The method i'm propossing is more complicated,  but definately allows research improvments.

consider you can have a spell that boostes one aspect or another,   so extra rock. for example

the read mind euqation would be something like

pmind% = (read mind mana - read mind defence + spell and artifact bonuses - artifact and spell bonuses) / (spell and artifact bonuses - artifact and spell bonuses + spell strength)*100. 

For example.

and the spell working would  be the same, except that each round you would calculate how much each channler invested in each, then compare to find the actual mana used in calculations.


then you can add spell effects like  if you total exceeds 100%, by N%  volcano is 1.5 power,  if you succeed, but your probability was only 2%, then you get a volcano,  but it's small enough that the local forge can safely use it has a heat source rather then burning wood for 10 turns, making better swords.  for example, ontop of the mind reading effects.


Take care all

Robbie Price

Goodmorning,

Having a general dispell and a gerneral ward spell, is one solution,  but it leads to the 'i have to cast this spell on every city, and maintain them' micromanagment, 

also it doesn't give any fealing that the mages are battling, over the success or failour of the spell,  if the spell is stronger then the counter spell, it wins, else it looses. 

It would work,  but it seams a bit flat to me. 

I would rather a system where I start to cast a spell on you, or your people, or your land, (or all of the above), and some turns in you 'detect' that the spell is being cast, and start to actively resist my efforts.    Due to this strugle of minds one or the other of us can directly read, attack, see the mind of the other,  if they choose to focus on that, or if they truely outpower the other caster. 


I was looking for a system where both mind reading, and multi turn strugle could be broght into a minigame.  Preferably one that that required no Hand eye cordination and provided a some tactical hook.

The method i suggested, and perhaps not the best to achive these goals,  was to have two semi seperate elements of how to boost a spell.  

You can boost the strenth and probability that the spell will work directly,   adding more mana and spell ability to ROCK PAPER SCISSERS [arbitrary names, RED GREEN BLUE, whatever] or you can focus your extra mana on mind reading, hoping to see what the other wizard is using so you can choose the best to counter [or maybe some troop distributions, map layout, whatever, distrutions of spys in your empire...].  Every turn you can put some choose how much of the three ways of adding mana you want to use, and how much mana you want to dedicate to learning, and how much to defense.

Or do you do nothing and hope that your opponent will not be able to build up the counter spell fast enough before it's cast [in the event that you're spell got detected late, for example].

Having generic spell defences and generic counter spells doesn't do it for me.   For me to counter a spell you need to know it's being cast, you need to know what spell it is that is being cast, and then you have to overcome the caster.  three separate steps that i feel most games loose by just having a  'cast this and roll the RNG[or cast this, boost it for a higher probability before rolling the RNG]'.

The system i'm proposing is a little more complex. . .. but has SO much more that can be done with it. 

It's just my preferance ofcourse, but shrug.

Take care

I like the general idea of devoting resources in-combat to counter what the other magic user is doing; but also incorporating "personal defense" mechanics - A battle mage should able to shrug off some damage and even avoid it without actively devoting resources.  The main reason I like the "counter-spell" possibilities is that a Channeler with a stronger supporting army can neutralize the opposing channeler and allow the superior army to win where it probably would not if the other channeler was involved.

Settlement/Nation level "enchantment" spells can be farmed off to the AI with obvious trade-offs.

The UI implementation of combat counter-spelling should be fairly simple; you indicate you want to attempt to neutralize the enemy channeler (or other magic user) and you are either successful or not during the following combat sequence.  A slightly more complex methodology would be to require domain specific counter-spell knowledge available within the natural opposed school or, more expensively, have life/death counters for the other 4 domains that are more expensive but doesn't leave the channeler without ANY counter-options if they cannot get access to a shard of the appropriate kind.

Agreed we need more information on how combat and magic in general would work but combat "magic-neutralizing" would definately open up options for channelers that want to focus on farming out magic and making their nation as a whole stronger while sacrificing some power themselves.  While a "weaker" channeler using counter-magic would be unlikley to defeat the superior channeler one-on-one the supporting forces that the weaker mage invested in would be able to turn the tide of war.  Also, being weaker, total suppression should not be possible but a gradient of neutralization depending on relative power, specific counter-spell domains, the spell being cast (i.e., a vulnerability to counter stat for each spell).

Countering "world spells" would require defeating (or at least distracting) the enemy channeler and thus combat would be required - basically if you can damage the channeler while they are casting a world spell the spell fizzles (or worse).  Given the strength of such spells anyone with essence should be able to recognize that something big is about to happen, although not necessarily what specifically - they could be casting a mass-heal or a "restore ozone layer" spell that would benefit everyone...or summoning a horde of demons in your great hall...