EMM balance discussion

EMM 0.4.0 Balance Version 1.3:

VERSION 1.3 CHANGES

- Updated to EMM 4.0.0

- Updated version checking

VERSION 1.2 CHANGES

- Crusade no longer prevents diplomacy when active

purely for multiplayer games to allow Bannor players to vassalise defeated opponents. We use vassalisation as a way of stopping that awful 'knocked out 3 hours in and then watch my friends play for another 10 without me' that happens in big MP games so often. Incidentally this is also a huge help to Bannor AI who gets trapped in unwinnable wars otherwise

- Merged Bannor Crusade Hotfix (OBSOLETE FROM v1.3)

VERSION 1.1 CHANGES

- Champions, Dragon Slayers and Battlemasters gain 1 free promotion on creation.

Suggested a long time ago in an EitB thread. Champions are actually out-performed by Axemen in hammer-to-power ratio with the Axemen cost change, so this is a small tweak to put it just back into the champion's favour mathematically.

- Mimics and Boarding Parties strength increased from 5 to 6.

Never used units. This makes them only slightly weaker than champions (no free promo), but better in their niche, rather than worse in all situations.

- Chaos Marauder strength changed from 4 to 5/3.

tiny change to make these slightly less lacklustre, pretty self explanatory

- Training Yard and Archery range cost reduced to 75 from 100.

Slight buff to encourage people to use these units and get them out quicker, and to counteract the slight axeman cost increase. We've played with this for a while and are wondering if down to 50 hammers might even be appropriate.

- Mobility 1 promotion prerequisite moved from horseback riding to cartography.
- Mobility 2 promotion now also requires Combat 3.

We found mobility line needs to change, I don't think anyone would disagree here either. Cartography is an orphan tech and this makes it much more attractive. Also reduces synergy with the mounted line as you aren't forced to pick up HBR to get it. Mobility 2 is no longer available to a standard army, only veterans: another direct nerf to mounted and recon lines. I'm leery to nerf mobility 1 much more than this, because in our experience the loss of extra movement hurts the slower unitcombats more than the already fast unitcombats. We are considering allowing mobility 2 for all units, not just recon and mounted, to reduce this gap further... although honestly, we have found this change already makes a huge difference.

VERSION 1.0 CHANGES

- Axeman and Swordsman cost increased from 45 to 50.

this is purely to put them back in line with champion cost/hammer ratio after EitB reduced them to 45 from 60: without it, even the free promo doesn't quite make up for it, mathematically. Very minor, but I know that nerfing any melee is bad, so I tried to compensate by lowering training yard costs. Incidentally, I kept Sons of Asena at 45: Doviello need all the help they can get.

- Monks now have channeling 1 and spirit 1, can gain passive XP.

We found, and I'm sure noone would disagree, Monks to be extremely lacklustre. This change gives them a unique niche (only direct combat unit that gains passive XP), fits thematically with the Elohim (incentive to remain out of early wars and let army passively improve) and mechanically with Einon (spiritual trait gives them a huge buff, making them a solid frontline unit and allowing him to ignore other tech lines to focus soley on religious tech line, as was the original intention of the UU)

- Increasing frequency of Tum Tum spawn

None of us have ever see him in our games, ever. Anyone else have this experience?

- Moving Foreign trade to Writing

Even with the extra civics in EMM, noone goes cottages outside of Elves. Aristofarms are still so much better it hurts. We brainstormed and figured this was mostly because cottage improving techs/civics all come too late to be useful. Having the cottage growth tech available at the same time as Aristocracy might make this an real choice, especially because writing is a useful tech for a lot of civs regardless. Unfortunately, it also buffs Elves, albiet not drastically. We need to come up with a way of bringing them back on par which doesn't cripple their playstyle - I'm open to ideas.

- Move overcouncil/undercouncil to Trade

Tasunke raised this a long time ago and several of my players have also mentioned it. OC/UC basically never comes up, due to the heavy beaker sink. Moving it back to trade balances out the loss of the civic from the change above and gives players a lower-hanging fruit to pick up those +10% bonuses. As an aside, you can't found CoE early with this using the nightwatch resolution: there's some python code that prevents that.

