Balance feedback requested

[Kael]

I've been trying to play a game on Monarch and actually do well. Afetr being crushed in several games by the AI Ive landed one that Im doing well on (I love the Hippus!).

Outside of AI issues Im cleaning up (automated and AI workers need improved) Im really focusing on the pendulum swing as you upgraqde your high level units into t4 (and sometimes t3) units. Its very dramatic, Im wondering if it is to strong.

For those wondering what Im babbling about let me specify. Early on the game is pretty tough, you have similar units to the AI, and your comparable levels. As you start to win battles the steamroller effect kicks in. Higher level units get even more powerful and your combat odds start to go up. As you tech you start to gain upgrades and suddenly that high level axeman, is a champion, is a knight and can take on nations by himself. At that point the difficulty of the game goes down and with the game only half over (if that) it is basically ended.

I doing a lot of I stuff to try to work on that curve, or to keep them as up on it as possible. But at some point Im wondering if that multiplicitive growth (growing both in promotions and upgrades) is to powerful.

Put another way should a level 4 knight be as effective as he is against a level 1 axeman (ie: 99.9% attack odds)?

There are a few ways we can address this. We could reduce the strength of t4 units, we could reduce the strength of promotions, we could reduce the xp from combat (as the game option does), we could increased the varibility in combat (so you arent as likely to get 99% results).

What do you guys think? Or does anything at all need to be done?

 

[DarkxL0rd]

i think that for higher difficulty levels, the curve is just right. you're getting trashed in the beginning, but as you claw your way to the top, you start to catch some breaks and get those t4 units. the most powerful being the shadow imo. to me, immortal and deity games feel like one giant underdog story. i love it. and t4 units are not that overpowering, they can take damage and die like the rest of them.

 

[Earthling]

If anything my only opinion is that some of the Tier 4 (or maybe Tier 3?) spellcasters are too strong. I've never been a fan of huge amounts of stack/collateral damage; it's ok for very unique units like Dwarven Druids, Chalid, or High Priests of Winter, but other spells like Tsunami, Ring of Flames, and Maelstrom can do too much. Like others have suggested I'd be ok if there was some way for civs without this magic to counter; say a general "magic resistance" promotion that anyone can get, or another spell that protects your units beyond a certain amount of damage.

Otherwise, I don't feel that general high-level combat units are too powerful at all. Though I guess in the case of Knights/a couple other Horse related units there needs to be a Promotion against Mounted Units, like there is for melee/archer. But even then, maybe the AI isn't smart enough to not suicide against your high level units, but they can still be taken down through tactics or sheer numbers on the human side, and the AI gets enough bonuses to be a challenge anyway. I think the reward for researching these techs is fairly well balanced with the results most of the time.

Oh, and I guess my last personal opinion is that I do think it's unfair for players to stockpile high level-units through stuff like religion/alignment switching; I've given my feelings on this before and it just seems abusive.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't really want any unit nerfed (except maybe removing Pillar of Fire from Chalid), but think it might be a good idea to make the top tier units all have level requirements (which the AI could ignore, if that option is selected).


I think that it would probably be a good idea to make the AI xp bonuses based on difficulty levels to work by changing the amount of xp needed for each level (like the Charismatic trait) rather than (or maybe in addition to) giving them free xp. That would make combat more beneficial to them, and would make the difficulty level effect their current units rather than just units they newly build.

 

[Grakor456]

I'm still new around here, so I don't know how much my opinion counts, but here goes...

What got me hooked on Fall from Heaven was actually Age of Ice. I had a ton of fun with that scenario, especially taking Benelus, building up his experience, upgrading him, and then watching my buffed up hero practically take on entire empires near by himself.

So, that should kind of tell you what kind of player I am. I'm more of an RPG player than a strategy game player under most circumstances, though I obviously enjoy strategy games too. But, to me, the power curve seems entirely appropriate given the setting. If I take the time and effort to build up my Battlemaster to heroic levels of experience and upgrade him to a Skuld, why shouldn't he be able to massacre hordes of untrained mooks by himself? Isn't that the idea of most medieval fantasy stories and games to begin with?

My games almost always end up revolving around a stack of highly experienced nationals and heroes by late-game, its true. But that seems entirely appropriate to me, so I'm happy with it. I'd be okay with some sort of nerf/tweak to nationals if, say, heroes were tweaked as well to take their place, especially for those civs that have fairly sucky early-game heroes (Clan of Embers, anyone?)

 

[cabbagemeister]

I think the "nerf" of T4 units is already present in the fact that you can only have 4 of them. If my whole army had unreasonable odds against the enemy, then it would be a problem. But only having a few units that can annihilate axemen is fun in a very RPGish way, as Grakor says so eloquently.

(And remember, they can't do it "by themselves," as you suggest, but only with a lot of support from Priests and defensive units for when they get hurt).

If you really do think that T4 units are too strong, I'd argue that teaching the AI good use of AOE/collateral spells is the best way to counter it. A level 6 Beastman is much less intimidating at 60% health.

