Clan of Embers rebalancing

[WarKirby]

@WarKirby: do not forget upkeep issues. There is no point to favour cheap massive army style when you have no economy to support it.

Especially when in FfH2" there is no "oh I found tech from conquered city."

Looting? Yes, wheny you want simply to burn but in many cases you do not want...and for looting you do not need excessive amount of soldiers anyway...

Well, upkeep issues aren't something I've changed here. The warrens did already exist before. Generally, clan are most suited to running military state, which gives a ridiculously large number of free units, dependant on your cities/population. If you go with jonas and make many cities, you should get many free units as a result. Or with sheelba, you won't really have a strength penalty so won't need as many.

 

[Iceciro]

I use Knights extensively for territory defense teams because they can crush opposition pretty quickly from whatever city I had them waiting in, and I will generally use Immortals for diving onto low-percentage situations to weaken them for the Phalanxes.
War chariots, not so much, mainly because I have other good options for city busting that aren't terrible on the defensive.

EDIT: Wow, I let this simmer and then posted it and now it isn't even relative to the discussion now. hahaha.

 

[Valkrionn]

By the way, removing National Units from a civ or musketmen and cannons from them does not make them more flavorful or fun or more sense. In short, you're doing it wrong.

Meh, I think you're just not happy unless everything is equal in all areas... In short, BtS. This is FfH, and it's designed completely differently.

Personally, I like it. Would want to play with Undisciplined before passing judgement on it... May need tweaking, may not. I'd be in favour of adding another UU to make up for lost units, but I would NOT do an Ogre Mage. They're supposes to be stupid.

 

[Breez]

It doesn't really fit though. Might as well just leave them with catapults. Ogres will still be better once you can get them since you can have twice as many, though.

I disagree. Battering Ram = Brute force vs. Catapult comparatively complex mechanical device that uses much more finesse (when compared to Battering rams). Battering Rams fit orcs MUCH better than dwarves.

You miss an overarching point here, though. Playing as clan, you're more likely to lose about 60% of your units in battle before either of those effects happen, and those that survive low odds battles are going to get a ton of xp very quickly.

With a -20% you will lose way more than 60%

The main purpose of having thousands of weak units, is to serve as cannon fodder. One unit with a strength penalty is almost certain to lose against an equivilant unit, but he's pretty likely to injure the enemy in doing so. Most battles end up with the winner injured 50-70% if the units are fairly similar, which means the other orc who you got entirely for free, is almost guaranteed a victory. Net win: orcs

If they were getting 2-4 extra units from the warrens I would agree, but they are not getting thousands they are getting scores.

Currently 1 of my units (stronger and more experienced as I baby them) routinely takes out 5-7 fresh green troops before dieing and that is when they are alone. If I can get 2 or 3 They can kill 15-20 before losing 1 unit.

It's more complex when attacking entrenched archers in a city, for instance. But if you bring 4-6 axemen for every archer the enemy has, you're pretty likely to win. The strength penalty increases the number of units you need to accomplish any given task, but the number of units you have available to commit to the task increases by a far greater margin.

If I have 3 archers I claim it takes more than 20 axemen to take my city. I would hazard to say not only is 20 axemen not likely to win but more importantly they are likely to lose with NO casulties on the defenders. Sure if the defenders are idiots you may be correct but I say that before you ever attack 30%-50% of your axemen will be damaged and attacking hurt. Now add a -20% to those 20 axemen vs units with built in 1st strikes and it isn't pretty.

You're gaining a net 100% more units. What I mentioned earlier was an aggregate combat strength calculation, not a number of troops calculation. Two orcs with -20% strength works out to be 160% of the power of one normal unit with no strength penalty.

You gain 100% more units GROSS but over time you will lose 40% total leaving you with a NET 60% of what you made. That is only a 20% increase over not bothering with the warrens at all.

No warrens you build 10 you keep 10.

Warrens you build 20 GROSS eventually you lose 8 before the effect wear off leaving you with 12 NET only 2 more than you would have had other wise. To gain those 2 you are paying a -20% penalty on all your units. to me that isn't a sound investment therefore making the warrens not worth while in MANY cases and I think we agree that isn't fun.