-Fawns -50% city attack

I played some 1v1 test games with the other deity player to try and break the game with FoL. Whilst I'm still not convinced it is economically better due to the horrible commerce yields, the Fawn buff is definitely a big change and I have to agree with the other posters that something needs to counteract it. A big city attack Malus should still give them their niche (great in forested areas) without totally nerfing them into oblivion like they have been in the past.

-Satyrs -50% city attack, requires Animal handling

Same logic. City attack malus especially REALLY hurts them, because we found they were mainly used to penetrate city defenders before collateral came online. I have an inkling that this might almost be too much: pushing them back to animal handling will make them much more difficult to get out in time to be relevant, as it forces an opponent to continue up the recon line which has no economic benefit if they want them early.

-Kithra Kyriel requires animal handling

I'm not convinced this one is necessary at this point, but requiring animal handling as well would push Kithra back to 1900 beakers on quick speed, which is similar to the other power 8 mounted heroes. I'm worried that so many FoL nerfs will leave them at the bottom of the religion pile.

-FoL economy potential nerf

Also not convinced on this one, but FoL elves really is silly and EitB didn't help to fix that like it did with Calabim/Lanun changes. Ideally something that hurts elves more than other races: always the danger, like with cottages, is that you nerf FoL to the point where elves are 'ok' and it becomes unviable for other races.

My immediate thought is Ancient forests don't give an extra food over normal forests. This is the simplest change which reduces the city bloat potential of elves but doesn't impact other races as much (although it still hurts). Would love some feedback on this.

-Wood golems potential nerf

There have been whole threads discussing where luris sit in the grand scheme of things. There's obviously a lot of contention. From our MP games we've found them distinctly underwhelming. Ultimately, the lack of mobility promos on their golems means that their megastacks crawl at such a horrendous pace on the offensive they just can't compete in the high-movement, mounted and recon dominated metagame. The EitB changes also hurt them because their wood/iron golems get no advantage from the other melee line buffs. That said, the Luri players in our group have never once got to firewood golems at a competitive pace due to early pressure... which really highlights their main issue in MP I think.

Still, firewood golems create a problem because they are a degenerate strategy which forces only a single viable tech line for most playthroughs (making luris a 'boring civ'), so I can understand the impetus for change. I would propose one of two changes:

1) Wood golems no longer eligible for blasting workshop promo

This is the simplest change, which I like - Iron golems are expensive and, honestly, luris deserve to win if they can get a megastack of iron golems AND sorcery without being knocked out. That said, weakening the earlygame of luris exacerbates the underlying issue and it still encourages a singular tech line.

2) Blasting workshop doesn't give fire 2, instead gives +1 or +2 fire(?) damage

A more complicated change that might open up some more interesting luri strats. Extra damage is worse than fireball promo so this is a definite nerf, but pure damage gained is nothing to sneeze at as, with combat promos on barnaxus, this makes golems punch very hard cost/power ratio wise. Making this change would require some testing to determine the most realistic damage increase from the promo. My initial thought is that +1 is far too lacklustre and +2 is a better balancing point, but I haven't crunched any numbers on it. Thoughts?

Other thoughts I am most interested in at the moment:

-What can be done to make archers interesting, without sweeping changes?

VERSION 1.4 CHANGES:

- Moved foreign trade civic to writing.

Discussed previously, an attempt to make cottages more viable

- Moved Overcouncil and Undercouncil civics to Trade.

Also discussed previously, a further push in an attempt to make people actually use the councils

- Chariots cannot use mithril weapons.

very slight nerf to chariots, purely to keep them in line with changes to melee line in EMM (axes can't use mithril)

- Fawns and satyrs -50% city attack.

As discussed, a drastic city attack malus should keep these guys from dominating aggressively whilst still maintaining their niche as forest powerhouses

- Satyrs and Kithra Kyriel require animal handling.

Pushing Kithra back to animal handling makes him cost ~1900 beakers, similar to the other mounted heroes. Satyrs being pushed back one step should keep them from appearing so early as well.

