I've been playing FFH2 for quite some time, and have won games as most civilizations and using a variety of tactics. I prefer the largest size map and the slowest game speed for long, epic, and complex games.
I have quite a few suggestions that I think will improve the game, and most of these suggestions are balance-based that require code tweaks more than complete reprogramming of game aspects.
1.) Weapons
Weapons seem to be kind of a funky aspect of the game for 2 reasons.
The first reason is that they buff all troops equally (a flat +1, +2, or +4 to strength). A Swordsman actually gets a larger percent increase from weapons than a Phalanx does, which seems strange. It would seem that the stronger troops should get as much benefit as the weaker troops. Going from 4 strength to 8 doubles your base strength, going from 12 to 16 is only a third stronger.
The second reason is because it's very spotty which troops get benefits from weapons and which do not, and this strongly favors melee troops over all others and is one of the primary reasons why archery unit are largely obsolete (even for city defenses). Why have a stack of 3/5 archers (even with a d-strike, first strike, and 25% city bonus) when you could have 5/5 swords with bronze (6/6 with iron) that can defend nearly as well, protect much more effectively against pillaging, and be used offensively whenever needed? Outside of that it's strange that some lower tier units are stronger than higher tier units simply due to the fact that they can use weapons. Soldiers of Kilmorph with Mithril are 8 strength, Palamanders are 7. Crusaders (that use a shield, sword, and full armor) gain no benefit from weapons at all, while archers gain no benefit but longbows can use bronze and iron?
My suggestion with weapons would be to give every single troop in the game a buff based on weapons. The buffs would be "Access to Bronze weapons", "Access to Iron weapons", and "Access to Mithril weapons".
This buff would have a different effect on different units.
Some units would have full weapons benefit, which would gain +15% strength for access to bronze weapons, +30% strength for access to Iron weapons, and +60% strength from access to mithril weapons.
Some units would have half weapons benefit, which would gain +7.5% strength for access to bronze, +15% for iron, and +30% for mithril.
Some units would have no weapons benefit, gaining +0% for bronze, +0% for iron, and +0% for mithril.
This would balance out weapons a lot better so they aren't an overpowering factor, but still very important. This would also allow you to have a smoother balance between troop types and each could be coded to one of the 3 categories for weapons benefit. It might require a little rebalancing on the troops, but it shouldn't be anything major. It would also balance out troops better so that you don't completely neglect some of the troops simply because they are categorized to not use weapons (It is currently very effective no matter your style of gameplay to ignore and not build archery units, Paramanders, Crusaders, Monks,
Suggested catagories:
Full Benefit: Most melee,
Half Benefit: All archery, All golems, All recon troops, All siege troops,
No Benefit: All beasts, All elementals/summons, all arcane troops,
Disciples/Mounted/other: case-by-case.
Full: Crusader, Paladin, Eidilon, Horseman, Ratha, Chariot, Knight.
Half: Paramander, Stygian Guard, Druid, , Horsearcher, Shadowrider, Fawns, Satyrs, Drowns.
None: Channeling2/Channeling3 religious units.
Some special units (like monks) and all heros should be case-by-case as well. In the current game, a large amount of heros get left in the dust because they can't use weapons (even heros that clearly should be able to). These heros should be able to benefit from improved gear like any standard unit.
Unit Balance
Perhaps less major than the weapons is unit balance. A lot of the units seem to be "Horse1, Horse2, and Horse3" where they unit essentially stays the same but just increases in raw strength as the game goes on. In addition to that, Melee units are pretty well unmatched when it comes to raw force.
A good example is mounted units. Horsemen, Chariots, and Horse Archers are all very similar, with the only real change being that they increase in strength from one tier to the other. They fill the same exact nitche even though a chariot -vs- horse archer -vs- mounted melee are fundamentally quite different.
See if you agree with this guide to units interacting with eachother:
Melee units: The staple in your army against which everything else is judged. They have fairly high strength, don't require a lot of special resources, and can be effective at attacking or defending. However, they move slowly.
Recon units: Generally a bit weaker than melee units, but able to have a strength advantage against them in the wilderness. Better mobility in the wilderness.
Assassin units: Mage and weak unit killers, very vulnerable if attacked.
Mounted Archer units: Ultimate harassing units. Not an overly high unit strength, but mobility, the highest withdraw rate in the game, and minor collateral damage allows them to soften enemy units up and then retreat to safety. Very weak if they're stuck on the defensive.
Chariot-type units: Low withdraw rate for a mounted unit, but strong against melee (especially while attacking).
Mounted Melee-type units: general mounted units, get a benefit against archers and not at all weak against melee units. They have fast movement speed, but like other mounted units they are weaker on defense than they are on offense.
Archery units: Great defenders, poor attackers. These units are best suited for holding strongpoints, forts, and cities.
Siege units: Specialize in collateral damage and weakening towns defenses. Generally have a high withdraw rate with medium attack, but weak defense.
Disciple and Arcane depend largely on the particular unit and schools of magic.
A more specific look at one slice of this (using mounted again as an example, would need testing to perfect troop balance) would be:
-Horseman: 5/3, 3 movement. Doesn't receive defensive bonuses, 25% withdraw chance, +50% vs. archery units, flanks siege weapons, 1 first strike.
-Horse Archer: 6/4, 3 movement. Doesn't receive defensive bonuses, 45% withdraw chance, +25% vs. melee units, -25% vs. archery units, 1 first strike, causes collateral damage to up to 4 units (10% health maximum).
-Chariot: 7/4, 2 movement. Doesn't receive defensive bonuses, 15% withdraw chance, +50% vs. melee units, 2-3 first strikes, -25% forest, ancient forest, and jungle attack.
