Chandrasekhar
Determined
So, the other day, I went back and played a game of vanilla Civ, with raging barbarians on (as they are when I play FfH). Imagine my surprise when beating the barbs turned out to be more difficult in vanilla Civ than in FfH! Given that this world is meant to be a dangerous one where Civs can be swallowed up in the blink of an eye, I think this should be looked in to. The following are the causes that I've identified for the easier barbarian difficulty of FfH.
1) Promotions! In FfH, you get twice as much experience per battle, and you get to buy promotions that are worth twice as much as their vanilla counterparts. Combine that with early +xp civics, and you're seeing 80, 90% odds battles where in vanilla Civ you'd be fighting straight 50's and 60's. Then, combine that with specific anti-orcish promotions that you can get after combat I, and it really stops being a challenge.
2) Upgrades! In vanilla Civ, each player needed about 10 to 15 turns to research to get the second tier unit. This means that axemen show up much, much earlier. You need to invest in military infrastructure early, or you're going to get swarmed. Not so in FfH. I've gone whole games without seeing a single barbarian axeman.
3) Expansion! The easier the barbs are, the easier it is to expand. The easier it is to expand, the easier the barbs are. I'll admit that FfH animals can limit expansion quite a bit, but hunters render them obsolete. This should clear itself up somewhat if the above two points are addressed, but it still should be considered.
So, what to do about these issues? Here's my opinion on the subject: for point one, I'm not so sure. I don't like the idea of weakening promotions, but just upping the number of barbarians will simply make things easier (as you'll get an xp or two from each doomed battle). Maybe some barbarians could spawn with a level or two as the games goes on. On number two, well, I've been advocating a tech tree revamp for awhile now. I don't see any alternative. About number three, I'd really like to see more lizardmen staying outside your cities, but picking off anyone that ventures outside. You'd have to guard your workers after the lizardmen show up, which I think is perfectally fine.
So, let the discussion begin.
1) Promotions! In FfH, you get twice as much experience per battle, and you get to buy promotions that are worth twice as much as their vanilla counterparts. Combine that with early +xp civics, and you're seeing 80, 90% odds battles where in vanilla Civ you'd be fighting straight 50's and 60's. Then, combine that with specific anti-orcish promotions that you can get after combat I, and it really stops being a challenge.
2) Upgrades! In vanilla Civ, each player needed about 10 to 15 turns to research to get the second tier unit. This means that axemen show up much, much earlier. You need to invest in military infrastructure early, or you're going to get swarmed. Not so in FfH. I've gone whole games without seeing a single barbarian axeman.
3) Expansion! The easier the barbs are, the easier it is to expand. The easier it is to expand, the easier the barbs are. I'll admit that FfH animals can limit expansion quite a bit, but hunters render them obsolete. This should clear itself up somewhat if the above two points are addressed, but it still should be considered.
So, what to do about these issues? Here's my opinion on the subject: for point one, I'm not so sure. I don't like the idea of weakening promotions, but just upping the number of barbarians will simply make things easier (as you'll get an xp or two from each doomed battle). Maybe some barbarians could spawn with a level or two as the games goes on. On number two, well, I've been advocating a tech tree revamp for awhile now. I don't see any alternative. About number three, I'd really like to see more lizardmen staying outside your cities, but picking off anyone that ventures outside. You'd have to guard your workers after the lizardmen show up, which I think is perfectally fine.
So, let the discussion begin.