Quoted from AdZyZ:

Whereas, according to your logic, a norse player will benefit more from a relic that increases archer attack, for example.

Nope. A player benefits from upgrades for units that are not yet upgraded by his main god, not from upgrades for units that he cannot get for obvious reasons. An Odin would benefit nicely from an upgrade to his TA to complement his usual jarls, for instance.

If the relic upgrade targets a unit that is already upgraded by your main god, then at least the targeted aspect of that unit should be a different one. This will lead to you enjoying the full percentage effect of the relic upgrade. For instance, if Hades got the Bow of Artemis (tox 15% cheaper), the Girdle of Hippolyta (tox 5% more life), or the Trios Bow (tox +2 range), then that would be of more use for him, as it would improve his toxotes without losing % efficiency due to his natural archer upgrade. In fact, the effect of these upgrades would multiply with his natural bonus, i.e. make his natural bonus even more effective, rather than mitigating it.

I'd say that gods would benefit more from relics that improve their weak areas than from relics that accentuate their strong areas. Like Zeus would be better off getting an archer relic than an infantry relic because then he would have better hoplites and better archers. This would allow him to have more of a variety of units without losing part of his bonus. Atty would benefit most from the vil speed relic, because their vils are very slow. Basically, the most beneficial relics are the ones that balance your civ, not the ones that make it unbalanced.

in my opinion i think that if you were making a rms like that it would be more appropriate to give them the relics that make their specialties even better. if you gave them relics that fix their weak areas they would'nt be unique and if the relics start in your los no matter what god you chose they would all be even. You might as well choose random if all the civs are gonna be even. thats the point of bonuses to make the civs better in certain areas, so if you cancel that out it'd be pretty boring.

*ignores pointless ramble*

I agree with Gaias. It would be more interesting if their specialties were even better, as the player would be torn between making a balanced army and taking advantage of their specialties.

in my opinion i think that if you were making a rms like that it would be more appropriate to give them the relics that make their specialties even better. if you gave them relics that fix their weak areas they would'nt be unique and if the relics start in your los no matter what god you chose they would all be even. You might as well choose random if all the civs are gonna be even. thats the point of bonuses to make the civs better in certain areas, so if you cancel that out it'd be pretty boring.

Making them even better in the areas they're already good at would give people major and arguably unfair advantages and disadvantages. For example, lets pit a Hades against a Possy in this scenario of yours. Possy gets uber cavalry that will totally own Hades' uber archers, so hades relics will be almost useless, because he has to go heavy on cav counters, for which he gets no bonus. This would give Possy an unfair advantage over Hades.

And anyway, they wouldn't all be the same. Each god would all offer different minor gods, which would all add to variety. The civ bonuses also go way beyond what the relics can do (unless there's a relic that allows Greek infantry to build buildings).

But you know what? I've changed my mind. The best relic for any god is not one that boosts their weak area; it is one that boosts their economy. Without a strong economy any military relic is 100% useless, as you won't have any military units for it to benefit, and economic relics help give you that strong economy.

Quoted from Valher II:

Making them even better in the areas they're already good at would give people major and arguably unfair advantages and disadvantages. For example, lets pit a Hades against a Possy in this scenario of yours. Possy gets uber cavalry that will totally own Hades' uber archers, so hades relics will be almost useless, because he has to go heavy on cav counters, for which he gets no bonus.

You are thinking in monoculture armies, which is not appropiate. In the situation outlined above, a smart Hades might go 1 military academy 2 archery ranges. He would still mainly make his uber-tox, but with a hoplite meat shield. Hippikons are only good against archers if they can reach them. Meanwhile, tox are so good that they were given a 0.9x penalty against RC, because otherwise they would beat them even easier. They do not get that penalty against hippikons. The hoplites need not be a match to the hipps number-wise. The uber-tox will do a nice job against the hipps when there are just enough hops to keep the hipps from reaching the majority of the tox.

But even if the Hades player went 100% hoplites. So what? The Possy would be exploiting his bonuses while the Hades does not, but all Hades units would be natural counters to all Possy units. Of course the strong sides of the gods may not be boosted to an extent that they beat even their counters. But as long as they don't do that, I am not seeing Possy at an advantage here. Bonus or not, Hades would be having the stronger army in this example. Possy could only resort to using his higher unit speed and attacking at places where the Hades inf army is not. But a mixed army is still better from Hades standpoint.