Heros that are similar to the base type of troop could get similar bonuses/penalties, and this differentiation of the troops would give each its own purpose and unique feel.
Another look at how recon troops could be superior in the wild but inferior in a fair fight against other troops would be something like this:
Ranger: 6/5 strength, 2 movement, +25% forest attack, +25% forest defense, +25% jungle attack, +25% jungle defense, +50% ancient forest attack, +25% ancient forest defense, 2 first strikes when attacking or defending in jungle, forest, or ancient forest tiles. Double-movement in forest, new forest, jungle, and ancient forest tiles.
(Dwarven rangers get all their jungle/forest/ancient forest/new forest bonuses replaced with +25% hill attack, +25% hill defense, 2 first strikes when attacking or defending a hill tile, double movement in hills)
Something like this would give recon units, like rangers, a real role to play... while at the same time making them weaker than their archery counterparts at open-field or city defense, and weaker than their melee counterparts at open-field or city offense/defense.
Giving more specific roles to all types of units gives the game flavor and rewards players who think strategically.
Religion Balance
Each of the religions has a really neat theme and background, and it really makes the game feel different. This is different from normal BTS where the religions are essentially the same. I really, really like having the different religions in FFH2 make it feel completely different, even when you play the same civ.
Having said that, I think they could use a little balance. Some provide much more benefits from each other.
Fellowship of the leaves: This is a little on the strong side, especially for elf civs, but overall feels very good. The heroes are interesting, the dependence on ancient forests are interesting, and the unique civic is interesting. I think that it can be toned down a little, however. Specifically the ability to grow your cities twice as large as anyone else due to a combination of the extra food from the forests and the massive bonus to health and happiness in the cities. The only change I'd make to this religion is to reduce Guardian of Nature to +1 happiness for every 2 tiles of forest/jungle/ancient forest and +3 health/city.
Runes of Kilmorph: This is another religion that feels very balanced. It has two interesting heroes and reasonable benefits. Paramanders feel a little generic though, and perhaps should be given something interesting (Perhaps the ability to pay 50 gold to gain 1-4 experience while in a city?). Also Runes of Kilmorph makes you neutral, which seems silly. The religion is all about money, and there are those who are greedy and evil and those who are wealthy and share the wealth. I think that Runes should really not affect your faction, while Fellowship should shift it upwards by 1 (Evil to neutral, neutral to good).
Octopus Overlords: This religion really feels pretty weak. It is one of the early religions, so you really have to compare it to Fellowship and Runes. Fellowship provides heros that are just as strong, and economy/military that is stronger due to increased production and 3 food, 1 production, X commerce (from cottages) tiles. Runes provides a much stronger economy, equally good heroes, and equally good units. Overlords gives good heroes, no real economic benefit, and special units that will eventually all be destroyed by Glory Everlasting.
I would suggest perhaps slanting the Overlords theme to make them benefit a bit from water and coastline (they do, after all, worship their overlords in the deeps). This could be added as a general through their temples, the reason being that those who worship the deeps are feverishly motivated by the proximity to their masters: "Temple of the Overlords provides +1 happiness, +1 health, +1 production, and +10% increased commerce to coastal cities".
Order: This will be a pretty solid religion once Crusaders, Sphener, Valin, and Paladins get benefit from weapons. Their reduction to maintenance and access to one of the better religion spells in the game (Bless is an impressive spell) makes them effective. Their unique civic, Social Order, seems a bit on the weak side. Perhaps allow Social Order to get special benefit from Order-specific religious units: "Having a Prior or Confessor in your cities reduces that cities maintenance by 10%. having a Crusader in your cities reduces that cities crime rate by 10%".
Ashen Veil is masterfully done. The heroes being able to gain benefit from weapons would greatly benefit this, although the Meshabber of Dis really shouldn't get weapon benefits as he already gets +6 fire and +6 unholy (which represent his weapons).
Empyrean: A little on the weaker side. Radiant guards have too low of base strength. They come much later in the game than Axe/Swords, but have the same strength. Being the religion of "honor" it might make sense to give them a little defensive edge (honor being more resolute than aggressive in nature). They really should compare more with Champions than with Swords. Perhaps change them to: 4/5, +1 fire, 1 movement, Sun II, Can detect invisible, Guardian. Empyrean has the disadvantage of only having one hero... but that one hero is one of the best in the game, so it all balances out.
Council of Erus: A very strong religion, but only in certain situations. The one thing that needs to change because it is so easily abused for this religion is the ability for units to not be removed during war declarations. Perhaps it could be changed so that recon units are not removed during war declarations.
Civilizations
The last topic for balance I have is civs. I love the work that was done to make the civs all play very differently from eachother, but some are much stronger than others, so they could use a bit of balance.
Amurites are pretty balanced. The spellstaff on their mages makes their casters interesting, though I wish it wasn't quite a one-time shot. Perhaps their wizards and archmages should get an ability to create a new spellstaff at any city with a mage guild (takes 3 turns). This would let them refuel when they aren't currently fighting.
Their hero is a utility hero, and can be quite interesting to use as a provider of low rank spells to your units.
Balseraphs One of the best crafted civs in the game. The hero is interesting and unique, many of the units are interesting and unique, and the buildings are nothing short of awesome.
Bannor seem to be a one-trick pony. Sure, their crusade with demagog zergs is effective... but it is often very uninteresting and forces only one style of gameplay. They have no special buildings, very limited special units, and their civ trait (Guardsman to melee/archery units) is again something useful but kind of boring.
Not really sure what to do about the Bannor, but their gameplay seems less interesting than other civs.