 

[Earthling]

Clan has an incredibly good hero though...taking barbarian cities for free . And yeah, I like getting really powerful heroes too, it makes the game fun and is balanced as is - it's those AOE spells I'm more worried about.

 

[Senethro]

The problem is the AI's economy and decision about tech choice, not the units. Axemen do just fine against Knights if you're willing to build enough of them due to Axemens low hammer cost. Which brings up a separate issue about unit balance - the Melee/Metal line is still too strong. In MP games everyone chooses it as their first Tier 3 unit. Given that FFH forces specialization of units, if you pick Longbowmen you won't be able to attack and so your opponents can defend with offensive units.

But whatever. I honestly think that teaching the AI how to recognise whether it should do a Aristo-grarian economy or a Cottage economy and then to execute a basic early Axeman attack would go 90% of the way to making a functional AI. Tech beelines - once it has a good economy then most of what an AI does won't be mistakes, but choices. Getting Smelting before Education is a mistake, but getting Smelting before Philosophy is a choice and there are reasons to go the other way.

 

[Kael]

This is exactly the kind of feedback I need, thanks guys.

The problem is the AI's economy and decision about tech choice, not the units. Axemen do just fine against Knights if you're willing to build enough of them due to Axemens low hammer cost. Which brings up a separate issue about unit balance - the Melee/Metal line is still too strong. In MP games everyone chooses it as their first Tier 3 unit. Given that FFH forces specialization of units, if you pick Longbowmen you won't be able to attack and so your opponents can defend with offensive units.

But whatever. I honestly think that teaching the AI how to recognise whether it should do a Aristo-grarian economy or a Cottage economy and then to execute a basic early Axeman attack would go 90% of the way to making a functional AI. Tech beelines - once it has a good economy then most of what an AI does won't be mistakes, but choices. Getting Smelting before Education is a mistake, but getting Smelting before Philosophy is a choice and there are reasons to go the other way.

Yeah, right now Im thinking this has a lot to do with horribly bad worker assignments. Im trying to improve this as well and you may be right that this is the core of the pendulum issue more than unit balance.

 

[Grakor456]

Clan has an incredibly good hero though...taking barbarian cities for free .

Ugh! I hate Rantine's implementation. Don't get me wrong, being able to jack barbarian cities is incredibly cool and thematic, but something just *bothers* me about the only (usable) orc hero in the game being a 4 weakling. Love the civ, hate the hero, similar to my feelings regarding the Doviello.

I suppose this is getting all off-topic, though.

 

[Ri-Hatz]

Even very strong units can be countered with the right spells.
(this was the first thing that came to my mind)

I would not like to see reducing strength of units or lowering experiece. too much "making equal" is no good.

 

[Pohlmann]

concerning the smelting-> iron working tech path:

in my game with calabim i noticed that splitting the line might be the key. that leads to having the choice to either get champions OR iron. with iron u would have strong axemen with 6 strength being cheap and upgradeable but with the champion tech u would have champions with strength 7 who are more expensive but at the same time going to be stronger again some time later.

other quite random stuff :


is it possible in any way to prevent the ai from wasting veteran units. e.g. units with 25+ xp shouldnt attack with odds below 90+ % (mby varying by civ or alignment (good civs not below 95, neutral & evil below 90)) ?

also the normal unit attacking and assassin finishing method would be very effective for the ai to learn to prevent too many human veterans. are attackingpreferences codable this way?

and let the ai ignore acheron. in many of my games 2 or more ais close to him are slowed down because they send big stacks of units towards his city without any chance of success and keep standing there for 200 turns (normal speed). thats why i deactivate him in all my new games.

how about making ai workers learn the water 1 spell to improve their economy/city placement? and completely removing forts for the ai

 

[kidcarson]

No, leave the difference between T2 and T4 as it is. You can only have 4 T4 units, if you nerf them or the promotions, then get rid of the 4 unit cap as this will hurt the game balance. instead work on Tech priorities for the AI,maybe make some of those mid-to-late game techs cost even more. I still can finish the tech tree, normal speed, between 450-500 turns and the better Ai's aren't that far behind. Ai workers building better would also help. Speaking of which can you get theworker AI be able to build nodes on non-raw mana, whenever i blow up the pyre of seraphic or tomb of sucullus the mana justs sits there getting mines, or cottages,farms, etc built on them until I take it over and build with my mages.

 

[xilr]

My opinion is the AI of workers should be better. The balance of the game should stay where it is. I would not change T4 units or promotions or EXP gain. If any major overhauls to the combat balance were inevitably going to make it into release, I'd prefer it to be an option checkable from the game start.