Quoted from Valher II:

The best relic for any god is not one that boosts their weak area; it is one that boosts their economy.

You are far too general on that. Both works. If you can afford training more units, but my units are better per man, then the game can end either way. It is also a matter of bonus extent. If you gather everything 10% faster, and all my units do double damage, then I should not have much of a problem beating you.

Quoted from Valher II:

Without a strong economy any military relic is 100% useless

Wrong. Without any economy whatsoever any military relic is 100% useless. But with a medium economy you can still make good use of it, even though your econ is not a "strong" one.

EDIT: I actually found something I could say. Please note that the rest of DaP's reply I cannot counter. All statistics are from xentelian's spreadsheet.

Which relic grants double attack for all units? There are two relics that double attack, and they only do so for naval myth units and some siege. The relic-granted attack boosts for human units are 5%, and are quite unit specific.

Even if you have the five best attack-enhancing relics, none of your human units or heroes will have anywhere near double attack. Your siege (excluding catapults and petrobolos) will have doubled crush attack, your naval MU will have doubled pierce and hack attack, and your mainline and counter infantry (except chariots and cheiros), archers, and ballistae will have +5% attack. Cheiros will have +10% attack.

Compare this to the benefit of having the five best (IMO) economic relics, Black Lotus, Harmonia's Necklace, Shard of the Blue Crystal, Kithara of Apollo, and Osberg Wagon: my gold, wood, and food (from farms) gather rates are up 15%, 5%, and 10% respectively. Now, if you were Atty, and I went 100% infantry, your cheiros' extra attack would overcome my extra resources, but if I go mainly cavalry and archers, my larger army would wipe your better per man army out. Or I could use my extra resources to get an armory improvement before you, and have higher attack than your relics grant you.

And, DaP, I think you missed the point of my post, which was that Hades would benefit more from and infantry relic than from an archer one.

[This message has been edited by Valher II (edited 04-02-2008 @ 08:11 PM).]

Quoted from Valher:

Which relic grants double attack for all units?

You missed my point. I never said that many relics grant double attack. My only point was that it is a matter of extent whether an economic or military bonus is better. To illustrate this I used the example of "+10% econ for you" vs "+100% attack for me", an example in which it is pretty obvious that my bonus is better.

However, I do believe that a 10% attack bonus can basically suffice to counter a 10% econ bonus. You can produce your stuff faster, but I also kill it faster, so you need to spend more money on your army than I do.

In real games, a 10% econ bonus will still be better because you can also use it to construct buildings. Also, there are less econ than attack bonuses, and since all such bonuses are computed on the base value, yet another attack bonus is less efficient than yet another econ bonus.

But again, bonus extent must be factored in. There is no such rule "econ bonuses are always better" or "military bonuses are always better".

In the long term, where economies are often extremely strong, I'd rather unit trait bonus's than economic bonus's.

DAP - I'd rather bonus's to make my current strong units stronger, rather than having a range of mediocre units.

Put it this way - You can either have extremely strong tox, or good units all round. The tox however, owns all the other units population wise, so although your other units may be inferior, the tox is all you need to base your armies on.

Only if your bonuses can make your tox so op that they actually outclass even their counters, so that you can indeed go 100% tox. But this is a hard task when facing units like huskarls, turmas, or peltasts. It sure would make Hades the ultimate op god, because a ranged unit in classical age that beats everything (other than buildings) pop-wise is the ultimate weapon.

Then again, if the opposing player gets similar bonuses on, say, his cavalry, so that it is similarly op, then it will again suffice to beat your tox as nicely as unmodified cav beats unmodified tox. In this situation, you would still need other units to protect your tox. But if you use standard hops against ultra-op cavs that beat your ultra-op tox and your stock hoplites alike, then you are screwed.

Then I rather have good (regular Hades) tox, which will do well against the unit classes against which they are supposed to be used, and improved hops in addition, which can protect my toxes from said op cavalry.

Note that you are not getting several "mediocre" units. You are getting several improved, i.e. very good units, rather than one ultra-op unit countering which your enemy can make a priority.

It really depends on what type of game Steak And Khan wants to make.

If he wants one where all the bonus's of gods are exaggerated, then he should go for his current system.
If he however wants one where all the gods start sharing similarities, effectively weakening their unique properties, then he should go with your way.