Calabim is another very interesting and rewarding to play civ. The only real downside I see for the Calabim is that they don't benefit much from Fellowship, Don't benefit from Ashen (Demon units can't be vampires), don't benefit from Overlords (Demon units can't be vampires), and their feeding can really weaken your economy. This makes Runes of Kilmorph a strong choice for the Calabim, but it automatically makes you neutral... this seems kind of strange because this can be a -good- thing, as you can make Druids vampiric, but not Eidilons. The other good choice is Order for vampiric Paladins (think about that for a second) and the -40% maintenance building making up for the 20% you lose out from your altered courthouse. The third religion that benefits Calabim is Empyrean for the radiant guards (which can be upgraded into vampires and then vampire lords) and Chalid, which is an absolute wrecking ball, especially with 11 defensive strength and the ability to twincast Wraiths.
That leaves the best three religious choices for the evil, vampiric civilization as worshiping the sun, worshiping a religion that fights the unnatural, and worshiping the honorable god of crafting. Seems strange, but it's true. Esus, which makes sense as a vampiric-religion, is also pretty solid, but I've found that they're not quite as well suited as Order, Runes, or Empyrean.
Clan of Embers is an interesting civ. I like how unique their units are and how they are all about brute force (Mass produced Ogres, with 2 strength more than Champions... ouch!). Their civ spell is a bit too powerful in the beginning. I've had games where I've absolutely blown past all the other civs in technology research because my swarm of goblins around the world were getting so many goodie huts. The barbarian civilization ahead of everyone else by 5 techs seems kind of strange. Perhaps a more appropriate spell would be to give them X number of units in each city, where the number is based on city population and the types of units are the strongest ones that the city can produce.
Dorviello seem to be pretty much a Clan of Embers clone. They focus on stronger units faster (like the clan), have poor research (like the clan), lack the end-game siege units (like the clan), and can start out friendly with the barbarians (like the clan).
It seems like something should be done to differentiate the Dorviello from the Clan. I do like all the unique Dorviello units, even if they are statistically the same as the standard units. It adds a lot of flavor to have your units with different names and looks.
Elohim is a pretty solid good civ. Their ability to see the unique features is interesting and unique, and their tolerant bonus is also very interesting. Their hero is also unique and interesting, able to be used to directly fight the AC. The only real balance issue I have with the Elohim is that both their unique units, the devout and monk, are largely useless.
The Devout is only good for scouting enemy territory. It is weaker (5 attack instead of 7) and unable to pick off casters... and receives no real bonus to offset this weakness except for the ability to cleanse city runes. Perhaps devouts should be given something more direct in order to lower the AC (in the way that the stigmata of the unborn can directly increase). I would suggest a promotion that only Devouts can get that reduces the AC by 1, and requires demon-slaying 1 or undead-slaying 1. This would allow the Elohim to lower the AC while they can keep their devouts alive.
Monks are just inferior. They are only 6 strength with demon-slaying, and unable to use weapons. By contrast, champions with Iron are 8 and champions with mithril are 10. Monks are quickly built and can be built a little earlier in the game, but even considering that the only reason I would consider using monks for long is if I am unable to secure Iron. My suggestion for monks would be to allow them to Matyr themselves in order to consecrate nearby demons and undead (Consecrate could be a debuff that adds "-40% strength, 1 less xp during successful combat" to the demons and has a 25% chance to wear off every turn. This would allow your monks to be early 6 strength units, and then later on protect you from the evils of the world (which is really where the Elohim seem like they should shine).
Grigori have the adventurer, which is the one thing that is really unique and powerful for their civilization. Unfortunately, this eats up your great person points, which gives you a technology/economic disadvantage. To further that disadvantage, you're agnostic so you cannot pick up a religion (like Runes) to boost that economy up and increase happiness for your cities. Because of this, it seems that the Grigori is always falling behind in technology and that their economy. I think the fundamental change that needs to be made here is that the Agnostic trait needs to provide an advantage along with the disadvantage of being unable to have a religion. +1 happiness, +1 health, and +1 commerce to your cities seems like it would be appropriate as an advantage to help offset the no-religion disadvantage.
As far as the lack of great people go, I think having the adventurer as such a versatile and strong unit is plenty to offset this.
Hippus are well done. They always have horses and their mounted units move further and withdraw easier, and they can hire units. This provides them with a good niche. There really isn't much to change about the Hippus.
Illians are also well done and interesting. The agnostic personality again could use the +1 happiness, +1 health, and +1 commerce boost to help offset the massive disadvantage that not having a religion has.
The Stir From Slumber requirement to finish off a civ seems a little wierd as the only way you can possibly accomplish it. Often times someone else will get the one last hit needed to finish them off, and that can massively affect your game. I think it would be better if Stir From Slumber could be produced if you finish off a player -or- if you've completed The Draw. This would allow you to produce Stir From Slumber earlier if you kill a player, but allow you to produce it anyhow a little later if you do not.
Infernal is a good civ and is balanced by the fact that you only start mid-game.
Khazad are also well done. They have stronger units in many cases, but lack magic. They also can get a large boost from having money laying around. One thing I would change about the AI is for them to focus on keeping enough gold around to keep the boost going to their cities.
Their hero, Maros, is a really good match for the Khazad. 12 base defense +50% causes him to be a prime city defender. The ability to convert forest into battering rams on offense gives him a solid role on the offense as well. He can create siege weapons for you and defend your offensive stack.
Kuriotates are kind of interesting. I like the concept of their sprawling cities, but I wish their settlements would play a bit of a larger role in the game.
