Thanks alot for the clarification. I kinda missed the changelog, but found it myself in the editor-file now
A huuuge "thankyou" for marking all the changes in there
The changes are in documentation file - the pdf in the first post. I try to update it to every version. There is even detailed info of every improvement, including possible bonuses from techs and civs. Changelog here is in the second post just to inform what was changed with every patch.
And not every change was marked, of that I am sure. I try to, but it is impossible to not miss a one or two. Sometimes I forget to mark it, so be carefull...
After playing a few more turns with the Ljosalfar (and researching FoL now) it seems that the "new" Ancient Forest graphics kinda looks like there are more isolated spots of forests instead of a huge carpet covering all.
Well, I like the new graphics. It was made by seZereth and I think that it fits quite well. I did resized it down, though, to make things better visible. But I did some tests and if you set it to 0.95 it is quite alright - looks like continous cover while not obscuring view much more than now. I will do it in the next patch
I am aware this graphics not perfect, but the old one was worse. I even tried to just make a golden recoulour of the normal broadleaf forest, but decided that I like the atmosphere of seZereth's one too much.
If you want the old graphics, it just need to be changed in CIV4ArtDefines_Feature.xml to the old one. I may even release it as a separate file if you are interested.
Did you implement the Forrester improvement to encourage other civs to run FoL, too ?
Right now, it feels quite strong playing elves, especially as the food bonus on top of Ancient forests allows for an even easier SE-economy than running farms.
Foresters are meant as something that everyone can build in the ancient forest. In unmodded FfH you can build nothing unless you are playing elven civ. Now you can build foresters everywhere and mines on hills.
For elves it does not change that much, as forester is 1 food 2 commerce at best and farm is 2 food 1 commerce. There are civics bonuses, so you get +1 prod with GoN, but I think of it as a quite weak civic anyway.
Do you think it all would be better balanced if I remove one commerce from forester. Still, for SE farms are better IMHO. Aad you an build farms on hills here.
The arete change is meant to make followers of RoK less dependant on the surface world. Grassland hills mine now can support itself.
Mine production was lowered to compensate for allowing it to be build in forests. I also not like that you basicly use only mines+farms+town+ anything is needed to get that resource. I want some more diversity.
If you do not agree with my decisions, feel free to criticize them. I really want to balance it
@City states:
I was kinda curious because alot of people think of City states already being very strong in vanilla FFH due to the quite high maintenance costs and you made it even stronger with that culture boost. [...]
Right now the highened chance to keep obelisks...
The chance to keep obelisks is just the same as in basic FfH. I just increased the chance to keep forges, lighthouses etc. You can't keep barracks, courthouses and such on the other hand.
I tried to make all government civics worthwhile and city states were improved the least I think. On theocracy I still think of.
I personally never use it, but I am a builder mostly. I think it should be changed though, as it benefits warmongers the most and that seems counter-intuitive. I think Rawn's ideas fit well with city-states theme.
Warmongers should go for Theocracy, feudal contract or even magocracy in my opinion.
How do you like labor civics changes? I tried to make them different and emphasize different things. I am tempted to remove apprentienceship. It is a leftover from education civics and do not fit it really well. Apprentience is also quite connected with guilds in my mind. What do you think?
Edit: Another very long post. If you can't stand it I will break it in two the next time...