Move Fortress

[Seravy]

Currently, Move Fortress changes your "main race" to that of the new capital (Spell of Return likewise). I'm not sure we want to keep this behavior.

Pros
-This rewards the player who knows the game better and is familiar with the racial unrest tables.
-Improves the Klackon and High Men race as you can bypass the racial unrest after you expand your empire to the point where the majority of your cities are no longer your starting race.

Cons
-The Hall of Fame lists the race where your capital was when the game ended,instead of your starting race.
-It's far too easy to negate any racial drawback. Some races generate no racial unrest against any others, moving the fortress into those cities is extremely beneficial. Racial unrest associated with your starting race stops having an effect after midgame. This also takes out the ability to try to balance races through unrest (albeit Life spells such as Stream of Life also do that.)
-For such a powerful benefit, this being a spell the AI cannot use is not fair.
-Move Fortress already has two pretty important and powerful benefits - manipulating range penalties, and making sure the capital is at a safe location the player can defend. These are fairly well balanced - the further the capital is from the enemy, the more you pay but the safer you are. The third effect that breaks this by saying "but you want the nomad city anyway for less unrest" feels unrelated and unnecessary.

Neither
-One can argue that the race where the wizard's capital is will consider itself the "home" race the wizard represents and fights for. On the other hand, one can also say the wizard is a person of the race they picked (yes, the portrait selection obviously doesn't support it, Sss'ra being the only nonhuman race there, nor does it force you to pick portraits that way), so moving their fortress changes nothing. An Elf wizard with their capital in an Orc city is still an Elf wizard and will be disliked by the Orcs just as much.

[Nelphine]

I'm inclined to agree with you. Move fortress feels like it's intended to be tactical, not economic. So it should not change home race.

[Domon]

i'm with you. and this opens up further balancing on unrest tables

Inviato dal mio GT-I9100 utilizzando Tapatalk

[Seravy]

Assuming we do want to go with the change, we should indeed redesign the racial unrest tables.
Suggestions for this are welcome.

Some brainstorming from me :

Barbarians
They have zero economy of their own, and have to rely on conquest to be playable. This means their unrest tables can't be overly harsh - a few exceptions of high unrest with the most sophisticated races is acceptable but on the whole it should be 0 to +1 unrest to most.

This seems to match the current row in the table so probably no need to change. (Gnoll, High Men, Klackon, Orc +1 ; High Elf +2 ; Dark Elf, Draconian +3)

I would probably move the "+1" from the Orcs to the Nomads.

Gnoll
Unlike barbarians, these guys have an acceptable economy now. They still need to heavily rely on conquering other races due to their inability of producing units that can hit fliers, but not so much economically.

An entirely new row that penalizes the best economy races heavily, but has 0 for other races that can deal with flying units might be the best solution, for example : +3 Dark Elf, Draconian, High Men, Klackons, +4 Nomads and Dwarves, +1 Orcs and Trolls, none for others.

Halfling
Absolutely horrible military on their own (unless supported by heavy buffing from Life or maybe Chaos spells), very vulnerable to anti-ranged enemies. Good enough economy of their own to not really care about unrest from the economy perspective.

Bonus food, bonus research and no racial unrest at all sounds a bit too much in one if "no unrest" becomes harder to achieve but I think it's fine - previous tests have shown the race is not particularly outstanding unless using the "buff stacking" tactic, which is risky and if Sorcery enemies are abundant, outright unplayable. In that scenario, a Halfling player might need to rely entirely on their other races to produce troops.

I would leave this as is.

High Elf
A very slow growing race that has top tier economy among Arcanus races. Self-sufficient, so racial unrest doesn't really matter. The "lore" type settings of the current version (bad relations with orcs, trolls, dark elves and dwarves) seem ok.

I would probably add high unrest to the "rush" races here, to prevent breaking the "slow growing" trait by an early conquest of those races. So leave as is but add "Barbarian +3 and Gnoll +3, Lizardmen +3".

High Men
I like the current "high unrest with everyone including own" drawback and would like to keep it, so no change. It's questionable whether the amazing High Men units the race offers are good enough to offset this, but might be if High Men unrest is raised on some races that currently can conquer them without additional unrest. Overall, I'm having doubts about this race as a whole, as their growth is average, they have no particular benefits aside from strong units (other races also have good units nowadays), and they get two massive penalties - high unrest and poor resistance.