I would like to see the settlements become more of low-yield cities. Perhaps give them the ability to produce a limited selection of buildings (any temple where there is the appropriate religion, monument, palisade, walls, training yard, archery range) as well as let them have normal production of the units that their buildings allow, and allow some population (limit it to 3 population). The settlements can still produce culture, production, and commerce normally... though it is obviously limited by the 3 population and lower selection of buildings. Have maintenence exist in these settlements as well, but reduced by a significant amount (perhaps -75%, which would allow the city-states civ if they grow large enough to reduce their maintenance to zero... very Kuriotate-ish). Have the settlements still automatically destroyed when captured, but producing half the effect to the AC.
I think these changes would round out the Kuriotates some so that they can reasonably expand beyond their couple of mega-cities, but that the settlements would still be far inferior to the normal cities of other civs.
Lunan are another very well thought out civ. Their unique resource, faster water movement, and unique water tile improvement all make them extremely effective as a coastal and island civilization.
Liosalfar are a bit forced into Fellowship of the Leaves, but this isn't such a bad thing. They are able to produce HUGE cities surrounded by ancient forests and cottages, proving to be one of the strongest economies in the game.
The one thing that seems weird about all this is that it is very hard to protect against pillaging. the 50% ancient forest defense means that your troops have a hard time preventing pillaging in their own forests. Perhaps ancient forests should provide 50% defense for the owner and allies, and only 25% for enemies? The civ trait (+1 offense to archers) seems pretty silly as well, as even with +1 strength archers are terrible offensive troops. Instead it might be more appropriate to provide +1 first strike to all archer and recon troops, or +25% forest and ancient forest attack and defense to all troops.
The other thing that seems very bland is their hero. He's 6/6 with a defensive strike. That's about it. It seems like he should have something interesting or forest-related that would provide a unique aspect. Perhaps an interesting suggestion would be to give him an ability: "Gilden's Gift: Removes 4-9 experience from Gilden Silveric and grants the experience to an archery unit on the tile". This would allow him to be of some use later in the game after there are units that make his paltry 6/6 strength meaningless.
Luchurip have a great theme, but it has a little weirdness to it as it is currently implemented. The golems are great, but they're outshined by other units. The Iron golem is 10 strength, the same as a champion with mithril weapons... but the champion heals on its own, gets 25% vs. melee, and has a HUGE advantage because it can get promotions. The same is true about the wood golem compared to a swords/axeman with iron, gargoyle compared to longbow, bone golem to immortal, etc... The change of weapons to a +% bonus will make a big difference as the weapons won't make golems obsolete as badly. The other thing that is strange is the ability to give fireball to ALL your golems. Having the luchurip be the best mages in the game due to fireball-spitting golems seems to really not fit in with the civ. It might be more appropriate for the Blasting Workshop to provide your golems with +1 fire damage instead.
Another thing about the Luchurip is the way their hero works. It is very awkward to have your entire game based around how well your hero levels up. There are a lot of things you could do with the golem civ to make the hero interesting (For example, let Barnaxus transfer his consciousness into any golem you possess, giving them his experience and promotions). This would make him unique in that he would get stronger as you built stronger golems. A clockwerk Barnaxus or bone golem Barnaxus would be neat. The ability to get +10-+50% boost to your golems could instead come from your access to weapons (or in this case, superior crafting materials). If the weapon-change is implemented to percentage, it might be appropriate to slightly reduce some of the mass-produced golems in strength (Wood to 5, Iron to 9).
Lastly, the slow regeneration for golems makes sense elsewhere, but while they're in a city with a sculpter's studio, they really should repair quickly.
Malakim seem to be just a little bland. Their lightbringers and ability to pre-build priests is interesting, but other than that there is very little unique about them. It might make their religious fervor aspect seem a little more interesting if they had reason to focus on religious units. A bonus of +1 fire strength to all religious units might make it beneficial to focus on the religious units instead of the standard ones.
Mercurians, like the inferal, and interesting, unique, and balanced by their later start.
Sheaim are fun to play for the creature zerg that they can produce. Their hero is amazing for late-game, and the various creatures that they summon instead of having standard troops makes the civ feel very different to play than any other civ.
The only real downside right now is that the issue with weapons can make the Sheaim a little underwhelming. Minotaurs, with 8/11 and +25% city defense can seem pretty awesome until you consider that Champions with mithril are 10/10 with +25% melee. Many of the other units suffer the same disadvantage, and a further disadvantage is that it's basically game-over when someone builds Glory Everlasting. Sheaim really needs to play Ashen Vale to get the most of out the civ, and Glory Everlasting kills off your Chaos Marauders, Succubus, Tar Demons, Eidilons, Beasts of Agares, Mardero and Mishabber of Dis. At this point your best option is to start a new game, which is frustrating and not really all that fun.
Sidar can mass produce shades using disciple or arcane units, which is very overpowered. You can abuse Order (Spirit guide + disciples + shade production creates an absolute shade factory).
I like the way the Sidar rely on shades to power them, but it is currently very abusable and limits your strats to those that abuse your shade creation. I think it would perhaps be best if your shade production followed similar rules that your great person building followed: Each takes a bit more resources than the last. Specifically, my suggestion is that the first shade requires a level 4 unit, the next shade requires a level 5 unit, etc. This caps out with shades requiring level 9 units each. Beyond that, Spirit Guides should not work to pass on experience when creating a shade.
Svartalfar are another elf race, requiring Fellowship of Leaves to really take advantage of them. Their Sinister ability seems to be a little weak, perhaps upgrading it to +1 offensive strength and +1 first strike to recon units would make it a little more meaningful.
Anyhow, I know it's a really really long post, but I do enjoy the mod a lot, and would like to see the balance tweaked a little to make it even more enjoyable for everyone. Thanks for the time reading, if you've made it this far
I have quite a few suggestions that I think will improve the game, and most of these suggestions are balance-based that require code tweaks more than complete reprogramming of game aspects.