Try not to improve too much on perfection, and right now the AI is the only thing I see that isnt absolutely "A+"

 

[Lade]

I would say leaving it as is would be best. If I spent my whole game building up my unit, it should be that skilled. If it is changed, what would become of heroes? If promotions are nerfed, they become much worse, (improved promotions is one of my favorite parts of FFH) but if T4 unit's strength is weakened, then heroes actually may have just become stronger

As people have said, if the AI knew how to use damaging magic spells better, and used collateral damage units better, they would be better off overall

 

[Breunor]

I don't really think there is a right or wrong here, as long as it is balanced. Note that in 'regular' Civ, the difference between early units and very late units is greater, with tanks and modern infantry having tremendous strength; modern armor is just plain sick.

Indeed, in FfH the promotions are powerful, and they can overwhelm power differences.

If there is a 'problem' with T4 units it is that you can choose to promote your most upgraded units, so then your powerful upgraded units become absolute monsters. There is no equivalent to this phenomenon in regular Civ because the promotions aren't so important.


But the ultimate issue to the question, in my mind, is practicality. If bee-lining to get the first t4 units leaving all else behind results in an easy win, they are overpowered; if not, they aren't. Do we find have a smattering of techs and units is as good or better than bee-lining?

Conversely, if t4 units have no impact on victory, then they are underpowered. That is, we don't want there to be no purpose to building an economy and teching up.

The sweet spot is that teching up to t4 units gives a powerful benefit that is roughly commensurate with the effort.


I have to admit, in my games the game is usually de facto over before I get any t4's. They may help me win or lose faster but they aren't decisive. I suspect as I move up levels they will become more important since it will be harder to win early.

So, I voted 'keep them the way they are' since I think they are powered appropriately and they do allow good tech/economy choices. If I were to make one change it may be to increase upgrade costs, perhaps by a lot. This way, the 130 XP' axeman has to pay a lot ot be upgraded to become invincible.

Finally, I'm assuming we aren't counting the Mercurians. Their t4's are absolutely sick (Repentant angels!!) but I think that is intentional.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Monkeyfinger]

If you can soundly beat the AI to the level of tech required for T4 units, you deserve to be able to dish out the brutal carnage that happens when you do that right now.

If anything my only opinion is that some of the Tier 4 (or maybe Tier 3?) spellcasters are too strong. I've never been a fan of huge amounts of stack/collateral damage; it's ok for very unique units like Dwarven Druids, Chalid, or High Priests of Winter, but other spells like Tsunami, Ring of Flames, and Maelstrom can do too much. Like others have suggested I'd be ok if there was some way for civs without this magic to counter; say a general "magic resistance" promotion that anyone can get, or another spell that protects your units beyond a certain amount of damage.

I think this used to be true, but I'm pretty happy with the steps that have been taken to tone down these units.

 

[Emptiness]

concerning the smelting-> iron working tech path: [...] splitting the line might be the key. that leads to having the choice to either get champions OR iron.

The problem I see with this is that someone who builds The Mines of Gal-Dur would not be forced to make this choice, in that they would have iron champions as soon as they have champions. If you try to force players into a choice between a strong unit and a weapon upgrade they are going to feel pressured to use the mines to get both for the price of one. That wonder is already powerful enough as it is.

 

[Jabie]

I voted to keep them as they are as if T4 units are reduced in strength the high-end various Barbarian / Demon / Hero units will also need to be reduced or players without these resources are going to struggle to dent them.

 

[Jet]

I'm glad you asked, because I wanted to comment on this.

In my games it's the opposite from what you said, Kael. T4 units aren't strong enough. Not my T4s, and especially not the AI's T4s. Consequently, the techs that enable them aren't consequential enough. You, or an AI, gets one of those techs, and it's like, "whoop dee doo... I guess I'll go pick up another T4 tech now... and another one." The whole endgame research play is not nearly as exciting as when civs are racing for techs that have a clear effect on their war capability, like Assembly Line, Artillery, and Flight.

What I'd rather see is: double the national unit limit on T4s. (At least the combat ones; I'm not so sure about the spell casters.) Then the T4 techs would be more consequential. And more idiot-proof for the AIs.

Typical settings for me are: Tectonics, Standard, Normal, 30% water, 9 AIs (not actually that crowded, since it's a low-water map), Emperor with increasing difficulty, No Tech Brokering, AI No Minimum Levels. I do lose a lot on those settings. I'm not all that uber-1337. But in choosing these settings, I am deliberately trying to avoid situations where in previous games I have ended up steamrolling, because that's not fun for me. I use Increasing Difficulty and AI No Min Levels to improve the AI's late game, where it's otherwise weak. Why is it weak in the end game? Well, my T4s having more promotions than the AI's T4s is a factor, but I think signifiantly more important factors are:
1. the AI's underemphasis on collateral damage
2. its inability to organize its game around getting a civ-specific special unit (fireball golems, say) and exploiting it
3. its poor use of spells
So even if you adjusted the experience curve to make T4s have less promotions, I suspect I'd still be playing Increasing Difficulty and AI No Min Levels anyway.

My T4s do not end up being super-promoted civ destroyers anyway. I'll have a couple that are well-promoted, but super-duper-promoted, no. In this way my T4s are more like the AI's T4s.