- TENTATIVE Ancient forests no longer grant +1 food.

This is the only nerf I could think of to FoL economy which affects Elves more than other races. Usually other FoL races rely on working non-forest tiles and using the forests for happiness alone. This hurts them slightly in that ancient forests really are 'dud tiles' productively. In comparison, Elves rely on working cottaged ancient forests and this hurts them a lot. They now need farms as well to get any serious food production so it also weakens their cottage synergy.

- TENTATIVE Reworked blasting workshop (gives +2 fire damage to all golems but wood, available at elementalism)

Luris are essentially strategically flat - once you reach firewood golems you pump nothing else. Regardless of whether they are under or over powered (seems noone can agree), I think this change frees them from that rut. Is +2 power better than fireballs? Certainly not, so thus will need some serious testing. Mathematically at least it +2 seems decent: power/cost ratio swings back into iron golem's favour, instead of being inferior to champs. However, it does nothing to help luri's infamous mobility concerns. I'd be open to the idea of also reworking the other two UB bonuses, with one perhaps giving mobility 1 as a free promo? That'd help the luris out a LOT.

- TENTATIVE Mobility 1 promotion no longer accessible for recon and mounted units. Mobility 2 promotion (recon and mounted only) no longer requires Mobility 1; requires horseback riding and combat 3.

This does not affect base movement rates of any unit type, only their capacity to upgrade. Recon and Horses still have move 2 and 3 respectively, but have to wait until combat 3 to improve that any further. Other lines have move 1 and can upgrade that to move 2 immediately (at the price of a promo), but lack the ability to get any move past 2 (sans haste). In essence, this nerfs the recon and mounted lines in relation to melee and archery, but not in relation to each other.

1) Are cottages more viable with early foreign trade? Can you compete with aristofarms by going foreign trade -> republic? Does the writing pre-req have synergy with magic-based civs like the Amus in practise?

2) Are the FoL nerfs too much? I never felt like they dominated but we rarely see FoL outside of Elves. I would really like to see a breakdown of one of your standard games Xelnaga with these changes.

3) Are Luris still competitive without fireball golems? I fear they may require something extra to help them survive, considering the +2 doesn't come online till tier 3 (and isn't a game winner regardless, although it is stronger than it appears at first glance). This really is an example of how one change can drastically affect a civ strategically - hopefully by broadening it in this case. If this is a dismal failure I'll just reinstate fireballs.

4) There have been a lot of buffs to melee and nerfs to recon/mounted as part of these patches. I would love some recon/mounted VS melee actions to try out these changes.

Monks are one of the few 2 move units left that has access to mobility 1 (free with spiritual). Probably a better comparison for them is Horse Archers, which are also strength 6 with 3 move for 120 hammers, and generally considered a fantastic unit. Of course, HAs are still better than monks because they have high withdrawal and first strike immunity, but the monks now get free XP to balance somewhat. RE crusaders, corpses: these units are poor without metals and very beaker inefficient. For example, iron crusaders are 2340 + 3640 = 5980 beakers. Monks are 1820 beakers and can be GP bulbed. Even bronze crusaders, which are strictly worse than monks, are 3080 beakers. The two aren't really tier-equivalent so can't be compared directly. I'm worried if I make them 90 hammers, there is literally no reason for elohim to build any other aggressive unit. The sweet balance spot IMO would be for them to be lacklustre for non-einon leaders and top preference for him in early-mid game. I still haven't played or had a report of a Einon Monk-rush in a competitive MP game but it's on my list of things to test. I'll make a judgement based on that and go from there.

The reason I made these changes is that the other posters had MP playtesting to back up their claims (our elf players are the newbies, and other players typically ignore FoL, so I didn't feel experienced enough to assume I was correct). If I don't hear any positive MP feedback I will remove the -food loss in the the next update. I honestly think it is too much also.

