about Bannor

[onedreamer]

but they aren't weak and they aren't cheap, that's all.

 

[Imuratep]

but they aren't weak and they aren't cheap, that's all.

The goblins cost 15 compared to normal scouts which costs 25. But just with scouts? You REALLY need hordes of them to overrun the opponents and from that the unit upkeep prevents you. So if you really wanted the Orcs to have hordes of cheap, weak units you should give them more free units. Also the costs of upgrading goblins to wolf riders should be lower. I thought, hmm, how about creating an early army of little goblins and then upgrade them to riders and overrun my opponent, but with an upgrade cost of 95 this is impossible even if you pillage a lot.

 

[onedreamer]

the cost is high because of the difference in production cost between them. Hence the lower production cost of goblin serves nothing on the long run (even on the med run ). Plus, a goblin has movement 1 while a scount has movement 2, which means the goblin is much more prone to death in the exploration age than a scout.

 

[marioflag]

The goblins cost 15 compared to normal scouts which costs 25. But just with scouts? You REALLY need hordes of them to overrun the opponents and from that the unit upkeep prevents you. So if you really wanted the Orcs to have hordes of cheap, weak units you should give them more free units. Also the costs of upgrading goblins to wolf riders should be lower. I thought, hmm, how about creating an early army of little goblins and then upgrade them to riders and overrun my opponent, but with an upgrade cost of 95 this is impossible even if you pillage a lot.

Probably changing For the Horde worldspell would be more appropriate.This spell is actually too expensive at the beginning of the game when it could be useful and useless on mid game when getting some unexperienced units doesn't change things at all.

 

[avalonnn]

While from a lore perspective preventing Bannor from training Archmages may make perfect sense, the Bannor's main function in the game is as a 'basic' civilisation for new players to get to grips with FFH's unique gameplay. Magic of course is a very big part of that, and something tricky enough for a new player to get a handle on as it is. Removing Archmages from the Bannor would seriously derail that learning curve.

I think Elohim help a player learn about the various civs with the tolerant trait. Maybe not the first civ you play, but one of the early ones. Certainly the first civ I played in .034, to learn about the other civs.

 

[avalonnn]

Probably changing For the Horde worldspell would be more appropriate.This spell is actually too expensive at the beginning of the game when it could be useful and useless on mid game when getting some unexperienced units doesn't change things at all.

If you gave the acquired units HN, then the Orc player could send them on suicide missions and reduce the number of units that she needed to maintain.

 

[OzzyKP]

Some Bannor thoughts from another thread:

I love the concept and I want to like Bannor and play them often. BUT their benefits just aren't that interesting or useful compared to the others.

I disagree with Kael's point that you should judge the effectiveness of civs by seeing who does well when the AI autoplays. Mostly because the AI doesn't understand a lot of the advanced features. So if a civ's strength is a cool spell or summon and the AI doesn't know how to use it, then that civ is comparatively handicapped to the lame civ that plays like a Vanilla non-FfH civ.

Some thoughts on Bannor (and it may be worthwhile to start a thread devoted to brainstorming boosting them). Since their style is crusaders against evil, how about giving them combat bonuses against evil civs/units? Or perhaps (and this may sound counter-intuitive) giving Bannor units the Stigmata promotion. The more the world slips into darkness the harder the Bannor fight it.

Maybe some builder-type bonuses too. To emphasize their desire for order have some functions that reduce unhappiness, reduce revolts, or other similar mechanics. Maybe tie it into the Order religion or maybe just make it Bannor specific.

I like this. Stigmata is commonly associated with saints instead of evil and giving the Bannor ( or the Order, I prefer that the Bannor get it) a building that gives Stigmata later on (Fanaticism? although it's a loaded tech for the Bannor already) would be very interesting. The Bannor definitely wouldn't give up, even if the world went to hell.

I dislike giving them stigmata, it makes no sense that the guys fighting against armageddon are actually causing it

but nice ideas about some buildings and abilities to increase social order in their cities ( happiness , revolts etc. ) maybe the bannor could be immune to revolts and cultural flipping?

Can you make it so that when they take a city there is no unrest? That would be a different mechanic.

Stigmata doesn't increase the AC. It gives a combat bonus equal to half the AC to the unit.

That'd be a great idea. Rhye's mod does this for... Babylon I think. It'd be a nice mix/synergy between Bannor's desire for conquest and their desire for order. I don't think that by itself it'd suddenly make them a fun civ to play, but it would absolutely be a step in the right direction.

