EitB 0011 Wishlist/Discussion

[GermanJoey]

Jesus christ.

[The Black Sword]

Q has already explained the hammer numbers for chopping. With regard to worker turns, on normal speed, it is 3 turns, the same as BTS. However on quick speed it's rounded down to 2t, unlike BTS. Hence my point that for the games we play(quick speed) chops are pretty similar return to BTS.

Also, I think you make it past outsider status around that 500 post mark.

There is something to be said for speeding the tech rate of the very early techs (though I wouldn't be inclined to cut them out of hand). I wonder if SevenSpirits dynamic tech rate might be appropriate in some form...

I think making an option for this like Seven has done would be good, to test out at least.

[GermanJoey]

Is 500 posts a lot? I guess people in general post very sparely here. I've only been here a few months... I'm used to forums where posting dozens of times a day isn't unusual.

I'll admit I didn't realize chopping was 13h/2T chops on quick speed in EITB; they are 13h/3T chops on normal speed so that sounds like a bug on normal speed there. In BTS, the yield is 13h/3T chops on quick and 20h/3T chops on normal (pre-math) and so I assumed EITB scaled the same way. 13h/2T chops sounds pretty strong, actually, so I rescind my comment regarding that.

At any rate, I guess I'll drop this, I feel like I'm arguing against a wall, and at any rate, it's y'alls mod. I only asked because FFH2 rebalance had been a fairly hot topic of discussion for a long time at another forum I posted at, at least before everyone just kinda got bored of it. If my argument is "the EITB early game is boring because everybody just spams farms" and the arguments against it are "that's not true" then I don't know how to respond, really. I'll leave it at this: I looked at the last 3 completed FFH2/EITB PBEMs (skipping XXXII, which looks to have been aborted early) and tried to find an empire screenshot as close as I could to T70ish. (roughly T100 in a normal-speed BTS game), which should correspond to about the start of the mid game. Out of 15 empires, only 3 have cottages in any significant fashion and only 1 was successful, while 11 are basically pure-farms and 1 just basically didn't build many improvements at all. I'm not going to try to count a total farm vs nonfarm tile improvement ratio here, but even from a quick glance I can see that the argument that the EITB early game isn't very farmy is ridiculous.

EITB PBEM XXIX - Ellimist (replaces farms w/ cottages around capital, farms elsewhere) and DaveV (replaces farms w/ cottages wherever he can), everyone else farms, HidingKneel wins with sprawling farm empire.

Ellimist T78



HidingKneel T76



Tholal T60ish? Who knows.



DaveV T73



Brian Shanahan T58

EITB PBEM XXX - all farmers with a few mines

y3ll0w T75



Mardoc T72



Molach T66 (one worker, not many improvements =/)



suttree T71

EITB PBEM XXXIII - TBS farms like crazy and then replaces some with cottages, everyone else is all farms, TBS wins with huge empire.

TBS T66



Bobchillingsworth T73



superjim T142



DaveV T72

[Jojo_Fr]

Hello Qqqqqq,

Thank you very much for your work.

- I would like to play much more balanced games and for that I got some propositions. I know some could be difficult to code, or a codder could just be not interested by working in this direction. But I writte these propositions here clearly because I guess they could largely improve the popularity and the pleasure of FFH2 in multiplayer.

- I played some multiplayer games on ladder level of Beyond the Sword, and some multiplayer games with Fall From Heaven 2 into all his mods (Master of Mana, Erebus on the Balance and ExtraModmod).

- Here are the critics and propositions. They are valid for Erebus in the Balance or FFH2 Extra Modmod, cause they are not so much differents : Link.


I would like modestely please you say here what you think about these critics and propositions. And please pardon my harsh style, wich is mainly due to my bad usage of the english.

[Qgqqqqq]

Just posting to say I have seen your comments and will reply when I can (probably next week).

[Jojo_Fr]

Thank you.

[Yell0w]

I think if you want to balance lairs, the best way to start would be to delay some of the game-changing lair-exploring events

Yeah... I don't see the units as a problem. The problem I see is that some players are like: well I'll pop that as soon as I can, and if I get a big bad, meh, I'll lose the game but I haven't invested much so far, so who cares? And if I get a big good result I'll have a huge advantage.

While other players don't want to spend weeks sandboxing their start and then lose to a big bad or lose due to someone else getting a big good.
Getting the dwarf vs lizzard event for example can win you a game easily.

