RifE 1.20 Ideas, Requests, and Feedback

Yeah, it's not that they are lazy in any way, but that they are incapable of using normal technology. That's why I'm having issues with a name.

Breeder could possibly work, as it would fit the Bezeri(Breeding animals to do the work/serve as tools) and would fit another idea I had for way down the line.

Thumbless

Would fit for the later idea, but the Bezeri have thumbs. No fire, but thumbs.

Inept? Technophobic/Arsonphobic?

Former
Shaper

Yuuzhan Vong

It's life Jim, but not as we know it.

Tholian?

WarKirby said:

Former
Shaper

Click to expand...

I like both of these.

So do I.

Another "idea/request/feedback"...

Y'know how Crossbowmen are a national unit, limit 4, and Arquebus are unlimited?

What about switching those two, for most if not all Civs (maybe treat Mechanos special, possibly Luchiurp too)?

Dark fantasy with all the swords and sorcery stuff becomes pretty strange looking in the end game when you end up having any civ who's capable of fielding gunpowder units, crawling with them. Trust me that I've never "trained" with a crossbow or an arquebus, but you'd think crossbows are a little more user friendly than primitive firearms, they sure came at an earlier time in RL history, probably with less logistical problems than backfiring, unreliable in the rain, early blunderbusses, hand cannons, stuff of that nature.

Obviously the numerical end could end up needing work, to make Arq's more "National Unit worthy" and maybe reconsider Crossbow balance, just thinking the Arquebus being an unlimited "end of the archery line" looks strange, when the arguably "earlier stop" on that line, of Crossbowmen, is subject to limits.

Making Arquebus stronger, national limit 6 units in Fall Flat worked really well. Just sayin'....

I'd like to see arquebus cause fear, be far stronger, and limited.

Crossbows should be more or less how they are in base civ, I think. An alternative to a longbowman, not definitively better or worse, but good in different situations. And roughly even on strength (so much weaker than now)

I still like the idea of splitting the archery line in two:
Archer->Longbowman->Marksman would have higher ranged combat strength and ranged combat limits. Marksmen would have level requirements, but be the only units in the game that can deal lethal ranged damage. I might make Longbowmen get some free Drill promotions, and be more expensive. They would probably be innately stronger, have no resource prereqs, but not get weapons promotions.

Archer-Crossbowman->Arquebus would be have much weaker ranged attacks with lower damage caps but would deal collateral. They would be a cheaper archer line, but would require more expensive techs, buildings, and resources. They would be weaker but could take advantage of weapons promotions. Crossbowman would of course be weaker than they currently are, and not be national units. I'm not sure I'd put a limit on Arquebuses either. I might consider giving them a promotion that can cause fear but also has a decent chance of having something go wrong and hurting their own side, representing how the new gunpowder technology was psychologically shocking but not yet reliable or safe for its users.

First off... Primitive fire arms actually WERE easier to use than a crossbow. Took a bit longer to fire, but they were easier to aim, which meant less training for the troops. Main reason they caught on so fast, since at the time crossbows generally had about as much penetrative power, if not a bit more at close range.

That said, I like Magister's idea there.

I think a key thing in general, is that crossbows should be much cheaper than longbows. At least 33% less, maybe half, or even less. To reflect that they require little training. Balanced by being less flexible, weaker in some areas, and/or requiring more tech investment to build initially.


Possibly, the tech path could also be more divided. Crossbows and Arquebus would be the ranged attackers of choice, for those who go down the metalworking and industrial paths. Whereas archers, longbows, and marksmen, could be more closely tied to the recon line.


Some thoughts on tech tree paths:

Archery, requires crafting
Bowyers, requires tracking and archery. (no requirements in the metal line.)
Poisons, requires hunting and archery
Precision, requires poisons, bowyers, and tracking.

Crossbows, could be moved back the tech tree a little. Perhaps requiring Engineering and Smelting or Iron working. Engineering itself requires construction and mathematics, and smelting needs bronze working.

Machinery should lose bowyers as a prereq, to unlink those tech lines. Instead requiring engineering and iron working.

I'd say, arquebuses should require both machinery (to mass produce the guns) and blasting powder (for the gunpowder), and be proportionally stronger to compensate for the increased tech requirements.

Collateral damage does seem like an interesting idea for them, but I think the ability to cause fear is a primary thing. in the case of Guns versus Swords, the loud explosions and people invisibly dying are key tools, gunpowder weapons attack the enemy's morale as well as their men.

IMHO? Remove the ranged attack from Crossbow troops, give it to longbowmen, give LBows more damage in ranged than they do in an actual fight, especially on the offense. Crossbows were something you'd give to peasants so they could do something against knights, but really only shot straight and were a PITA to reload. Longbows were used by dedicated archers to pelt and kill enemies before they closed with your lines or defend settlements.

I'd change them to be used as such. I do not like the idea of crossbows being some sort of god-bow comparatively. Men would run across the battlefield with arrows sticking out of them from either, tbh. But longbows could shoot a lot farther and were used by better trained troops.

Also, if giant fireballs, summoned skeletons and towering elementals, columns of hellfire and torrents of water, and high priests wielding the fury of sleeping gods of insanity don't cause fear, gunpowder really doesn't need to.

I think you should leave the Archer/Longbow/Crossbow line intact as city defenders, cut the ranged attack on Crossbowmen (the big downside to crossbows was their terrible range compared to bows) and make guns be an optional equipment toggle for archery units (something like boat crews) that balances out their attack and defense.

Keep Marksmen pretty much as is - the offensive/ranged branch of the top Archery tier.

WarKirby said:

Collateral damage does seem like an interesting idea for them, but I think the ability to cause fear is a primary thing. in the case of Guns versus Swords, the loud explosions and people invisibly dying are key tools, gunpowder weapons attack the enemy's morale as well as their men.

Click to expand...

I think that's significantly less of an issue in a world where fireballs and other magic will probably already have been around for a while. Guns might almost be refreshingly obvious in comparison.

So...if crossbows lost their range they would need to be changed to UNITCOMBAT_MELEE or RECON. Otherwise, their promo options would be pretty sad.

Makes sense to have the Archers divorced from the crossbows...totally different skillset. Actually, given the increased accuracy of crossbows it wouldn't be a bad idea to have Assassin/Crossbow/Marksman form a new unit progression. Heck, some armed forces continue to use poisoned crossbow bolts in the present day.

Doesn't map completely to the image of the European crossbowman from the middle ages...but weapons would certainly find different niches in a world where sniping Adepts was a pressing concern.

Iceciro said:

Also, if giant fireballs, summoned skeletons and towering elementals, columns of hellfire and torrents of water, and high priests wielding the fury of sleeping gods of insanity don't cause fear, gunpowder really doesn't need to.

Click to expand...

It's like certain things in discworld. All those things are normal. Gunpowder isn't.

I remember there being talk at one point about improving the Broader Alignments option for FF+, and so I thought I'd share a recent revelation I had for why I don't like the current implementation:
The basic problem is that broader alignments (and most suggested improvements to it) only changes half of the equation. It changes the things you can do to affect your alignment into a sliding scale, but not the things your alignment affects. Regardless of the point values that contribute to it, alignment remains a straight Good/Neutral/Evil split, and everything that is based on your alignment only pays attention to those three possible states. I think that that division needs just as much expansion if Broader Alignments is going to be improved.