So leave unrest as is, but might need to to change something else?

Klackon
Keep as is. While you can't Move Fortress yourself out of the unrest penalties, doing so means losing the massive benefit of the "-4 unrest" in klackon cities so probably not a major game changer.

Leave unrest as is, but might need to to change something else?

Lizardmen
They are ridiculously powerful and probably should have greater unrest penalties.

+1 across the board on top of the current numbers sounds more fair - at the moment the race barely generates unrest.

Nomad
For a race that has good early game, late game, and amazing economy, as well as the most resistant units on the plane, all in exchange for a drawback of being vulnerable to Famine, they definitely do not deserve having no unrest at all.

Should probably have high unrest with the more sophisticated races : High Elf, High Men, Draconian, Dark Elf (+2 to +3), and maybe Halflings to prevent getting around the food drawback by farming in Halfling cities (could be a good idea to have this as high as +4, albeit from a lore perspective, Halflings shouldn't really rebel from Nomad rulers).

Orc
All around mediocre and I feel this should be how their unrest table looks like as well - a little bit of everything but nothing really hash.

Current numbers look fine as is : +1 Draconian, Klackon, Dwarf, +2 Dark Elf, High Men, +3 High Elf.

Raising High Men to +3 or even 4 might be a good idea.

Myrran races : I don't play these much - too much to test on Arcanus lately - so not sure, but I think their tables shouldn't be harsh.

Draconian
Would be interesting if they received the "-1" benefit on Lizardmen, as they are both lizards. Aside from that, their tables might be a bit too forgiving for such an amazing (and scary!) race. (+3 High Men, +1 Dwarf and Klackon)
More unrest on Trolls, High Men (yes, more than the current +3), maybe Halflings?

Dwarf
Being a strong military race with strong economy but heavy reliance on others for magic power, I find the high unrest to elves a perfect match, which other races have next to no reason to rebel against a Dwarf. I think this is fine as is now. (+3 to both elves, +1 to Draconian, Klackon, Orc)

Beastmen
Somewhat generic race, no idea what to do with them.

Probably leave as is, but raise High Men to +3 or +4?

Dark Elf
I think fine as is. (+1 Klackon, +2 High Elf, High Men, Barbarian, +3 Dwarf.)
Dwarf being the only Myrran early game race, there is no particular reason to raise unrest to Arcanus early races - you don't have early access to those anyway and in the late game they make no difference anymore. Maybe more on High Men?

Troll
A race that works best when only using their own units, so military considerations play no role in determining their unrest table. Their economy is medicore and probably shouldn't be possible to enhance overly, so higher unrest to Dwarf and Dark Elf who have strong economy (money, or magic, but not both) might be required? (+2 or even 3 to both). Same for Nomad.

[Nelphine]

My suggestions (a mix of balance, but flavored by lore - for instance dwarves and orcs hate each other, but neither of them really need the other, so it really doesn't matter - and in general, if one race hates the other, they probably should both have high modifiers to each other.)

Barbarian:
High Men, Dark Elf, Draconian +3 ; Troll, High Elf +2 ; Klackon, Nomad, Halfling, Beastmen, Dwarf +1

Gnoll:
Dark Elf, Draconian, High Men, High Elf, Nomad +3 ; Dwarf +2 ; Klackon, Orcs, Halfling +1

Klackon:
Dark Elf, Draconian, High Men +4 ; Beastmen, Halfling, High Elf, Nomad +3 ; Everyone else +2 ; Klackons -4

Lizardmen:
High Men +4 ; High Elf, Dark Elf, Troll +3 ; Nomad, Halfling, Dwarf, Klackon, Beastmen +1 ; Lizardmen -1

Orc:
High Elf, Dark Elf +4 ; Dwarf +3 ; High Men +2; Klackon +1

Halfling:
Troll +2 ; Barbarian, Gnoll, Draconian, Beastmen, High Men, Klackon +1

Nomad:
Klackon +3 ; Everyone else except Nomad +1

High Elf:
Dark Elf +4 ; Barbarians, Gnolls, Trolls +3 ; Orc, Klackon, Dwarf, High Men, Lizardmen +2

High Men:
Everyone except High Men +2 ; High Men +1

Dwarf:
Orc +4 ; Dark Elf, High Elf, Draconian +3 ; Troll, High Men, Klackon +1

Troll:
Dark Elf, High Elf +3 ; Draconian, Beastmen, High Elf, High Men, Nomad +2 ; Klackon, Dwarf +1

Beastmen:
Everyone except Beastmen +1

Draconians:
High Men +3 ; Klackon, High Elf, Dark Elf, Dwarf, Troll, Nomad, Halfling +2 ; Lizardmen -1

Dark Elf:
High Elf +4 ; Barbarians, Gnolls, Trolls +3 ; Orc, Klackon, Dwarf, High Men, Lizardmen +2 ; Draconian +1

[Arnuz]

As an additional suggestion, a retort reducing unrest might be now considered.