I did, however, test fawns in a quick set of 1v1 matches against another high-level player in our group, and I had to agree with the other posters on that one. QG: Mathematically, fawns are strictly better than hunters, if you actually look at the stats. They are same cost, same strength, req no building, no -20% city attack, +25% in forest and free woodsman 1 promo. And hunters are already the best tier 2 unit! Have a try in a game rushing fawns (even against AI) and you'll see the issue. In our practise games I went Ljos and then Doviello - my opponent was Amus and then Calabim. I destroyed him with fawns --> satyrs and kithra both times, even with the 'worst' vs the 'best' race combo. Maybe not indicative but it was enough to convince me that they needed a slight change at least. Fawn/Satyrs as mono-unit city destroyer stacks is not their intended purpose and has come about from a multitude of little buffs over the years - a lot of us old fogeys remember when they were a useless unit set and for me it took a proper, dedicated bash to properly reassess them. Regardless, those changes are relatively minor: -50% city attack is less of a nerf than you might expect, given FoL is strategically supposed to be a 'turtle' religion used to protect a lategame civ until something better comes online.

I don't like the word 'overpowered'. Strong is a better synonym, because it doesn't have a negative connotation. We should talk about relative strengths. Are elves a strong civ compared to most races? Consensus is generally yes. Are they the strongest? Debatable. Do they need toning down? I guess that's a matter of opinion. What reason could we have to tone them down? Mostly so that cottages can be buffed for other civs without making elves top of the pile.

As for your reasoning QG, I couldn't agree less. Elves are *supposed* to be strong economically but weak earlygame: however, this doesn't work out in-game. Svarts are strong from hunting. Elves are strong from fawns/archery and have a free get-out-of-jail card at FoL via worldspell. These are not lategame techs. Thus both races are consistently strong throughout the entire game. FoL on its own I will debate is not as great but I find it hard to agree with anyone saying Elves are not a very strong race. They have always been up with the calabim and lanun, but unlike those races have recieved no tweaks in EitB.

Honestly, I have never seen a Luris succeed in MP. I could see them dominating in very large games with non-aggression pacts for the first X turns, where rush races can't pick them off like the tasty morsel they are. However, regardless of my opinion on their strengths, there was a very convincing argument made to me as to why they are such an uninteresting race in MP: they are effectively strategically flat. In vanilla, there is absolutely no reason to ever go anything but wood golems into sorcery. There is no reason to produce any miltary unit which is not a firewood golem (and a few adepts for repair). Their entire tech and military line is squandered by the simple fact that wood golems with fireballs are their most cost-effective and reliable military unit. In the end, I would rather an interesting but slightly weaker race than a powerhouse with a mono-build and research path. Unfortunately, preventing fireballs until later does nothing to stop this (makes the next cheapest unit the only viable one, IIRC marble gargoyles) and only weakens them, which I definitely don't want to do.

Thus I'm playing around, not so much to nerf the Luris, but more to make them strategically interesting. The perfect balancing point IMO would be for them to hit their strongest point at iron working or engineering and with all three golem-enhancers: at this point they should be, in terms of pure military force, one of the strongest civs (to make up for how gruelling the path to get there is). I recognise the change to blasting workshop hurts them, but having played them in MP since then (admittedly in a not very competitive game) and loving the freedom to branch out research-wise, I am loathe to just reverse it. I would prefer to bring them to 'strong civ' status by making their other mechanics (namely, the other two golem buffing buildings) stronger and more widely applicable. As it stands they are very niche. I like scutarii's idea for a collateral-immune building. Still open for ideas on the other one. I am considering free raider's promo with Adularia device: they will probably always remain terrible as long as they don't have access to at least some mobility enhancer.

I play MP ~1/week with a circle of 11-12 friends of varied skill levels, and have been doing so since just before the start of the year. None of them are experienced as RB players (like Tasunke etc) but IIRC that's a similar player pool. I used to play a whole bunch of FFH MP back against other forum members during Ice (20+ games), but that is many years ago.

The metagame is very different now so I don't try to assume things are the same (back then Ljos were the strongest rush race due to worldspell/hero, spells had no damage cap -ring of fire confessors!- and half the races caused OOS and couldn't be played at all).