Even if you don't stand a round a while (ya know defending your own cities and stuff) if you build 20 you will lose 1 or 2 while waiting to get them and another 1 or 2 on the way to your enemy, meaning you get there with 12-15 weak units and 2-3 normal units. To show up with 20 units you will need to build 26 or so.

It's also well worth considering leaders. If you pick sheelba, her aggressive trait entirely offsets the strength penalty, making things even better.

Or if you look at it another way, the warrens cancels out her trait altogether but you still lose out on 40% of your units over time.

 

[Breez]

Meh, I think you're just not happy unless everything is equal in all areas... In short, BtS. This is FfH, and it's designed completely differently.

Personally, I like it. Would want to play with Undisciplined before passing judgement on it... May need tweaking, may not. I'd be in favour of adding another UU to make up for lost units, but I would NOT do an Ogre Mage. They're supposes to be stupid.

Meh Ogre Magi have traditionally been some of the smartest of the bunch. Using the others to accomplish their goals.

I think Ogre Magi would be a great Archmage UU

 

[Randomness]

If Orcs were to gain the same type of mechanic then I think the loss of catapults would acceptable.

Hm... Prehaps a lesser version of the dwaven battering ram would work. Instead of crafting a ram, they pull up the tree and smash the walls. Would clear the forest and give 10%? bombard (does that make sense?).

 

[Breez]

yes exactly what I was thinking. (not sure of the exact battering ram statistics but that same mechanic to get an appropriate result would do nice replacing catapults)

 

[Valkrionn]

Here's an idea:

Spell requires Forest. Removes forest, grants 'Ram' promotion.

Promotion increases movement cost, adds 10% bombard, lasts 10? turns.

Allows them bombard ability, but is also notsomething you use if you don't need it... Otherwise you're removing all of your forests.

 

[WarKirby]

You gain 100% more units GROSS but over time you will lose 40% total leaving you with a NET 60% of what you made. That is only a 20% increase over not bothering with the warrens at all.

No warrens you build 10 you keep 10.

Warrens you build 20 GROSS eventually you lose 8 before the effect wear off leaving you with 12 NET only 2 more than you would have had other wise. To gain those 2 you are paying a -20% penalty on all your units. to me that isn't a sound investment therefore making the warrens not worth while in MANY cases and I think we agree that isn't fun.

Here's a little info about cumulative odds. http://rangersheck.com/2008/3/8/statistics-what-are-the-real-odds


About halfway down the page, is the relevant info here.

Now, assuming 2% barbarian per turn. Let's caulculate the odds of the event after x turns.

For x = 10
The chance of NOT turning barbarian is 0.98, or 98%. To find the cumulative odds, we subtract the inverse odds to the power of the frequency, from 1. In this case, 0.98 to the power of 10

1 - (0.98)^10
1 - 0.81707280688754689024
= 0.18292719311245310976

in short, 18%

some other values of x, rounded off:
20: 0.33
25: 0.40
30: 0.45
40: 0.55
100: 0.87

It takes about 25 turns to reach the scenario you describe. Does this seem too soon ?

it does eventually become a quite likely outcome. The wear off chance is similar, but since it has a higher percentage, the odds go:

20: 0.46
25: 0.53
30: 0.60
40: 0.70
100: 0.95

it may not be a good choice if you're the kind of player who builds up excessively in peaceful isolation for 4 centuries, but the clan aren't that kind of race.

In any case, I'll change the values to 1% barbarian, 2% wear off. Both options will be even less likely. Those two outcomes are ultimately only small, flavourful parts of it. The primary purpose of the undisciplined mechanic, is a strength penalty to offset mass numbers.

 

[WarKirby]

Here's an idea:

Spell requires Forest. Removes forest, grants 'Ram' promotion.

Promotion increases movement cost, adds 10% bombard, lasts 10? turns.

Allows them bombard ability, but is also notsomething you use if you don't need it... Otherwise you're removing all of your forests.

AFAIK, the khazad summon a Battering Ram unit. Which I do kind of like better.