1.) Weapons
Weapons seem to be kind of a funky aspect of the game for 2 reasons.
The first reason is that they buff all troops equally (a flat +1, +2, or +4 to strength). A Swordsman actually gets a larger percent increase from weapons than a Phalanx does, which seems strange. It would seem that the stronger troops should get as much benefit as the weaker troops. Going from 4 strength to 8 doubles your base strength, going from 12 to 16 is only a third stronger.
The second reason is because it's very spotty which troops get benefits from weapons and which do not, and this strongly favors melee troops over all others and is one of the primary reasons why archery unit are largely obsolete (even for city defenses). Why have a stack of 3/5 archers (even with a d-strike, first strike, and 25% city bonus) when you could have 5/5 swords with bronze (6/6 with iron) that can defend nearly as well, protect much more effectively against pillaging, and be used offensively whenever needed? Outside of that it's strange that some lower tier units are stronger than higher tier units simply due to the fact that they can use weapons. Soldiers of Kilmorph with Mithril are 8 strength, Palamanders are 7. Crusaders (that use a shield, sword, and full armor) gain no benefit from weapons at all, while archers gain no benefit but longbows can use bronze and iron?
My suggestion with weapons would be to give every single troop in the game a buff based on weapons. The buffs would be "Access to Bronze weapons", "Access to Iron weapons", and "Access to Mithril weapons".
This buff would have a different effect on different units.
Some units would have full weapons benefit, which would gain +15% strength for access to bronze weapons, +30% strength for access to Iron weapons, and +60% strength from access to mithril weapons.
Some units would have half weapons benefit, which would gain +7.5% strength for access to bronze, +15% for iron, and +30% for mithril.
Some units would have no weapons benefit, gaining +0% for bronze, +0% for iron, and +0% for mithril.
This would balance out weapons a lot better so they aren't an overpowering factor, but still very important. This would also allow you to have a smoother balance between troop types and each could be coded to one of the 3 categories for weapons benefit. It might require a little rebalancing on the troops, but it shouldn't be anything major. It would also balance out troops better so that you don't completely neglect some of the troops simply because they are categorized to not use weapons (It is currently very effective no matter your style of gameplay to ignore and not build archery units, Paramanders, Crusaders, Monks,
Suggested catagories:
Full Benefit: Most melee,
Half Benefit: All archery, All golems, All recon troops, All siege troops,
No Benefit: All beasts, All elementals/summons, all arcane troops,
Disciples/Mounted/other: case-by-case.
Full: Crusader, Paladin, Eidilon, Horseman, Ratha, Chariot, Knight.
Half: Paramander, Stygian Guard, Druid, , Horsearcher, Shadowrider, Fawns, Satyrs, Drowns.
None: Channeling2/Channeling3 religious units.
Some special units (like monks) and all heros should be case-by-case as well. In the current game, a large amount of heros get left in the dust because they can't use weapons (even heros that clearly should be able to). These heros should be able to benefit from improved gear like any standard unit.
Unit Balance
Perhaps less major than the weapons is unit balance. A lot of the units seem to be "Horse1, Horse2, and Horse3" where they unit essentially stays the same but just increases in raw strength as the game goes on. In addition to that, Melee units are pretty well unmatched when it comes to raw force.
A good example is mounted units. Horsemen, Chariots, and Horse Archers are all very similar, with the only real change being that they increase in strength from one tier to the other. They fill the same exact nitche even though a chariot -vs- horse archer -vs- mounted melee are fundamentally quite different.
See if you agree with this guide to units interacting with eachother:
Melee units: The staple in your army against which everything else is judged. They have fairly high strength, don't require a lot of special resources, and can be effective at attacking or defending. However, they move slowly.
Recon units: Generally a bit weaker than melee units, but able to have a strength advantage against them in the wilderness. Better mobility in the wilderness.
Assassin units: Mage and weak unit killers, very vulnerable if attacked.
Mounted Archer units: Ultimate harassing units. Not an overly high unit strength, but mobility, the highest withdraw rate in the game, and minor collateral damage allows them to soften enemy units up and then retreat to safety. Very weak if they're stuck on the defensive.
Chariot-type units: Low withdraw rate for a mounted unit, but strong against melee (especially while attacking).
Mounted Melee-type units: general mounted units, get a benefit against archers and not at all weak against melee units. They have fast movement speed, but like other mounted units they are weaker on defense than they are on offense.
Archery units: Great defenders, poor attackers. These units are best suited for holding strongpoints, forts, and cities.
Siege units: Specialize in collateral damage and weakening towns defenses. Generally have a high withdraw rate with medium attack, but weak defense.
Disciple and Arcane depend largely on the particular unit and schools of magic.
A more specific look at one slice of this (using mounted again as an example, would need testing to perfect troop balance) would be:
-Horseman: 5/3, 3 movement. Doesn't receive defensive bonuses, 25% withdraw chance, +50% vs. archery units, flanks siege weapons, 1 first strike.
-Horse Archer: 6/4, 3 movement. Doesn't receive defensive bonuses, 45% withdraw chance, +25% vs. melee units, -25% vs. archery units, 1 first strike, causes collateral damage to up to 4 units (10% health maximum).
-Chariot: 7/4, 2 movement. Doesn't receive defensive bonuses, 15% withdraw chance, +50% vs. melee units, 2-3 first strikes, -25% forest, ancient forest, and jungle attack.
Heros that are similar to the base type of troop could get similar bonuses/penalties, and this differentiation of the troops would give each its own purpose and unique feel.