"cosmopolite"?

Halves unrest penalty?

Could take the slot of the hopelessly OP omniscient :P

[Seravy]

I believe an unrest related retort has been considered and rejected in the "new retort thread" where we decided on Omniscient instead.

[Seravy]

How about this?

   

[Nelphine]

I'm just going to discuss where that differs from my suggestion, and why I made my suggestion in that case:

Barbarian: only difference is that I suggested beastmen +1. Beastmen have great economy; without unrest, they become ideal for barbarians to conquer to ignore their shortcomings as a race. However, flavor wise, I can see barbarian and beadtmen getting along, so I'm mostly OK with this.

Beastmen: Balance wise, I don't think high men do anything for beastmen. They have better magicians and paladins, but that's it - and they don't generate power. So high unrest for high men is purely flavor, and I'm definitely OK with that.

Dark elf: You've made dwarves and orcs +3; orcs do absolutely nothing for dark elves, so balance wise, I see no reason for this. Flavor wise, orcs in many settings are often controlled by dark elves. I'd like to reduce this to a +1 (yes, even lower than my original suggestion). Dwarves: eh, I don't think balance wise this is needed, but its flavorful, so I'm OK with that. You've made klackon +1, that's fine. You've made lizardmen zero - balancewise, lizardmen have high population and high HP units, both exactly what dark elves are missing. I disagree with this. You've made high elf +2. Balance wise, high elf cities are inferior in every way to dark elf, so unrest doesn't matter for high elves, but flavor wise, high elves and dark elves HATE each other. I vehemently disagree with this, and would much prefer the flavor of +4 unrest here.

Draconian: You've made klackon +4. I don't really understand this, but I also don't have a problem with it. You've made made gnolls, trolls, and dwarves +3. Since draconians have strong melee fighters themselves, I don't see a big balance reason for this, especially gnolls. I'd rather see dwarves +2 and gnolls +1 - and if you're adding gnolls, I think barbarians should be +1 as well. I'm OK with the trolls though. However, I wanted to include nomads and halflings at +2. Since you dropped halflings, and reduced nomads, its probably balanced to have the higher numbers you suggested. But I think more widespread numbers is more important for balance, rather than having higher unrest for a few races. Flavor wise, I don't think orcs should have unrest from draconians.

I'll continue this later.

[Nelphine]

Dwarves: surprisingly we agree! Nice.

Gnolls: Halflings have a great economy compared to gnolls; flavor wise gnolls are huge compared to halflings. I think +1 unrest to halflings is justifed. Similarly, trolls have practically the same economy, and gnolls are probably the closest species to trolls physically, so I don't think trolls should get unrest from gnolls. Othereise, I don't mind the differences you've made.

Halflings: my suggestion is based on balance. Halflings have amazing economy, and poor military; ergo the strong early races are an advantage. Then flavor comes in - the strong early races also chaff under the leadership of such tiny non fighters. High men simply feel superior.

High Elf: I completely agree with +4 for orcs. But just like dark elves, I think the two elves should also have a +4.

High men: I like the idea that they give themselves unrest. I don't think they also need the worst unrest from other species, especially when very few species offer much improvement over their own. I'd rather max out their unrest st +2 for any other species. I'm OK with dwarves and halflings getting no unrest from them though, but I do think trolls should be +2 (both flavor - trolls eat humans - and balance - trolls are one of the few races that add a lot militarily to high men).

Klackon: I think we agree again!

Lizardmen: you gave halfling unrest. I'm OK with that. You took away troll ... I think I'm OK with that.

Nomad: I don't see a big reason for the high unrest on high men. Instead I gave halflings some unrest, because halflings like to settle, and nomads.. Like to wander. I'm not too concerned either way.

Orc: I'm OK with your changes.

Troll: Again, I don't understand the extreme high men modifier. Rest I'm OK with.