A very small number of new unit slots open up, yet high men get two of those slots? IMO high men are already pretty decent, maybe a less popular race like gnoll needs a knight or something instead?
|
Caster of Magic Release thread : latest version 6.06!
|
|
Gnolls have wolf riders, that's better than a knight.
They don't have that many units, but fast, high offense melee doesn't come in that large variety. Halberdiers, Wolf Riders and Jackal Riders cover it fairly well. (4, 6 and 8 figures, 3,4 and 5 moves) As gnolls are intended to have no ranged units, there isn't much room for adding anything for them. I guess a 1-2 figure melee unit is a possibility but I think low figures fit the image of the race poorly. I'm having doubts about lowering the cost of Paladins though, 210 might be too low...maybe I'll undo that. 
So, some early feedback.
I'm not too fond of the starting settlers, and not just "'cause I hate change and everything's fine." I find expanding in the early game to be a very crucial part in the (any) game, and this takes that crucial choice out of the player's hands, even before the usual scouting for a proper location has been done. The logic behind the change also makes me think it's only done for Life's (and to a lesser extent, Chaos') benefit, as those are the only realms where a choice between producing settlers and early units has to be made. Other realms can easily be carried by their summons. If that's indeed a problem (I can very well imagine it is), I think it should be approached from a different angle, as free settlers don't even solve it. One free settler would be weird, but two is just nuts, and it's too early in the game to already have three cities. You can barely even afford the required Sawmill, let alone two, and waiting for those isn't an option (maybe the cost should be lowered so actually building one becomes viable in new cities, not take 30-100 turns?). More unit choices is of course always a good thing, and I like the units themselves, but these feel almost unnecessary. I'm still in year 1 and can already choose between Spearmen, Swordsmen, Bowmen, Crusaders, Cavalry, Knights and Pikemen. Yet the more practical choice (for realms other than Life) would be to just keep summoning Naga's (or whatever) instead, while teching up to Paladins and Magicians. Compared to other races, I find High Men to already have quite a variety of units, so these extra's would probably be better suited for those races lacking choice, and/or to be made end-game units where they'll see more use.
December 3rd, 2017, 16:52
(This post was last modified: December 3rd, 2017, 16:53 by Seravy.)
Well, the only real alternative I see to the free starting settlers is...a drastic reduction of settler production cost.
It's unrealistic to expect players to be able to produce 150 cost settlers while still getting a choice of building at least some units or buildings in the early game. However settlers are only useful early - if you build them, say, 25 turns later, that both means the development of all those cities will be 25 turns behind and that most good spots will be already taken by others. Problem is, if you do build the 2 settlers, then you are getting nothing else done until turn 20-25. Which means all games have the exact same first 25 turns as far as city production goes. Which is boring and sad. Basically we can have one of these : -Free starting settlers. No major drawbacks here except that the player is getting things for free instead of earning them. Which is not ideal but acceptable. You are already getting a lot of free stuff anyway : A smithy, a sawmill, 4 population, and a swordsmen. And some gold. And some casting skill. And some power income. And spells. -More starting resources (gold, population, production, etc). Players can pick between building settlers and units, or more settlers, or more units than otherwise. Major problem : if player picks "more units" it unbalances the early game and has the exact opposite result as intended (weaker slow strategies, stronger early strategies). -Cheaper settlers. This has the downside that people can overextend for almost free - if 2 settlers are cheap, so are 20. -The old system. Players don't have a choice. They have to build settlers and no units/buildings when playing slower races, and aren't allowed to build settlers if they do an "early attack" strategy. Success heavily depends on early lair treasure (presence of gold or the ability to convert into gold) which is entirely luck based. I can't say I like the free starting settlers, but i dislike the other options a lot more. Also, it's not for Life and Chaos - it's because having to go "all-in" on summoning every game is also boring. You could be spending on research, skill, or other spells but you don't because " I must summon 20 bears to not get wiped out by turn 40". (or sprites. or ghouls. etc)
But going all-in on summons is still what makes the most sense in early game. Other than a few one-time only spells, what else is there that helps in taking nodes, lairs and neutral towns?