[Yell0w]

1) I think Keelyn is a little too weak now. Her whole shtick was the synergy between puppets and Summoner. Rather than remove that completely, I'd suggest making it so that the puppets themselves don't benefit from the Summoner trait. So a Keelyn arcane unit can have two puppets going at once, but units summoned by the puppets only last one turn... she still effectively gets twice as many summoned combat units (rather than 4x), but can get other utility out of long-lasting puppets (doubling of other spells, extra range, etcetera).

I think she's just fine now to be honest.

3) I like the idea of Overcouncil/Undercouncil being available to Agnostic civs, but I don't like putting them at Trade. Why not bring back Way of the Wise and Way of the Wicked from base FFH? If I understand correctly, those were removed because they weren't particularly interesting techs by themselves. Put them back in the tech tree with Overcouncil at Way of the Wise and Undercouncil at Way of the Wicked (maybe requiring Trade as well for the civics; makes sense that these civics should require both Trade and Philosophy), along with the goodies that used to be there.

I rarely see anyone going for over or undercouncil anways, why make it even harder to get there?

4) Fawn nerf hurts all elves rather than Volanna specifically. I don't object to the change (fawns are really good units) but I think the synergy between Aggressive and Sinister is really strong. If you're going to keep that, I'd suggest the following:
Remove Rivanna (who I don't understand anyway), change Volanna to Aggressive/Summoner (parallel to Faeryl's Raiders/Arcane).

It does hurt all elves, but the unit was simply too strong, it doesn't fix the Volanna problem though. I'd hate to change her traits, since the combination is so nice to play, but I don't see another way either, though I'd rather remove AGG than EXP

5) Why does EitB remove the free trade route at Currency?

I think currency is strong enough, a free trade route would make it more desirable for civs which usually don't go for currency, though it would make it too strong for civs who'd like to get it early. Currency also can be popped, so I'd advice against bringing the trade route back.

6) Druids seem underpowered for non-Dwarven civs now. Which maybe brings Commune with Nature in balance with other prereqs for Divine Essence (Righteousness, Malevolent Designs, Theology), none of which seems like a particularly good deal. I'd suggest a big price cut for all of these techs (bringing them in line with Arcane Lore).

I get your point, I rarely research those techs, on the other hand, you can get quite some free techs following those paths, so I think it's fine as it is, with the exception of Commune with Nature, which should get a slight cost reduction.

[Yell0w]

Even with requiring Trade, you're still going to pretty much always rather chariots than horse archers - they're cheaper, Trade gives other bonuses, and the defensive strength doesn't much matter. If you're getting attacked in this era, the attacker ought to have collateral and your stack's gonna die anyway.

all true, still requiring trade makes them come into the game later, which I think is what you want, it's not enough of a nerve though.

How about changing the units so that they fill different niches? I can think of a few possibilities:

• Different mobility. Cut chariots down to 2 move base, or give HA a boost (I thought there was a promo that decreased movement costs by one but I can't find it - makes sense that a HA could go through a forest or hill better than a chariot though). Or give chariots 5 moves and Heavy.
  
• Different vision. Give HA Sentry
  
• Purpose. Give HA defensive bonuses
  

I like the idea of cutting Chariots down to two moves. I think giving HA a buff is faulty, you really don't want to have horselord or sprint HA's who can move more than 10 tiles on roads, it just won't be any fun. it's hard enough defending against them as it is. HA's are viable for Kurio mostly at the moment. Combining a move reduction with trade requirement and you got the nerve you want, I think.
I don't like the other suggestions though. HA sentries is just too good. and HA defensive boni makes them shit units for Kurio, since they'd get defensive boni anyways. (and good elves too right? not sure on that one though)

[Yell0w]

The issue is broader then that, I think. With chariots requiring trade again, I like the balance with copper weapons - chariots require less tech investment, but workshops are more expensive, and they have worse defensive strength and a slew of little effects (withdraw chance, immunity to first strikes, an extra first strike and so on) which bias towards the more expensive/dedicated line of Horse Archers.
The issue arises post-iron weapons, in my opinion, where chariots are boosted to 7/5 and become superior to the more expensively invested, best mounted Tier 3 unit - and in this mod iron weapons are quite easy to come by, with our small games making getting the mines or Mercurians easier, and the Mercurians line improved also as well as the Smelting->IW path being considerably boosted also. In comparison, Stirrups->Warhorses is a very uninteresting line, and gives T3 units that aren't even the best mounted out there.

