EitB 0011 Wishlist/Discussion

[Mardoc]

Honestly, you see Recon units a lot more often than you see archery units. Recon's a nice middle-ground - still get pretty good strength, but also they're fairly fast, and hard to debuff. And it gives you Hawks along the way.

Obviously you'll see Recon more from elves and Sidar, but it just makes sense that different civs prefer different unit types.

[Qgqqqqq]

Kay. Recon are used. Thanks, and sorry for the work.


Now I think it's time to start collating what I want to do for the chariot/HA changes:

• Chariots require Trade.
  
• Horse Archers gain bonus versus Recon. Currently I am unsure how large to make this - we could go as high as +40% or as low as +20%. Personally I'm inclined towards +40% because recon has no other counters and we might as well go high the first time round, but what do we all think is appropriate?

I think I have decided against nerfing chariots in another way. The only other idea I am considering would be to strip some or all of their retreat chance (25%) from them, but I don't think it's important. Certainly not enough to take them down to two moves.

[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.

Lairs are hard. And probably the biggest reason for that is the different attitudes people have to them. If they were stripped of the BigBad/BigGood hits altogether, that would reduce their game-changing abilities either way...but how much do we want to remove the randomness of lairs?

I just don't have an answer, I know thats not very constructive, but I've had to get it of my chest

1) I think Keelyn is a little too weak now.

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

I think even with SUM boosts, she's a long way from being a viable alternative to Perpy. That's why I think something small like ING would be worthwhile.

Fine, I guess we'll see the effects after some games. I don't think giving her something small would make her broken so it's OK.

4) Fawn nerf hurts all elves rather than Volanna specifically. Etc.

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

Given that Volanna's flavor is AGG, I intend to keep that first and foremost. I like AGG/CRE, and I disagree that it only applies to two cities or so. Not needing to spread FoL extensively or rely on it is an advantage (and if you get FoL with only two cities...wow). And IMO EXP is far more powerful then CRE, certainly for the early game.

Yeah I wrote that before I came to the flavor discussion, so I agree with keeping the flavor AGG and exchanging EXP with CRE. I think having 3-4 cities total (I didn't count the Capital before, since it gets free culture anyways) is usually when you hit FotL but moot point now.

Care to explain what you mean by getting free techs? If you mean Grimorie et al, then I don't think that's a reason to base costs around.

Yeah thats what I ment. the thing my "fear" is that if those techs get a significant prize reduction you can go through that part of the tech tree really fast all of a sudden, since now you don't have to use free techs via Grimor or tower, you can just tech them, and then use the free techs on even later techs, anyways I'm fine with giving them a price reduction after a lot of consideration. Maybe I'm just plain wrong but I'm gonna be the first trying to exploit this and scream "OP"

Honestly, I'd like to see you two debate it out on how much rangers are used, as it will have a big effect on whether I need to buff FB/rangers and how the HA/chariot changes pan out. Personally, I'm unsure.

Well after Bob put all this work into it I'm convinced, though I still think the use of recon units has dropped in the last 10 games or so. No problem with buffing recon though, if HA's do get an anti recon promo.

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.

The only other unit that I can find that can upgrade to them is an assassin, which I don't think is enough to require a level requirement for a unit that I don't think we have ever seen in a game here. I don't see why they should be harder to acquire then Beastmasters.

I need to test this, but I keep remembering upgrading warriors to Marksmen in SP, easy to test will do so soon.

Proposal: Governor's Manors
Etc.

I don't consider Decius a more powerful Calabim leader than Flauros, but I know I'm standing alone on this. Alexis however kinda sucks.
I think making GM's no longer be courthouses weakens Decius a lot, though I'd be fine with that.
I think losing the maintenance reduction on GM's weakens Calabim severely. How are you supposed to maintain an empire without courthouses.

Why would you ever go Flauros over Decius? I've seen that a lot recently, and never understood it.
Making them no longer courthouses and stripping the maintenance reduction means they can build courthouses as well as Governer Manors.