Another look at how recon troops could be superior in the wild but inferior in a fair fight against other troops would be something like this:
Ranger: 6/5 strength, 2 movement, +25% forest attack, +25% forest defense, +25% jungle attack, +25% jungle defense, +50% ancient forest attack, +25% ancient forest defense, 2 first strikes when attacking or defending in jungle, forest, or ancient forest tiles. Double-movement in forest, new forest, jungle, and ancient forest tiles.
(Dwarven rangers get all their jungle/forest/ancient forest/new forest bonuses replaced with +25% hill attack, +25% hill defense, 2 first strikes when attacking or defending a hill tile, double movement in hills)
Something like this would give recon units, like rangers, a real role to play... while at the same time making them weaker than their archery counterparts at open-field or city defense, and weaker than their melee counterparts at open-field or city offense/defense.
Giving more specific roles to all types of units gives the game flavor and rewards players who think strategically.
Religion Balance
Each of the religions has a really neat theme and background, and it really makes the game feel different. This is different from normal BTS where the religions are essentially the same. I really, really like having the different religions in FFH2 make it feel completely different, even when you play the same civ.
Having said that, I think they could use a little balance. Some provide much more benefits from each other.
Fellowship of the leaves: This is a little on the strong side, especially for elf civs, but overall feels very good. The heroes are interesting, the dependence on ancient forests are interesting, and the unique civic is interesting. I think that it can be toned down a little, however. Specifically the ability to grow your cities twice as large as anyone else due to a combination of the extra food from the forests and the massive bonus to health and happiness in the cities. The only change I'd make to this religion is to reduce Guardian of Nature to +1 happiness for every 2 tiles of forest/jungle/ancient forest and +3 health/city.
Runes of Kilmorph: This is another religion that feels very balanced. It has two interesting heroes and reasonable benefits. Paramanders feel a little generic though, and perhaps should be given something interesting (Perhaps the ability to pay 50 gold to gain 1-4 experience while in a city?). Also Runes of Kilmorph makes you neutral, which seems silly. The religion is all about money, and there are those who are greedy and evil and those who are wealthy and share the wealth. I think that Runes should really not affect your faction, while Fellowship should shift it upwards by 1 (Evil to neutral, neutral to good).
Octopus Overlords: This religion really feels pretty weak. It is one of the early religions, so you really have to compare it to Fellowship and Runes. Fellowship provides heros that are just as strong, and economy/military that is stronger due to increased production and 3 food, 1 production, X commerce (from cottages) tiles. Runes provides a much stronger economy, equally good heroes, and equally good units. Overlords gives good heroes, no real economic benefit, and special units that will eventually all be destroyed by Glory Everlasting.
I would suggest perhaps slanting the Overlords theme to make them benefit a bit from water and coastline (they do, after all, worship their overlords in the deeps). This could be added as a general through their temples, the reason being that those who worship the deeps are feverishly motivated by the proximity to their masters: "Temple of the Overlords provides +1 happiness, +1 health, +1 production, and +10% increased commerce to coastal cities".
Order: This will be a pretty solid religion once Crusaders, Sphener, Valin, and Paladins get benefit from weapons. Their reduction to maintenance and access to one of the better religion spells in the game (Bless is an impressive spell) makes them effective. Their unique civic, Social Order, seems a bit on the weak side. Perhaps allow Social Order to get special benefit from Order-specific religious units: "Having a Prior or Confessor in your cities reduces that cities maintenance by 10%. having a Crusader in your cities reduces that cities crime rate by 10%".
Ashen Veil is masterfully done. The heroes being able to gain benefit from weapons would greatly benefit this, although the Meshabber of Dis really shouldn't get weapon benefits as he already gets +6 fire and +6 unholy (which represent his weapons).
Empyrean: A little on the weaker side. Radiant guards have too low of base strength. They come much later in the game than Axe/Swords, but have the same strength. Being the religion of "honor" it might make sense to give them a little defensive edge (honor being more resolute than aggressive in nature). They really should compare more with Champions than with Swords. Perhaps change them to: 4/5, +1 fire, 1 movement, Sun II, Can detect invisible, Guardian. Empyrean has the disadvantage of only having one hero... but that one hero is one of the best in the game, so it all balances out.
Council of Erus: A very strong religion, but only in certain situations. The one thing that needs to change because it is so easily abused for this religion is the ability for units to not be removed during war declarations. Perhaps it could be changed so that recon units are not removed during war declarations.
Civilizations
The last topic for balance I have is civs. I love the work that was done to make the civs all play very differently from eachother, but some are much stronger than others, so they could use a bit of balance.
Amurites are pretty balanced. The spellstaff on their mages makes their casters interesting, though I wish it wasn't quite a one-time shot. Perhaps their wizards and archmages should get an ability to create a new spellstaff at any city with a mage guild (takes 3 turns). This would let them refuel when they aren't currently fighting.
Their hero is a utility hero, and can be quite interesting to use as a provider of low rank spells to your units.
Balseraphs One of the best crafted civs in the game. The hero is interesting and unique, many of the units are interesting and unique, and the buildings are nothing short of awesome.
Bannor seem to be a one-trick pony. Sure, their crusade with demagog zergs is effective... but it is often very uninteresting and forces only one style of gameplay. They have no special buildings, very limited special units, and their civ trait (Guardsman to melee/archery units) is again something useful but kind of boring.
Not really sure what to do about the Bannor, but their gameplay seems less interesting than other civs.
