Hello. I think these two spells are in the wrong positions, and that Flaming Arrows should be in the enchantment 1 position while Blade is in enchant 2.

As it is, +20% to melee from an adept is rather huge and because it's percentile, it's good no matter what tier of unit you case it on. Free combat promotion anytime and cheap yay.

However +1 fire to archers isnt even a 10% upgrade when you're using it on your crossbowmen or the like, and by the time you have enchantment 2 mages you're at least using longbows, assuming you've gone up the archery line at all ( archery line sucks if you're not elves btw, but thats separate)

Flaming Arrows would have it's place in the early game though, upgrading 3/5 archers to 6 str defensive strength, which might actually make them not the inferior choice to using Warriors with bronze for defense anymore ( or axemen if you have the hammers, which lets you save your improvements too..)

Increasing a point of base STR enhances the effectiveness of all promotions, though.

Say you have an archer with 100% city defense, which is beyond easy to achieve. If his base STR is 5, he's fighting effectively at STR10 when defending the city. With enchanted arrows, however, he's actually fighting at STR12.

Factor in terrain bonuses, fortification bonuses, etc and it just scales up higher after that.

You are both right, Goodgimp, but the author of topic states that +20% melee is usually better in ALL means for units >4str (and AI usually uses melee units), and almost all good units are 7+, also remember that there're orcs with their fire resistance... So +20% looks a bit better , but after some research you can tell they are equal only if you use it for defence only (usually you can't get those +X instead of +1 str, if you attack, only for desert -25%).
Anyway spells which are based on the unit's strength are usually better because you can cast 1 spell per turn per caster, and it's better to be casted on stronger units.

Cuteunit, instead of making hundreds of new threads, why don't you just ask all of your questions in one big one? Also, check out the FAQ, that should probably have some helpful info.

Forum doesnt move so fast that keeping separate points in separate topics is harmful ^^

Forum doesnt move so fast that keeping separate points in separate topics is harmful ^^

I don't think that's the point. What he's politely pointing out is that the shear volume of complaints you have flooded the board with may be drowning out other discussion.

It isnt :)

It isnt :)

Actually, it is. I just counted, and nearly a third of the threads (13 out of 40) on the first page of this forum are threads you started. (I'm not counting the threads that were stickied.)

Good thing they're not being wasted then, and staying on the first page!

I think the point is that if you get Flaming arrows as a level 1 spell then you will have no units to cast it on in the start. Starting with Enchanted Blade allows you to cast it on those Warriors and Axemen.


I think it's good that different voices add to discussion, sure Cuteunit could have merged some of these threads but it's not like it is of any major significance.

Archers come just as early as axemen if you go up that tech tree, and cost the same number of hammers to produce.\

If it was me, I'd merge both spells into a general "+1 Defense strength" buff for any living unit ( and repair for luichirp of course) and make Enchantment 2 be +1 to both Attack and Defend.

Bronze Working is a more natural choice in most cases as you need it to chop forests. Also, starting out by going defensive makes little sense in the start because there are not many major threats that justify it. Axemen are just better units overall, you don't really need archers for city defense until Catapults are appearing IMO. Axemen with cultural defense bonus are just fine in the start.

Its true, enchantment 1 is better than 2, and that's simply because melee units are overall better and more often teched to than archer units. Only exception is for the elves. The problem there is with the archery line rather than the spells though I think, I favour leaving the spells and at some point making the balance changes necessary for archers.

Cuteunit's suggestion for +1 defence at lvl 1 scaling to +1/+1 at lvl 2 makes sense from a balance perspective, but I think it lacks the flavour of the current spells. Also if you don't make it weapon type specific it opens it up to other units, like catapults, golems, mages etc who don't currently receive it (although i guess it can't be too hard to limit it by type)

All in all enchantment 1 and 2 are both good spells though, its an excellent sphere

Its true, enchantment 1 is better than 2, and that's simply because melee units are overall better and more often teched to than archer units. Only exception is for the elves. The problem there is with the archery line rather than the spells though I think, I favour leaving the spells and at some point making the balance changes necessary for archers.

Cuteunit's suggestion for +1 defence at lvl 1 scaling to +1/+1 at lvl 2 makes sense from a balance perspective, but I think it lacks the flavour of the current spells. Also if you don't make it weapon type specific it opens it up to other units, like catapults, golems, mages etc who don't currently receive it (although i guess it can't be too hard to limit it by type)

All in all enchantment 1 and 2 are both good spells though, its an excellent sphere
what if enchantment 1 .. gave +5% per node,
enchantment 2............. gave +1 str and enchant 1?

I think that 20% and +1 str is basically equivalent, though maybe the melee should be changed to +1 str for consistency.
At zero promotions, 20% = +1 at 5 str. As you add promotions, the +1 becomes better. with combat V, 20% = +1 at 10 str.
So one is better than the other in certain situations, but overall I think they become equivalent.

As for whether archers or melee should get the first bonus, that's an interesting question. Archers come later, but by the time you get enchant, you probably already have archery (if you're going to get it). So I guess it comes down to: should defense or offense get the first bonus? I think we favor offense overall, so there is a good case for switching.

I agree with Nikis-Knight on this.

Unless we wanted to make the enchanted arrows spell better by giving it +1 fire damage and +20% strength.

why don't you put these threads in the balance thread discussion? Spamming the board with useless topics isn't a nice thing to do.

Also, CU, you might want to stop being incredibly inflammatory. HTH.

-- ACS

I honestly don't think forum activity is such that Cuteunit's thread's cause a problem. And I think inflammatory is a bit excessive - a bit confrontational maybe, but he is polite and each issue is at least worth discussing - I haven't agreed with all of his views but they are all at least worth considering. You need a devil's advocate every now and again.