I thought the idea was to let them not build courthouses at all, misunderstood that.
Read my PBEM XXXVII thread after the game played out, I think Whosit and I will perform well. Oh yeah, you are playing in this, you might even get to feel the power of Flauros :P

Kuriotate Palace requiring two cities to build? (Courtesy of Gekko)

er why? aren't they strong enough?

It means they can build a palace at a realistic time. Sometimes they never go for a fourth city.

I think they don't need even that buff to be honest, they got a damn good win rate. And one of the drawbacks of super cities with super buildings is that you can't switch your palace as soon as other civs might, so what? Not that I feel strongly about it, I just don't think it's necessary to buff them further.

- The Luchuirp, now that their Mud Golems have had a price boost, need a bit of a buff. How about changing one of their (useless) Golem buildings to add commando? (Bob)

Don't like that, the problem with Luchuirp is that Golems suck. You are always better off building bronze warriors and moving on to chariots, always! if anything Golems need a buff, though the true strength of the Luchuirp is the worker replacement, it makes them the india of ffh. I think they were on my picklist the last 5 games, just not at the top cause they are boring, very strong, but boring.

I agree, golems need a big buff. Without the worker boost they're one of the worst civs in the game, and I'm trying to work out how to change that.

The worker boost is still in place right? They just cost a little more right? I think they are strong, but lack the flavor they were supposed to bring in, since golems suck, a straight up golem buff could rectify that. There has to be some kind of chariot HA golem replacement. Or maybe just change golems to be living units so they can get hasted and stuff -obviously it's a little hard to explain why Golems are living units, but from a purely game mechanical standpoint it would solve the problems golems have, namely they are too fucking slow. Also a slight cost reduction is in order.

I could definitely see archery getting a tech slash. I don't know how I'd rework it though.
Speaking of: does DEX need a rework? Would +2 attack strength even be unreasonable? Hmm, maybe it could grant free Mobility to archery units, a la ARC?

I think archery units are too weak. There could be just a little bit of tweaking to buff them significantly:
active: let archers be able to use bronze weapons, but then archery becomes even more senseless as an alternative to BW, which it should be right? Still it would buff them to a usable level
passive: make archery cheaper
Dex could be a flat +1 str. bonus that would be a slight buff, and you could make Fyrdwells archery units (the Ljosalfar HA replacement)

Agreed. What if agrarianism gave -20% hammers, or -20% military production or something?

Hmm... maybe it could lose the -1 hammer and get -20% hammers it would add a significant drawback, maybe even -10% hammers would be enough, the -% multipliers make more of a difference than +% multipliers

[Calavente]

on rangers : I agree, they don't seem to be used most ; only few of them if any (save sidar / svart): they could get a boost.
(personnaly I like the way Magister has done this, and expand it a bit : recon : 1move + light : scout 3str, hunter (4 or 5), ranger (7)).
the "2 move everywhere" is nice and fitting IMO, even at the cost of -30%str... with mobility 1 and 2... well..very nice attack force, without being OP due to the -20CA.

on HA : nice sum-up: slightly over chariot before iron, way worse than chariot after iron... and not even speaking of mithril.
they would need a boost. (7str instead of 6 ?, or +25%vs recon/melee)

on archers:
DEX getting +2str would not help archers. it would only help ljos.
we had a long discussion on cfc about archers.
iirc the main ideas (which were not mine... ) were : becoming "metal-free" and flat attack defense : 4str and 7str instead of 3/5 and 5/7+metal: -25%CA / 10-20% withdrawal / access to flanking I / small collateral / defensive promotion (double fortification bonus) / target melee first.
firearrows get +1str +50%CA.
--> it moves the archery units a little away from the "unexpungeable defense" toward : active defense + support for attack
--> you can't conquer a civ with archers only (unless Dex ljos), but you can raid easily, and more important... you have a chance to attack invaders'stacks instead of just waiting that they crash on you.

however balance has not been tested.

for golems:
I proposed once to give them "walk ennmy roads" for free in hte "golem" promotion... however it could be granted as free promotion at construction or engineering or something. It would not speed them much in your own territory... however if you send mud-golem parties toward an enemy nation, the conquest would be sped-up.
otherwise, Barnaxus getting mobility 1 could give mobility 1 to all golems.... (which would be balanced, or even too hard to attain, as you would need to get a few more xp on Barny;.. which is not easy.)