Calabim is another very interesting and rewarding to play civ. The only real downside I see for the Calabim is that they don't benefit much from Fellowship, Don't benefit from Ashen (Demon units can't be vampires), don't benefit from Overlords (Demon units can't be vampires), and their feeding can really weaken your economy. This makes Runes of Kilmorph a strong choice for the Calabim, but it automatically makes you neutral... this seems kind of strange because this can be a -good- thing, as you can make Druids vampiric, but not Eidilons. The other good choice is Order for vampiric Paladins (think about that for a second) and the -40% maintenance building making up for the 20% you lose out from your altered courthouse. The third religion that benefits Calabim is Empyrean for the radiant guards (which can be upgraded into vampires and then vampire lords) and Chalid, which is an absolute wrecking ball, especially with 11 defensive strength and the ability to twincast Wraiths.
That leaves the best three religious choices for the evil, vampiric civilization as worshiping the sun, worshiping a religion that fights the unnatural, and worshiping the honorable god of crafting. Seems strange, but it's true. Esus, which makes sense as a vampiric-religion, is also pretty solid, but I've found that they're not quite as well suited as Order, Runes, or Empyrean.
Clan of Embers is an interesting civ. I like how unique their units are and how they are all about brute force (Mass produced Ogres, with 2 strength more than Champions... ouch!). Their civ spell is a bit too powerful in the beginning. I've had games where I've absolutely blown past all the other civs in technology research because my swarm of goblins around the world were getting so many goodie huts. The barbarian civilization ahead of everyone else by 5 techs seems kind of strange. Perhaps a more appropriate spell would be to give them X number of units in each city, where the number is based on city population and the types of units are the strongest ones that the city can produce.
Dorviello seem to be pretty much a Clan of Embers clone. They focus on stronger units faster (like the clan), have poor research (like the clan), lack the end-game siege units (like the clan), and can start out friendly with the barbarians (like the clan).
It seems like something should be done to differentiate the Dorviello from the Clan. I do like all the unique Dorviello units, even if they are statistically the same as the standard units. It adds a lot of flavor to have your units with different names and looks.
Elohim is a pretty solid good civ. Their ability to see the unique features is interesting and unique, and their tolerant bonus is also very interesting. Their hero is also unique and interesting, able to be used to directly fight the AC. The only real balance issue I have with the Elohim is that both their unique units, the devout and monk, are largely useless.
The Devout is only good for scouting enemy territory. It is weaker (5 attack instead of 7) and unable to pick off casters... and receives no real bonus to offset this weakness except for the ability to cleanse city runes. Perhaps devouts should be given something more direct in order to lower the AC (in the way that the stigmata of the unborn can directly increase). I would suggest a promotion that only Devouts can get that reduces the AC by 1, and requires demon-slaying 1 or undead-slaying 1. This would allow the Elohim to lower the AC while they can keep their devouts alive.
Monks are just inferior. They are only 6 strength with demon-slaying, and unable to use weapons. By contrast, champions with Iron are 8 and champions with mithril are 10. Monks are quickly built and can be built a little earlier in the game, but even considering that the only reason I would consider using monks for long is if I am unable to secure Iron. My suggestion for monks would be to allow them to Matyr themselves in order to consecrate nearby demons and undead (Consecrate could be a debuff that adds "-40% strength, 1 less xp during successful combat" to the demons and has a 25% chance to wear off every turn. This would allow your monks to be early 6 strength units, and then later on protect you from the evils of the world (which is really where the Elohim seem like they should shine).
Grigori have the adventurer, which is the one thing that is really unique and powerful for their civilization. Unfortunately, this eats up your great person points, which gives you a technology/economic disadvantage. To further that disadvantage, you're agnostic so you cannot pick up a religion (like Runes) to boost that economy up and increase happiness for your cities. Because of this, it seems that the Grigori is always falling behind in technology and that their economy. I think the fundamental change that needs to be made here is that the Agnostic trait needs to provide an advantage along with the disadvantage of being unable to have a religion. +1 happiness, +1 health, and +1 commerce to your cities seems like it would be appropriate as an advantage to help offset the no-religion disadvantage.
As far as the lack of great people go, I think having the adventurer as such a versatile and strong unit is plenty to offset this.
Hippus are well done. They always have horses and their mounted units move further and withdraw easier, and they can hire units. This provides them with a good niche. There really isn't much to change about the Hippus.
Illians are also well done and interesting. The agnostic personality again could use the +1 happiness, +1 health, and +1 commerce boost to help offset the massive disadvantage that not having a religion has.
The Stir From Slumber requirement to finish off a civ seems a little wierd as the only way you can possibly accomplish it. Often times someone else will get the one last hit needed to finish them off, and that can massively affect your game. I think it would be better if Stir From Slumber could be produced if you finish off a player -or- if you've completed The Draw. This would allow you to produce Stir From Slumber earlier if you kill a player, but allow you to produce it anyhow a little later if you do not.
Infernal is a good civ and is balanced by the fact that you only start mid-game.
Khazad are also well done. They have stronger units in many cases, but lack magic. They also can get a large boost from having money laying around. One thing I would change about the AI is for them to focus on keeping enough gold around to keep the boost going to their cities.
Their hero, Maros, is a really good match for the Khazad. 12 base defense +50% causes him to be a prime city defender. The ability to convert forest into battering rams on offense gives him a solid role on the offense as well. He can create siege weapons for you and defend your offensive stack.
Kuriotates are kind of interesting. I like the concept of their sprawling cities, but I wish their settlements would play a bit of a larger role in the game.
I would like to see the settlements become more of low-yield cities. Perhaps give them the ability to produce a limited selection of buildings (any temple where there is the appropriate religion, monument, palisade, walls, training yard, archery range) as well as let them have normal production of the units that their buildings allow, and allow some population (limit it to 3 population). The settlements can still produce culture, production, and commerce normally... though it is obviously limited by the 3 population and lower selection of buildings. Have maintenence exist in these settlements as well, but reduced by a significant amount (perhaps -75%, which would allow the city-states civ if they grow large enough to reduce their maintenance to zero... very Kuriotate-ish). Have the settlements still automatically destroyed when captured, but producing half the effect to the AC.