Thus, I think we want to nerf chariots a little so that they fulfill a slightly different role. I'm thinking take them down to 2 moves but perhaps adding a first strike. The 5-move plus heavy idea is intriguing, but I worry it would make them far too powerful on roads/for defence. As well as this, I will almost certainly remove the ability to use mithril weapons, to help champions out a little. (Incidentally, for some reason axes can use mithril weapons. I thought this was changed and will be removing it, unless anyone has any arguments for it?)

axe nerve is good.
I don't think chariots should have mithril weapons removed from them, they are shitty for defending anyways, and if they are two movers they'll be a worse choice than champions if they can't have mithril.

Possible. Trade certainly has a lot - possibly too much - going for it at the moment, and the religious line is very strong. Don't look forward for having to figure out how to arrange the tech tree, though - maybe just make them require Philosophy as well?

as stated before, I don't see either over- or undercouncil used a lot anyways, so why make it weaker?

There are going to need to be some serious changes here, for sure.
I think, for a start, I'm going to make Feral Bond an alternative prerequisite (as a prereq on its own, not with priesthood). I understand that Sareln wanted to reduce the cross-pollination of the tech tree that was rife in the base game, but a) Feral Bond is weak currently, as is a lot of that end of the tree, b) it fits very well and c) it offers a route without going down the spiritual end of the tree, which is currently quite strong and doesn't need the boost. I think I will also reduce Feral Bond's cost to 1000b (same as stirrups) and reduce rangers cost to 120h (from 150h). Phew, little sidetracked here. Anyway, any disagreements?

No disagreements, though I'd need to test this.

So I agree that Commune with Nature, Righteousness, Malevolent Designs, Theology and Rage all could do with a price cut (sidebar: maybe Paladins go to Righteousness and Eidilons to Rage?). How about 65% of their current price? (CwN/Rage:6800->4420 Theo:7600->4940 MD/Right:7400->4810). Divine Essence could maybe also do with a bit of a cut, to be more in line with SoW. (maybe 9600->9000 SoW is 8800) What do people think about these changes? I'm a little wary of strengthening this area any more then it has already been done so, and also about being too liberal with tech prices.

I think those prices are fine as is, most of those techs can be bulbed. Commune of Nature needs a price reduction.

Also, quickly: Why do Marksmen require level 6 to upgrade to them? They aren't that good and given only longbows can upgrade to them, it seems excessive. Unless I get a good reason I'll make them buildable with Precision and Archery Range as prereqs.

As far as I know almost all units with lvl 6 can upgrade to Marksmen, and by the time you reach this tech you'll have a couple of them.

TLDR: I am considering the following changes:

These are more definite:

• Chariots lose mithril weaponry.
  
• Axes lose mithril weaponry.
  
• Chariots require Trade.
  
• Chariots have two moves (down from three)
  
• Twincast doesn't affect puppets (only one puppet is produced)
  
• Feral Bond leads to Divine Essence.
  
• Feral Bond cost changed 1200->1000b.
  
• Ranger cost changed 150->120h.
  
• Rage, Righteousness, Commune with Nature, Theology and Malevolent Designs have their price reduced to 65% of current. (CwN/Rage:6800->4420 Theo:7600->4940 MD/Right:7400->4810)
  
• Marksmen buildable, require Archery Range and Precision. No longer require a level requirement to upgrade.

I said it before but don't make chariots lose mithril weapons.
Feral Bond shouldn't lead to divine essence. I think Animal mastery could lead to Commune with nature. Meaning if you discovered Animal mastery you can research Commune with Nature without having Priesthood, Hidden Paths, Arete or Fanaticism
I disagree with the tech prize cuts.
I disagree with the marksmen change.

And these are worth considering but not firmed up yet:

• Potentially bring back Way of the Wise/Wicked, restoring previous benefits and adding the appropriate councils. Loses points for simplicity/work. Maybe make the Councils require Philosophy and Trade instead?
  
• Something something Volanna/Rivanna changes. Potentially Volanna -> IND/AGG, Rivanna axed. Bring up illusionist change at some point for consideration.
  
• Move Paladins and Eidilons from Fanatacism. Paladins go to Righteousness and Eidilons to Rage?
  
• Divine Essence price decreased from 9600->9000, to bring in line with SoW.
  
• Free TR at Currency restored?

I could live with councils requiring philosophy, though a 3rd time, I don't see them getting used a lot anyways.
don't axe Rivanna.
I think palas and eidlons are fine where they are.
Divine essence price reduction is fine.
No free TR at currency, it's a win more mechanic.