[Jojo_Fr]

Hello.

I posted new critics and suggestions in view to balance the MP. It is adressed to any modder who would like to do this so Terkhen, Qqqqqq, or whoever.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.p...tcount=562

[Qgqqqqq]

we had a long discussion on cfc about archers.
iirc the main ideas (which were not mine... ) were : becoming "metal-free" and flat attack defense : 4str and 7str instead of 3/5 and 5/7+metal: -25%CA / 10-20% withdrawal / access to flanking I / small collateral / defensive promotion (double fortification bonus) / target melee first.
firearrows get +1str +50%CA.
--> it moves the archery units a little away from the "unexpungeable defense" toward : active defense + support for attack
--> you can't conquer a civ with archers only (unless Dex ljos), but you can raid easily, and more important... you have a chance to attack invaders'stacks instead of just waiting that they crash on you.

however balance has not been tested.

I'm afraid I don't understand this. Are you talking Longbowmen or archers? Care to abbreviate a tad less? Why did you boost Firebows?
I do remember that discussion, though I didn't pay close attention. I will revisit Archery units more closely in a future version of the mod.

I dislike Magisters handling of light, and thought it an unnecessary buff (especially with 3str). I wouldn't be opposed to making scouts ignore movement costs, but it frankly isn't a necessary change and we don't want to create too many points of difference.


Yell0w, not quoting for length, but bullet points:

• Yes, warriors can upgrade to marksmen, because they can upgrade to archers and it just carries up from there.
  
• I look forward to seeing Flauros at work (and hope he doesn't!)
  
• Golems, I'm not willing to make them living yet. They are way too fucking slow, but that's their "thing" - slightly stronger units out of the gate, but no boost from there - so I'd rather keep that as is for now. And living means opening the door to a lot of boosts. I'm also not willing to add any units unilaterally. I'll get a proposition out on this.
  
• I won't fiddle around with agrarianism for v11, but I want to keep that on the books for the future.
  
• I don't want to give archers weapons, for the reasons you outlined. I think I will slash Archery's price from 300->250b base. They definitely need a change sometime, but not for v11.

Joey, I'm afraid I fundamentally disagee with you on some of the things posted there, and many of them don't pertain to the scope of this mod, and a lot of them occur because of double-move issues, which aren't within the scope of this mod and your suggestions would have other hits on how it works for the core audience of this mod. If you want specific feedback, feel free to ask here, but the bottom line is I won't be doing that in the near-term, as there are too many other issues more worthy of my time within the mod.

[Qgqqqqq]

Luchuirp

Premise:

The Luchuirp need buffing. Even with the crazy worker boost they had earlier they have never won a game with the golems themselves (Kyan relying on copper warriors over WG in 'XXII), and I can't remember seeing any extensive use of them in any game with the exception of XXXI...

...which is hardly their best hour. Anyway, I know I for one would have preferred to have axes/champs for the little battle they've seen *cough* speed *cough* and even their fireballing wasn't enough to chip them out.

Besides, by the time you're at sorcery S4 (no modifiers available) fireballs are a little pathetic, truth be told, and other collateral sources are readily available. Plus, they need an expensive building, and it only applies to units built after that, their reach is still pathetic and so on.

I don't however, think that the solution to this is too cut their worker costs down again, I think that lead to a odd gameplay and people weren't even using golems for the attack anyway. Instead, I think we need to aim at improving the golem army.

Golems atm are slow, expensive, and whilst initially stronger then their counterparts cannot take any promotions and generally fall behind as the buffs begin to stack up. This means that despite being their civs "thing" it is common to prefer their mundane equivalents. I believe that the golems should be a viable alternative at least but generally stronger then their living counterparts to make up for their lack of speed. I don't think the lack of speed should be inherently changed or, at most only alleviated (a haste or mobility alternative, but no more then 2 moves).

There's a lot of possibilities for how to go about this, with making commando inherant to golems to giving it through a building, making other Barnaxus promos apply and so on, but I think one change I want to make up front, regardless of the others is to slash golem prices.