I don't believe the non-choice here is in city units vs settlers, but in city units vs everything else (commons, buildings, tech, settlers). And as long as common summons stay cheap and equal or better than early normal units, there's never going to be a choice. In my current game I now have 3 cities making buildings while I'm chain-casting Naga's. I'd love to actually train and try out these new units, but it's just much better to keep developing them while letting Naga's do the fighting, with the aim of increasing later research (etc.) X-fold thanks to those developed cities. So, nothing changed, except for drastically speeding up the early game and taking an important choice away. I can see why the current situation is a bit undesirable, but I think the making of (granted, expensive) settlers only plays a tiny part in a problem that's much bigger.
December 3rd, 2017, 18:04
(This post was last modified: December 3rd, 2017, 18:09 by Seravy.)
Unit buffs definitely become an option - those require a unit to be present to use albeit only Chaos and Life is limited to put them on nonsummons only. Still, having the choice of flame blade longbowmen instead of nagas is a valuable feature assuming you have both realms. (or in some cases, your buff simply isn't helping whatever summon you have, for example cloak of fear on ghouls instead of a melee unit...)
Raising skill is probably not going to be a frequent choice but it also becomes slightly more viable - quite a few common spells cost 20-25 MP or that much skill allows using them twice instead of once. Research however, to have spells for trade and improve diplomacy, or get a (non-summon) uncommon early will both be much more playable choices. Early research is valuable - the AI doesn't do much of it, so it opens up a lot of trading chances that quickly disappear later. Obviously, summoned creatures are still better than swordsmen, but going for whichever better early unit your race has (halberdiers, knights, cavalry, bowmen, etc) to hold the fort while you're advancing your research/casting skill strategy should be working. A Halberdier should be roughly equal to a bear, maybe worse than a naga but against nagas, bowmen and spells work reasonably well. (I suspects nagas are on the overpowered side as is, anyway. We have a "how to nerf nagas" thread open...) If you say Nagas are the only thing worth it then those are definitely on the overpowered side. Would you say the same about hell hounds, skeletons, war bears, sprites? (assume you haven't yet found a lair sprites can beat for that one) (I intentionally not list ghouls as they are also on the "might be overpowered currently" list.)
No, definitely not (saying only Naga's are worth it). I'm just playing a Sorcery game at the moment, so Naga's are what I'm using. I just find common summons rivaling a unit like Halberdiers to be a bit crazy, since they're more mid-tier. It makes it not really a wonder that players opt to skip early city units and go all-in on summons. Hell Hounds are a bit lackluster (even though they chew through the likes of Swordsmen), and you don't really want to summon them, but that's about what I'd expect from a cheap common, and believe it makes for a decent baseline (so Bears being only a little bit stronger, etc).
But still weaker than mid-tier city units, as you give up a lot by training them. They're only common, after all. (Some time ago I thought I'd try to take a weak nature node with a full stack of Cavalry, which had set me back a lot. To my surprise, they got utterly mauled by a bunch of War Bears. I don't think that's right, and it pretty much made me give up on low/mid tier city units).
December 3rd, 2017, 19:30
(This post was last modified: December 3rd, 2017, 19:33 by zitro1987.)
I'd like Klackons to have 1 more melee unit, either mid-tier (a fast melee that hits flyers, like a weak multi-figure stag beetle) or a high-tier (multi-figured strong melee with 3mv and 120 cost?). The race is rather boring due to lack of variety.
December 3rd, 2017, 22:11
(This post was last modified: December 3rd, 2017, 22:13 by Nelphine.)
By the way, of the reasons you just gave for why the starting settlers are necessary, the only one I really agree with is 'otherwise the AI already have all the good spots'. But another solution to that is.. Reduce AI cheating.
I think we've got to that point. I also agree that high men should have lost some units, not just gained a bunch more. As to common summons.. I think war bears are too strong (which in turn means both ghouls and nagas are too strong). I actually think sprites are ok. |