FfH2 0.40 Changelog

there are some modmods out with guilds added, but basically all the mechanics previously provided for with guilds have been moved to wonders or civ-specific features. basically, there's no need for guilds in ffh ;)
 
Having built the guild of the nine a few times, I believe that restriting the use of a guild to only one civ, the one that builds the wonder, is giving a huge advandage to that civ. If I can hire a host of mercenaries whenever I want while the others can't, they have no chance...
 
Seeing as the Guild version of the GotN could only be spread by the player manually, it too was something restricted to just the first to get the technology, usually. Now on the other hand, it's restricted to the first person to fork up both the beakers and the hammers for it.
 
I'm totally wigging out while waiting for .4!
So excited, so excited!!!
$(%@#$&%@(@$#KJDFMKADF@#
 
I think that this guild should be changed to a national wonder. It cannot be balanced any other way.
Someone could build the Guild of Hammers, but the others could always build forges, even if they were not free.
How can you balance the effects of the GotN? It does not give just an advandage, it is really overpowered if it is owned by one side only, IMOH...
 
I think that this guild should be changed to a national wonder. It cannot be balanced any other way.

I'm inclined to agree. It makes an immense difference to my war effort - if I have it, I have no need to spend resources on a military build-up during a time of peace. I can just recruit a bunch of mercenaries if anybody ever decides to mount a sneak attack.

(Of course, you could probably partially fix this by making the AI more aggressive and actually attack with big stacks, but still.)
 
I think that this guild should be changed to a national wonder. It cannot be balanced any other way.
Someone could build the Guild of Hammers, but the others could always build forges, even if they were not free.
How can you balance the effects of the GotN? It does not give just an advandage, it is really overpowered if it is owned by one side only, IMOH...

It's too powerful to be a national wonder--it would be the way that all civs built their war machine once they got Currency. Remember, uniformity = bad; every civ fighting the same way = balanced but boring. Better to balance it by tweaking the mercenary cost or mercenary strength than by giving it to everyone.
 
Mercenaries are fine as they are, but you cannot say that giving all civs the same wonder is bad. There are quite a few national wonders, and everyone is getting warriors and scouts. The point is not the unit itself, but the ability to buy a unit, any unit, *more than 1 time per turn per city*! This is the overpowering part. If someone can buy in an emergency 15 or 30 mercs in a city in just one turn and retreat his units to let the mercs handle the onslaught, is a *big* advandage. In addition, we should not forget that the Hippus get mounted mercenaries so, technicaly, this is a different unit. If they do not manage to build the GotN, however, they cannot get this "UU" of that civ.
All I say is that, since the availability of mercenaries is to be handled by a wonder, this should be a national wonder, and whoever spends the time and hammers for it, to get the *option* to hire mercenaries. It does not feel boring to me, moreover it adds more chances to the AI, if it builds the wonder, to defend a city until more powerful reinforcements arrive, since the mercs are pretty weak units themselves.
 
I think the Mercenaries are just too cheap. I think as a wonder, it works fine as a wonder. It's a big effect for a cost. But EVEN IF you just paid full price to buy bronzed axemen, it would still be a fairly good wonder, because it would allow strong defense where you needed it.

As it is now, 120 gold is just too cheap. 160 would be a fair bit more balanced, maybe even 180.
 
Even 250 is not good enough to balance it, IMHO.
2500 gps and you can get 10 units in a city in one turn... It is alright if all you want is to win the game.
 
This would balance it, but, again, it would not function as desired...
I do not understand why turning it to a National Wonder would be so bad. It is easier to implement and it is balanced, in both multiplayer and single player.
 
My personal preference on Combat Odds (which I never look at, I just look at the relative strengths and tend not to be surprised by the results of combat) would be that the odds always reflect the WORST CASE SCENARIO. So assume that the other guy makes each First Strike, and that the best Defensive Strike on the tile hits you for as much as he possibly can.

Display for the raw numbers would be nice if it modified the relative strength display to include the potential relative strength if you take max defensive strike damage as well as your current actual strength (ie - instead of 3.3 vs 5 it would show 3.3 (2.8) vs 5)

Another interesting option would be to display 2 numbers
98.4% - 56.7%
Best case senerio (all misses) - Worst case Senerio (hit for max damage)

if that could be done
 
I'm sure it is possible, I've seen this team pull off little coding miracles in every release they've made that I didn't even think were possible, so yes I think what you suggest is possible. But I don't think it's necessary. With enough work on the algorithms, we could give an accurate odds of success that would reflect all of the factors involved in the combat situation. This would probably be difficult and time consuming which is probably why the team hasn't done it. But if they're paying attention to this conversation and are interested *ahem* I would be willing to work on it.
 
Top Bottom