Currently golems generally cost 150% of the cost of their replacement, and I would argue are never worth that much (a possible exception is Iron at S10 vs 8, but even then perhaps 120% would be more appropriate. And besides, IG require the expensive forges to build). For the Tier 4 units especially, their equivalents are generally awash with promotions whilst they can never advance further. I would propose that all golems be modified to cost the same as their mundane equivalents. Whilst they would then be undoubtedly more powerful, especially with Barny, I doubt they would be a stronger feature then that of any other civ, and would probably still need a buff.

Proposal:

• All golems have their price reduced to be 100% of the unit they replace.

Reactions?

[Qgqqqqq]

And for good measure, changelog update!

Changelog for v11:

EitBv11
REVERTED SUM beaker change
---Tested Point---
Building Change: Governors Manor stops being a courthouse, price change 180h->120h, loses maintenance reduction
Unit Change: Axeman lose Mithril Weapons (NOTE: Pyre Zombies/Chaos Marauders still use Mithril Weapons (Deliberate))
Tech Change: 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)
Tech Change: Divine Essence price decreased from 9600->9000
Tech Change: Feral Bond price reduced 1200->1000
Trait Change: Hannah the Irin: FIN/RAI -> FIN/RAI/INS (Insane)
Trait Change: Keelyn: CRE/SUM -> CRE/SUM/ING
Trait Change: Volanna: AGG/EXP -> AGG/CRE
Trait Change: Averax the Cambion: AGG/CRE/BAR -> AGG/EXP/BAR
Unit Change: Marksman now buildable (no level requirement)
Unit Change: Chariots require Trade (instead of Construction)
Unit Change: Horse Archers (and replacements) gained +40% vs Recon
Bug Fix: Chalid Astrakien can use the Crown of Brilliance Spell
Event Change: Event Sign 3 now gives 20-50 g, average 35, for “Use these signs as an excuse to raise taxes.”
Bug Fix: Turn Number is only displayed once, not twice (with one being incorrect).
Promotion Change: Favored now only offers 20freexp (from 30), as originally intended



The following changes have not been implemented because of difficulty/side-effects:
Feral Bond leads to Commune with Nature (tech tree looks wacky & I don’t want CwN to require it)
Under/Overcouncil requiring Philosophy AND Trade (not possible in the xml at least. Probably would require exorbitant amounts of work in the dll – creating new tags)

[HidingKneel]

I like most of these changes.

Dunno about giving Insane to Hannah. It's thematically appropriate, but it takes away from the uniqueness of Perpentach.

What about making Volanna Agg/Ing? A fantastic trait and a lousy one, but a lousy one that has a lot of synergy with her gameplan (cheap Satyr upgrades!) That sounds roughly balanced with the other Svartalfar (Agg/Cre still seems better than Rai/Arc or Org/Summ).

Alternatively, what about Agg/Summ/Ing for Averax? Makes good thematic sense for all Sheaim to be Summoners. Averax couldn't make great use of it but he could really use Ing to help with a Pyre Zombie rush. Those traits make more sense to me than Expansive. (Sounds a bit underpowered but imo all the Sheaim leaders are underpowered; rather than try to fix them individually by handing out economic traits or making Summ into an economic trait, I think it would be better to give boosts to the civ itself.)

[HidingKneel]

The Luchuirp need buffing.

Agree with most of this. Exceptions:

Besides, by the time you're at sorcery S4 (no modifiers available) fireballs are a little pathetic, truth be told.

Individual fireballs don't do much... but giving almost every unit in your army (and even your workers!) the ability to throw a fireball every turn in addition to attacking? That's pretty powerful even in the late game.

Proposal:

• All golems have their price reduced to be 100% of the unit they replace.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. In most situations golems are less useful than the units they replace (imo), so this seems like a step in the right direction.

I don't think the lack of speed should be inherently changed or, at most only alleviated (a haste or mobility alternative, but no more then 2 moves).

Agreed. I think letting golems pick up Mobility I from Barny would go a long way and fits with their existing theme/gameplay. But no faster than that; let the Luchuirp keep their weakness, but make it a little less crippling.