Would it make the dwarves less unique to allow this to orcs though ?

 

[Monkeyfinger]

I'd implement this battering ram idea for ogres (and giants while we're at it) by giving them a spell which takes a big chunk off city defense (say 40% or 50%), requires a forest in the tile, and has a 1 turn charge time.

Considering how much space a tile actually represents, I don't think it makes much sense for even an ogre to be able to CARRY one of these things across one.

 

[Valkrionn]

They do, but I think I like it better with a promotion... Mostly because then the Clan version is just a tree they picked up, and will break apart shortly, whereas the Khazad will have well-crafted rams that last.

 

[Iceciro]

Gotta go with Valk's implementation here.

 

[Bill Bisco]

Meh, I think you're just not happy unless everything is equal in all areas... In short, BtS. This is FfH, and it's designed completely differently.

Personally, I like it. Would want to play with Undisciplined before passing judgement on it... May need tweaking, may not. I'd be in favour of adding another UU to make up for lost units, but I would NOT do an Ogre Mage. They're supposes to be stupid.

You know nothing. Things should be designed to be comparitively equal. Ffh is not designed for balance. Subtracting units does not add more balance or flavor to an already unbalanced game.

Ogre Mages are smart. That's the point.

 

[Randomness]

Spoiler :

Here's a little info about cumulative odds. http://rangersheck.com/2008/3/8/statistics-what-are-the-real-odds


About halfway down the page, is the relevant info here.

Now, assuming 2% barbarian per turn. Let's caulculate the odds of the event after x turns.

For x = 10
The chance of NOT turning barbarian is 0.98, or 98%. To find the cumulative odds, we subtract the inverse odds to the power of the frequency, from 1. In this case, 0.98 to the power of 10

1 - (0.98)^10
1 - 0.81707280688754689024
= 0.18292719311245310976

in short, 18%

some other values of x, rounded off:
20: 0.33
25: 0.40
30: 0.45
40: 0.55
100: 0.87

It takes about 25 turns to reach the scenario you describe. Does this seem too soon ?

it does eventually become a quite likely outcome. The wear off chance is similar, but since it has a higher percentage, the odds go:

20: 0.46
25: 0.53
30: 0.60
40: 0.70
100: 0.95

it may not be a good choice if you're the kind of player who builds up excessively in peaceful isolation for 4 centuries, but the clan aren't that kind of race.

In any case, I'll change the values to 1% barbarian, 2% wear off. Both options will be even less likely. Those two outcomes are ultimately only small, flavourful parts of it. The primary purpose of the undisciplined mechanic, is a strength penalty to offset mass numbers.

Not to metion the fact that the unit becoming barbarian does not effect the Clan much more than going under AI control (barbs are at peace with you, so the only difference is that you don't get the unit back after comabt)

 

[WarKirby]

You know nothing. Things should be designed to be comparitively equal. Ffh is not designed for balance. Subtracting units does not add more balance or flavor to an already unbalanced game.

This seems a bit hostile, don't you think?

The primary focus of FFH is certainly fun/flavour first, balance second. True balance is completely impossible if factions are going to be different, that's a simple fact. But we can arrive at a reasonable approximation of balance through intuition and discussion.

The point here, with any race, is that they have an overall design theme, first and foremost. The Bannor are about Holy War. The Kuriotates are about a small number of powerful cities. The Khazad are about every tolkienesque cliché of dwarves squeezed into one fun-to-play race. The ljosalfar are similar, but elves.

After an overall desicn is created that's fun and unique, balance is about tweaking the individual units. Keep in mind that the clan are NOT losing mounted units. They never had them in the first place. The primary change there, is that ogres are being moved from the mounted line, where they make no sense, to the endgame melee line, which is presently filled with the same generic human units that every other civ gets. Ogres are being tweaked and adapted to loosely fit the roles of the units they replace (phalanx, immortal) but also able to do those better, and/or do other things as well, to compensate for the lack of mounted units. For example, giving them a bombard ability to offset the lack of cannons. The lack of musketmen isn't really something that needs to be offset since they don't fill an especially meaningful role beyond useful flavour and "cool, tech advance" feel.

