Warhammer Heart of Chaos: Design Discussion

Some important ones you're missing:
Knight, Warchariot, hunter, ranger, beastmaster, handgunner, cavalry, crusader, priest, missionary.

Good thing he didn't claim to post a complete list with all the some important bits then!

Seriously though, mutations should be available to all chaos powers not just tzeentch. Besides all Tzeenie really does is saddle his ponies with extra mutations for the heck of it.
 
Good thing he didn't claim to post a complete list with all the some important bits then!

Just trying to be helpful, not critical :)
Seriously though, mutations should be available to all chaos powers not just tzeentch. Besides all Tzeenie really does is saddle his ponies with extra mutations for the heck of it.

Well, every chaos faction gets access to Tzeentch magic, so its not like its really limiting.... and its easier to make mutation a defined Tzteentch "thing". Helps to make it more distinct from the other chaos magics.
 
But subterranean doesn't *need* to have any other effects. Its not there as a mainline trait that gives bonuses, its just a mechanic that is best expressed in trait form.
As I said I'm leaning towards removing it, but we can definitely just leave it in the current form for now.

exactly my point
 
i will be updating finalised stuff to that thread. its about time we had everything finalised in one place. plus itll be a useful reference. So, if you wouldnt mind can you link me to all the things you believe are finalised and i will add those.

Well, they're *sortof* in one place; they're all linked to from that Key Design thread.

But I will take a pass through each of those posts and then let you know when I think each is ready to go into the design thread.

I think Dark Elf, High Elf and Wood Elf are ready now, as is the unit core.
 
Vampire counts are ready to go.
I removed the ability to create more vampires; I think that could get problematic with the stacking food/influence auras.
 
Beastmen done for now. They're a bit light on units, but interesting enough to go ahead.

Feel free to suggest wood elf changes, and we can talk about them. Get RLAF to hold off if you think they need changes.
 
i updated the elves.

I didn't see anything in the design thread. If you want any further changes to woodelves (I added the eagle riders and the core units into their post) then can we talk about them?
 
Ahh, ok, I was looking in the Units post.

Asrai Shooting Gallery: can train archer units up to 10 EXP, Archers garrisoned in the city get +10% defence strength.
Asrai Watch Tower: +2 visibility, Archers garrisoned in the city get +10% bombard strength.

Asrai should be good at defending *terrain*, not defending their cities; they already get great city defenses from their archers.
If you want flavorful unit buildings like these, then remove their ability to get normal walls and castles and such, and have the shooting gallery also make the city square count as a forest for the purposes of unit/promotion combat penalties.
Also, a watchtower building that gives +2 site range in a city is useless, since you already have complete vision within your cultural borders.

Glade Guard Longbows: +1 bombard range, +20% ranged combat strength, +1 collateral unit.
I disagree with this. 2-range bombardment, on *archers*? Not even cannons in this mod have 2-range bombardment. And longbows shouldn't be doing collateral damage bombardment.

The glade guard are already fantastic longbowmen with a ton of first strikes, they have more attack than basic longbowmen AND an extra first strike, as well as their racial bonuses.
Your version is too strong.

Glade riders should probably be a Lancer replacement, not a horsearcher replacement, right? I guess it could be horsearcher and then not give them a lancer. Either way.

Warhawk riders as a cavalry replacement could be confusing; they should need the monster bonding tech and tournaments tech, not the rifling tech.
Otherwise they're ok, I don't mind them being a separate buildable unit.

I see no need for free hedgemagic on the wizards, but I don't really mind either way.

Otherwise looks good.
 
they already get great city defenses from their archers.

actually no, because we nerfed their city defence and hill defences.

Also, a watchtower building that gives +2 site range in a city is useless, since you already have complete vision within your cultural borders.

true, change it to reveal invisible units. nothing can hide in a forest when the guardians can speak to the trees muhuhhahahahaa

I disagree with this. 2-range bombardment, on *archers*? Not even cannons in this mod have 2-range bombardment. And longbows shouldn't be doing collateral damage bombardment.

The glade guard are already fantastic longbowmen with a ton of first strikes, they have more attack than basic longbowmen AND an extra first strike, as well as their racial bonuses.
Your version is too strong.

true, but why would arches not get collateral? theyre fiering on a mob of enemies with LOTS of arrows. at least make the Glade Guard longbows the same as quality bows + a bit of collateral, for flavour purposes? or just let them start with quality bows from the get go...