Fall from Heaven is a great mod and the flavour and variety is awesome, but ultimately good balance is a big part of what makes a game. Apart from AI improvements its what it currently needs most, and its going to be very difficult to programme smart AI until the game is well balanced. Otherwise players will always go down the optimal path, such as fireballing and melee units, while the AI will waste its time on subotpimal spells/units of the same level. There is a reason that not many games have the level of complexity this game is introducing - you have to balance it all and teach the computer how to use it. I don't think it would hurt to keep our focus as a forum on these tweaks rather than worrying mostly about new content

The AI isn't going to be improved untill after the Ice phase anyway, its really not worth complaining about it atm because they're not about to spend hours teaching the AI to use stuff which will then just become obsolete a few patches later when they change things for extra balance, add new stuff, take old stuff out etc.

Lets add another enchantment level...

Enchant I - Magic armour +1 Def.
Enchant II - Flaming Arrows + 1 Range
Enchant III - Enchanted weapons +1 Att

This way we end up with troops +1 all around from a lvl 3 enchanter (archmage) which shouldn't be to unlikely.

Aye, Kael's plan is a pretty good one, in rough form, only the points applicable to this discussion:

1. Maintain a playable product at all stages possible.

2. Implement all ideas, balancing and tweaking only as needed for #1.

3. Balance

4. AI


And as for Cuteunit, it is nice to have someone posting thier ideas obviously quite before having played too much of the game (varioues option settings, speed, etc), so we can see fresh perspective and maybe bring some old debates back to light. Sure, many are already debated and decided upon, but no reason that they might not change again.

Though it would be nice to see a slightly more constructive form to a few of the posts, mostly replies to replies :). Oh, and from posts on the you-tube modelling CU linked, I am guessing CU = she. Possibly.


EDIT: Frallen: What do you mean by range? Only "range-like" stat is movement, and having flames on your arrows tends to make people walk a bit slower, unless they are in your back pocket, then you run fast, and yell about your "biscuits burning..."

Hmmm good question WTH was I thinking??? I was at work and was probably not thinking coherently. Will figure it out l8r.
/F

dresden codak explains me pretty well
http://www.dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_034.htm


And another thread birthed a notion more appropriate to this one. What if the Enchantment spells, or even an Enchant III, granted mana affinity? Lets say "Reads which mana type that builder has the most of, and grants some of that as mana affinity to the stack for one turn"

Imagine it as all the soldier's swordblades suddenly lighting on fire with a rousing battlecry.

Already had that comic linked as a future read, I think you just sold me on making it my next one.

So you are the girl in panel 2 Then? ;)

Affinity granted for 1 turn would be amazing, but possibly too strong. Especially if tied to the largest sphere you have, of your choice.

Were that done, it needs to be rank 3 spell, work only as affinity of that sphere, and the rest of the Sphere be caster only, or really weak/pointless. Then the obvious strategy of making all nodes of that type for HUGE affinity leaves you otherwise non-magical.

Probably also need to make a promotion for large resistance to that damage type easy to obtain for most units.

Personally, even with all those factors to balance it, I'd use the spell Lots.

IMHO, the best Enchantment spell would create a magic item that gives Enchantment affinity and remove the Enchantment 3 sphere from the caster.

-- ACS

That would basically waste 3 archmage promotions though. That's tragic, it would never be used.


I do think magic resistance should be more common in FFH. Hell, I think one of the magic spheres ( even Enchantment for that matter) should give bonus resists to the stack the mage is part of. Having your mages warding away enemy fireballs makes five flavors of sense.

Hopefully by the time you have archmages your enemy has paladins, arquebus, whatever 10+ str units you want to use in theorycraft. Even their own archmages. If they dont, they've prettymuch already lost for other reasons anyways.

In an ideal balance of FFH you having Archmages would mean that you hadnt progressed up the other trees as far as your enemy, and may only have 6 str units for all we know. Affinity as a one turn buff would help even that up a bit.

Of course, due to all the OTHER things you get from the melee line compared to magic line, it's somuch more powerful to go up that line and ignore magic entirely until you're already square with crossbows...

woodcutting, forges, the guild of hammers, machinist shops, worshops...

That's something for another thread though.

What if the Enchantment spells, or even an Enchant III, granted mana affinity?

Recipe of victory: Tasunke (As i remember Hippus palace provides nature mana?), FoL, 1 enchantment node, other - nature. 50 turns building horsemen, Enchant III, Warcry and standard size world conquest victory next turn.

Equal to everybody, so nothing says your Tasunke's enemies don't have the same thing to repel you.


What you're cornerstoning is the lack of good anti-mounted in FFH right now more than anything.

I think he chose them mainly for the larger move value to make his sneak smack more wide ranged.

And that is one of the reasons I think if an affinity was able to be gained via spell it would have to be limited to just that specific sphere, not any sphere of your choosing (and possibly the mana node itself should have a detrimental effect, so as to naturally limit having a lot of them. ie - if it was Enchantment maybe a 1% chance per node per unit that the unit is lured away by mystical beings per turn. If at 10 nodes you are losing 1/10 of your fielded units each turn... you would be quite weakened by it)

enchant I:
+1 defense, will wear off

enchant II:
+1 attack, will wear off, enchant I will not wear off

enchant III:
+20% str,+1% per node, enchant II will not wear off

note that all will wear off based on how much mana you control, but the stronger ones will keep the weaker ones from wearing off

casting enchant I will give enchant I and return II if the unit lost it
same for enchant 2@3
(so lower enchantment isn't useless)