And yea, stigmata should just give the combat bonus. Maybe it used to increase the counter, but I don't remember. I think a combat bonus like that would be very incharacter and would enhance Bannor greatly. Plus with the no revolt after conquest thing, we might be on to something.

ah, I got confused with mark of the prophecy, thanx for pointing that out.

stigmata does look good then. and the idea about no revolting on city capture is great as well, that's actually what I was referring to by saying "no revolts"

Thoughts?

 

[avalonnn]

How often do people use the Crusade civic? It's something I tend to avoid when playing Bannor. You? If the civic were made more powerful, it might give the bannor something extra. Happiness while at war instead of war weariness? Extra XP for new units? I'd like the free units to start with some xp because if they're not mobile, they trail behind the regular army.


re: stigmata -- why not give it to their first warrior only? It would not be very powerful at the start of the game, and would represent the Bannor march through hell.

 

[OzzyKP]

Yea, I never use Crusade either.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Last time I played as them I used crusade to great effect. My only problem was not declaring war on someone else before I finished off my foe, meaning I lost my garrisons. Well, that and everyone turning on me late in the game, leading to a slow and steady defeat, but that was unrelated

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I quite like the idea of Crusade giving happiness instead of war weariness...

 

[onedreamer]

why ? you'd switch to crusade to grab a happiness bonus while it is supposed to be a tool for war time... I really don't like the idea. Keep in mind that Crusade now allows for a host of free units, plus you get access to a cheap melee unit; I think it is quite a good civic for wartime but making it even more powerful would make it a no brainer, which is always a bad idea in a strategic game.

I would work on the guardsman civTrait instead. I really think it needs much improvement and that it is the key in spicing up a bit more the Bannor civ.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

you do have a point in saying that people going Crusade for happiness makes no sense. but a major decrease ( or even absence ) of WW when crusading would fit that civic quite well imho.

 

[onedreamer]

well I thought it gives a consistent bonus to WW like -50%, doesn't it ?

on the Guardsman promotion, since it seems it will stay as it is, which easily leads to selfless sacrifice (often called suicide ) I'd work on "onDeath" conditions, sort of like the Elohim promotion that transfers XP. In this case the heroic death of a guardsman could inspire the stack or even adjacent units with 1 or 2 free promotions (courage, valor, etc, or a specific one).

 

[BlankVerse]

I thought it was 75% less ww, although that might have been a previous version.

I like the crusade mechanic. It forced me into a fight against a numerically and technologically superior foe that normally I would just buy off or quit. I had dwarven cannons pounding my walls, dovellio hordes rushing through the holes, and Svartlefar assassins finishing off my high level defenders. And still I managed to send a crusade to raze the RoK holy city before they won a religious victory.

However crusade can stifle your economy since towns are being downgraded to villiages all the time and you have to protect them from pilliagers. You also have to protect your workers since you need them to build new villiages (easier now that assassins don't kill workers, I problem I was having before).

The biggest issue I have with crusade though is the micro managing of all the demagogues, sending them to nearest cities for weapons, gathering them where I need them e.t.c. I can't be bothered with it if I don't need it.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

you're right, it's -75% WW, just checked. huge bonus, could be even made -100% but I'm not sure if that would be overpowered or whatsnot.

I agree about the micromanagement pain of having to send every single demagogue to the nearest city to get equipped with weapons btw. actually I often forget to send my troops to cities so that they can get better weapons, maybe this could be changed so that they just need to be inside cultural borders to be equipped? anyway, the demagogue spawning code could be tweaked a bit so that it checks if you have bronze/iron/mithril weapons available and make them start with that weapon tier already active. that would make things a lot easier for the player

 

[BlankVerse]

Just add dungeons and it's 100%. I rarely get more than +1 unhappiness with -75% though, including an early Nationhood/Despot.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

dungeons could get some new cool feature though, since their crimerate modifying feature is now useless due to the axing of the ratcatchers guild.

 

[Nor'easter]

How often do people use the Crusade civic? It's something I tend to avoid when playing Bannor. You? If the civic were made more powerful, it might give the bannor something extra. Happiness while at war instead of war weariness? Extra XP for new units? I'd like the free units to start with some xp because if they're not mobile, they trail behind the regular army.


re: stigmata -- why not give it to their first warrior only? It would not be very powerful at the start of the game, and would represent the Bannor march through hell.

The one time I played Bannor, Crusade saved me when my Clan of Embers neighbors declared war and invaded. (I always play all random civs, so it's not that I've intentionally avoided playing the Bannor.)

Unfortunately, partway through the war I kept getting an unexplained CtD (this was either version 0.31 or 0.32), so I don't know the war would eventually have turned out, but Crusade at least kept me in the game.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

that's nice, but it is supposed to be more useful for attacking than defending. WW doesn't kick in one's own territory for example