Glade riders should probably be a Lancer replacement, not a horsearcher replacement, right? I guess it could be horsearcher and then not give them a lancer.

in my experience glade riders are more commonly horse archers than with a lance. the main reason they should be here is for the combat type. they are definately NOT shock cavalry.

Warhawk riders as a cavalry replacement could be confusing; they should need the monster bonding tech and tournaments tech, not the rifling tech.
Otherwise they're ok, I don't mind them being a separate buildable unit.

just because theyre a UU dosnt mean they use the same tech requirements. thats easilly changeable.



oh, also added Kislev and Beastmen.

.
 
true, change it to reveal invisible units

Sounds good.

or just let them start with quality bows from the get go...
I'd be ok with this balancewise, but then the boywers building has no purpose for WE. Maybe this is ok though.
true, but why would arches not get collateral? theyre fiering on a mob of enemies with LOTS of arrows

Partly balance, partly that we want them to actually engage in combat rather than just get massive bombardment. The idea is also that collateral damage normally comes from area of effect weapons or low strength units, not high strength units that also get a ton of first strikes (first strikes become even more powerful when the unit is already weakened).
They're also still short-range compared to artillery, so they're really only able to fire on one enemy regiment at a time.
I won't fight to the death though though to stop them doing collateral to 1 unit, since they have no siege units left.

in my experience glade riders are more commonly horse archers than with a lance. the main reason they should be here is for the combat type. they are definately NOT shock cavalry.
Ok, I don't particualrly mind either way. Then they don't get a lancer unit.

just because theyre a UU dosnt mean they use the same tech requirements. thats easilly changeable.
Fine, but you need to make the tech requirement clear in the design post.
By default, any unit that says "replaces X" has the same tech requirements as that unit unless stated otherwise.

oh, also added Kislev and Beastmen.
Any changes I should review? Or basically just direct entries?
 
Feel free to suggest wood elf changes, and we can talk about them. Get RLAF to hold off if you think they need changes.

I've not started on WEs. If you want changes, lemme know. The current reference I have for them is this, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=292016. Tell me what is gonna be changed and I'll update my word doc on them.

Edit: I changed my reference to http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8439137&postcount=2 .

And for the record, I dislike this:
Ahriman said:
Great Eagle (replaces troll). Strength 5, fighter aircraft. Range 4. Can airstrike (no collateral). Can intercept. Hammer cost 120. Builds 50% faster with aerie.

Dryad (second troll slot unit): Strength 6/5, 2 moves, 1 first strike, forest spirit.

Unicorn. (Replaces Giant) strength 10, 2 moves, beast unit, starts with magic resistance promotion.

Treekin (second giant slot): Strength 9, can bombard city defenses 8%, +20% heal rate in forest, -25% fire vulnerability, forest spirit
Why do we have 2 units for the slots in both Troll and Giant, for the WEs? And Unicorns, no offense to them, but I'd like to nix them. Too huggable, ya know, Princess rule.
 
Why do we have 2 units for the slots in both Troll and Giant, for the WEs? I think Great Eagles should be bomber style aircraft. Unicorns, no offense to them, but I'd like to nix them. Too huggable, ya know, Princess rule.

Wood elves and Dark elves are more monster-oriented than other civs. Greenskins too to some extent. So they get more monsters. But fewer other units.
Eagles work fine as fighters, bombers are too powerful for such a low tech slot.
Unicorns are a fantasy staple and a mythological feature long before teenage girls started liking them; its a horse with a built-in lance, and PL will get very angry if you try to remove them. You wouldn't like him when he's angry :)
 
Are the changes you made here,

Yes, though though the Glade guard will just start with the quality bows promotion instead of the glade guard longbows promotion, and have the Waywatcher troop have +10% forest strength, ancient forest strength instead of +20% (because of the forest stalker promotion), and glade riders will be based on the horsearcher unit, not the light cavalry unit (= lancers).

Oh, and you can't *actually* have trolls have 2 replacement units for the same faction.
By replace trolls we really just mean the same unit slot and cost; you'll have to create a separate xml class for the second one.
 
Top Bottom