I think these changes would round out the Kuriotates some so that they can reasonably expand beyond their couple of mega-cities, but that the settlements would still be far inferior to the normal cities of other civs.
Lunan are another very well thought out civ. Their unique resource, faster water movement, and unique water tile improvement all make them extremely effective as a coastal and island civilization.
Liosalfar are a bit forced into Fellowship of the Leaves, but this isn't such a bad thing. They are able to produce HUGE cities surrounded by ancient forests and cottages, proving to be one of the strongest economies in the game.
The one thing that seems weird about all this is that it is very hard to protect against pillaging. the 50% ancient forest defense means that your troops have a hard time preventing pillaging in their own forests. Perhaps ancient forests should provide 50% defense for the owner and allies, and only 25% for enemies? The civ trait (+1 offense to archers) seems pretty silly as well, as even with +1 strength archers are terrible offensive troops. Instead it might be more appropriate to provide +1 first strike to all archer and recon troops, or +25% forest and ancient forest attack and defense to all troops.
The other thing that seems very bland is their hero. He's 6/6 with a defensive strike. That's about it. It seems like he should have something interesting or forest-related that would provide a unique aspect. Perhaps an interesting suggestion would be to give him an ability: "Gilden's Gift: Removes 4-9 experience from Gilden Silveric and grants the experience to an archery unit on the tile". This would allow him to be of some use later in the game after there are units that make his paltry 6/6 strength meaningless.
Luchurip have a great theme, but it has a little weirdness to it as it is currently implemented. The golems are great, but they're outshined by other units. The Iron golem is 10 strength, the same as a champion with mithril weapons... but the champion heals on its own, gets 25% vs. melee, and has a HUGE advantage because it can get promotions. The same is true about the wood golem compared to a swords/axeman with iron, gargoyle compared to longbow, bone golem to immortal, etc... The change of weapons to a +% bonus will make a big difference as the weapons won't make golems obsolete as badly. The other thing that is strange is the ability to give fireball to ALL your golems. Having the luchurip be the best mages in the game due to fireball-spitting golems seems to really not fit in with the civ. It might be more appropriate for the Blasting Workshop to provide your golems with +1 fire damage instead.
Another thing about the Luchurip is the way their hero works. It is very awkward to have your entire game based around how well your hero levels up. There are a lot of things you could do with the golem civ to make the hero interesting (For example, let Barnaxus transfer his consciousness into any golem you possess, giving them his experience and promotions). This would make him unique in that he would get stronger as you built stronger golems. A clockwerk Barnaxus or bone golem Barnaxus would be neat. The ability to get +10-+50% boost to your golems could instead come from your access to weapons (or in this case, superior crafting materials). If the weapon-change is implemented to percentage, it might be appropriate to slightly reduce some of the mass-produced golems in strength (Wood to 5, Iron to 9).
Lastly, the slow regeneration for golems makes sense elsewhere, but while they're in a city with a sculpter's studio, they really should repair quickly.
Malakim seem to be just a little bland. Their lightbringers and ability to pre-build priests is interesting, but other than that there is very little unique about them. It might make their religious fervor aspect seem a little more interesting if they had reason to focus on religious units. A bonus of +1 fire strength to all religious units might make it beneficial to focus on the religious units instead of the standard ones.
Mercurians, like the inferal, and interesting, unique, and balanced by their later start.
Sheaim are fun to play for the creature zerg that they can produce. Their hero is amazing for late-game, and the various creatures that they summon instead of having standard troops makes the civ feel very different to play than any other civ.
The only real downside right now is that the issue with weapons can make the Sheaim a little underwhelming. Minotaurs, with 8/11 and +25% city defense can seem pretty awesome until you consider that Champions with mithril are 10/10 with +25% melee. Many of the other units suffer the same disadvantage, and a further disadvantage is that it's basically game-over when someone builds Glory Everlasting. Sheaim really needs to play Ashen Vale to get the most of out the civ, and Glory Everlasting kills off your Chaos Marauders, Succubus, Tar Demons, Eidilons, Beasts of Agares, Mardero and Mishabber of Dis. At this point your best option is to start a new game, which is frustrating and not really all that fun.
Sidar can mass produce shades using disciple or arcane units, which is very overpowered. You can abuse Order (Spirit guide + disciples + shade production creates an absolute shade factory).
I like the way the Sidar rely on shades to power them, but it is currently very abusable and limits your strats to those that abuse your shade creation. I think it would perhaps be best if your shade production followed similar rules that your great person building followed: Each takes a bit more resources than the last. Specifically, my suggestion is that the first shade requires a level 4 unit, the next shade requires a level 5 unit, etc. This caps out with shades requiring level 9 units each. Beyond that, Spirit Guides should not work to pass on experience when creating a shade.
Svartalfar are another elf race, requiring Fellowship of Leaves to really take advantage of them. Their Sinister ability seems to be a little weak, perhaps upgrading it to +1 offensive strength and +1 first strike to recon units would make it a little more meaningful.
Anyhow, I know it's a really really long post, but I do enjoy the mod a lot, and would like to see the balance tweaked a little to make it even more enjoyable for everyone. Thanks for the time reading, if you've made it this far
to build. I've never actually seen it done, ever, unless I did it myself, and it took a very long time to do. It's a distant possibility, little more. and hardly a viable military tactic when you're crushing someone.
Gibbon is laughable, and Empy lets you crush your enemies far better than the suprise wardecs of Esus.
at a potential +50%. An Iron weapon champion has 8
.