The clan still have a recon line, so they're not going to be left without rapid interception options.Just focused a bit more on the big, smashy type of combat. A handful of giant ogres smashing down gates, as thousands of orcs swarm through the breach, overwhelming and cutting down human defenders.

As a side note, I noticed nobody commented on the idea of making Ogre Warchiefs into a commander unit. Though extremely lategame, they would be the most directly powerful commander unit in the game. A commander capable of mainstream endgame combat, and with the survivability that an Immortal UU should have, is a unique and as-yet unfilled role, giving the potential for an interesting gameplay dynamic.

 

[Valkrionn]

You know nothing. Things should be designed to be comparitively equal. Ffh is not designed for balance. Subtracting units does not add more balance or flavor to an already unbalanced game.

Ogre Mages are smart. That's the point.

Comparitively equal, yes. I do not believe that they should be compared on a unit-to-unit scale, or even based on what options the civ has... They should rather be compared on overall power. If all civs are equally strong, but achieve that strength in different ways, then you have a fun game. If all civs are equally strong in ALL ways, you have a game where civilization doesn't matter... In short, you have BtS. That is NOT FfH, never has been, and likely never will be. If you disagree, you have a few choices:

1. . .. .. .. .. . and moan.
2. Make your own mod, balanced according to your own wishes.
3. Play a different mod.

Ogre Mages are smart how? Think up a good background, and I'd honestly be fine with it. Generally speaking, Ogres in FfH are about as intelligent as a stump. Were these exposed to a blast of Mind or Chaos magic? That would be a decent explanation, rather than simply saying "These ones are intelligent, deal with it."



I will agree with you that some civs in FfH are unbalanced.... That's how FFPlus started. If all are unbalanced, none are.

 

[WarKirby]

Ogre Mages are smart how? Think up a good background, and I'd honestly be fine with it. Generally speaking, Ogres in FfH are about as intelligent as a stump. Were these exposed to a blast of Mind or Chaos magic? That would be a decent explanation, rather than simply saying "These ones are intelligent, deal with it."

my mind started wandering.

"Ogres are creatures of extremes. For the most part, extremely stupid. This is simply because most ogres are mere children. Their bodies develop quickly, but their mind takes centuries. Orcs are not known for their patience.

From whence new Ogres come, is best not thought about. But the clan captures them at a young age, rears them with little more than food, sleep, and pain. Most ogres tend to die in battle, in the clan's unwilling service, long before they reach adulthood.

But some are lucky.."

 

[Valkrionn]

That would work. So long as they aren't two-headed.

If you go that route though, I'd add a high age requirement on the unit before it can upgrade.

 

[Breez]

Here's a little info about cumulative odds.
It takes about 25 turns to reach the scenario you describe. Does this seem too soon ?

Personally? Yeah I think 25 turns was a tad soon to lose every thing the Warrens had added. If I read those numbers right after 25 turns 40% were Barb and 53% were no longer effected.

It would take roughly 25 turns to make 20 axemen and get them to your target.

However irrelevant with proposed changes.

AFAIK, the khazad summon a Battering Ram unit. Which I do kind of like better.

Would it make the dwarves less unique to allow this to orcs though ?

I also like Valk's Idea. it does seem more orcish than making the actual unit (maintains different flavor between dwarfs too)

I'd implement this battering ram idea for ogres (and giants while we're at it)

but ogres (as proposed) and giants already have the ability to reduce defenses naturally with no need of forest due to their sheer size and strength.

Not to metion the fact that the unit becoming barbarian does not effect the Clan much more than going under AI control (barbs are at peace with you, so the only difference is that you don't get the unit back after comabt)

But you are leaving out that they lose the focus of an attacking force as the barbs wander off or are distracted by shiny stuff. They don't have to fight the barbs but they do lose control of their attacking force, which is actually a neat idea for them. The question was only about the trade off of the over all disadvantage vs. cost of building the warrens. My real argument was about the -20% str when included with the loss of troops. With a reduction of number of lost troops the loss of str becomes less important.