Design: Units

M@ni@c said:
A question for Kael or a team member in case you read this:

I'm wondering... why was the design decision made to limit all tier 4 units to three? This strikes me as odd. The whole FfH tech tree and game is geared towards specialization in only a limited number of unit types. Yet when the endgame is reached this whole concept is basically thrown away and it becomes best to have three of everything instead of continuing the specialization and flavour you've had for the entire game.

Wouldn't it be possible to code that for instance you can only but always have one of each tier 4 units, but that you gain one additional tier 4 slot for every x tier 3 unit of the same branch? So the specialization is preserved?

This is the counter to tech rushing. Tech rushing (going down one branch to an expensive late game tech in the early game) is a very viable 3rd tier strategy. And its even a viable 4th tier strategy, you can rush to a t4 unit and produce 3 of them.

But if we didn't limit them everyone would tech rush to their favorite t4 unit and produce nothing but them. Thats specialization, but its also boring. IN such cases your unit tree might as well look like this

\
/\
\/\
/.. \
\.. /
/\/
\/
/

Where you have multiple units upgrading to a few late game units (this is the design of vaniulla civ).

One of the first changes FfH made was the reversal of this paradigm to this:

... /
.. /\
. /\/
/... \
\... /
. \/\
.. \/
... \

Where we start with a few untis and let them upgrade to more and more options.

Okay I know those drawing are bad and probably just confuse the point, but hopefully you know what I mean.

But yes, you can specialize and rush to your 3 units of any sort. But I want to leave players with something to do after that. And I want to make balanced teching (non-tech rushing) viable too, and just saying that 3 archamges, 3 shadows and 3 heavy crossbowmen are better than 9 archmages doesn't quite accomplish that. So you there is both an advantage and disadvantage to specialization.
 
I was thinking of a unique mage system for the sheaim.

Here's how it works: Once the mage tech is known, in addition to being able to train normal mages, they can also train specialized ones. These would model outside trainees that came to the sheaim lands and learned specific types of magic.

Each Specialized mage would be allowed access to only 2 spheres. Only 2 of each type is allowed. That is the downside. I have a couple of ideas for the bonuses:
They can learn Sor and Sum spells.
They can learn lvl 3 spells without upgrading (gain sor 3 and sum 3 once you have the archmage tech).
Don't require mana of those spheres to learn the spells.
Significantly cheaper.

Only a few of them I think:
necromancer-Can learn only death and body spells.
Pyromancer-Can learn only fire and sun spells.
Demon Summoner-Can learn only Entropy and Dimensional spells.
Enchanter-Can learn only Enchantment and Mind spells.

Do you like this idea?
 
loki1232 said:
I was thinking of a unique mage system for the sheaim.

Here's how it works: Once the mage tech is known, in addition to being able to train normal mages, they can also train specialized ones. These would model outside trainees that came to the sheaim lands and learned specific types of magic.

Each Specialized mage would be allowed access to only 2 spheres. Only 2 of each type is allowed. That is the downside. I have a couple of ideas for the bonuses:
They can learn Sor and Sum spells.
They can learn lvl 3 spells without upgrading (gain sor 3 and sum 3 once you have the archmage tech).
Don't require mana of those spheres to learn the spells.
Significantly cheaper.

Only a few of them I think:
necromancer-Can learn only death and body spells.
Pyromancer-Can learn only fire and sun spells.
Demon Summoner-Can learn only Entropy and Dimensional spells.
Enchanter-Can learn only Enchantment and Mind spells.

Do you like this idea?

If they can learn 3rd level spells aren't they considered tier 4 anyway? So basically, you have tier 4 unit which you can get with the mage tech, you can teach it magic which you don't have, it can use both summoning and sorcery... There's hardly a downside to them, these are better than archmages and summoners as of 0.15, IMO...
 
Nay. I quote:
They can learn lvl 3 spells without upgrading (gain sor 3 and sum 3 once you have the archmage tech).
They can only learn lvl 3 spells once you have the archmage tech.
Also, they can only learn spells from a few select spheres.
Maybe there should be a limit of one of each specialized mage at a time?
 
Maybe, better yet, once you specialize in 2 spheres, you'll only be able to have specialized mages in those spheres... If you decide to change at some point, you should have a 3 turn long anarchy phase and then all of your specialized mages would die (it could be part of the civics).
 
Kael said:
This is the counter to tech rushing. Tech rushing (going down one branch to an expensive late game tech in the early game) is a very viable 3rd tier strategy. And its even a viable 4th tier strategy, you can rush to a t4 unit and produce 3 of them.

But if we didn't limit them everyone would tech rush to their favorite t4 unit and produce nothing but them. Thats specialization, but its also boring. IN such cases your unit tree might as well look like this

\
/\
\/\
/.. \
\.. /
/\/
\/
/

Where you have multiple units upgrading to a few late game units (this is the design of vaniulla civ).

One of the first changes FfH made was the reversal of this paradigm to this:

... /
.. /\
. /\/
/... \
\... /
. \/\
.. \/
... \

Where we start with a few untis and let them upgrade to more and more options.

Okay I know those drawing are bad and probably just confuse the point, but hopefully you know what I mean.

But yes, you can specialize and rush to your 3 units of any sort. But I want to leave players with something to do after that. And I want to make balanced teching (non-tech rushing) viable too, and just saying that 3 archamges, 3 shadows and 3 heavy crossbowmen are better than 9 archmages doesn't quite accomplish that. So you there is both an advantage and disadvantage to specialization.


Have you put any thought into changing the functionality of endgame warfare? I love the specialization motiff, and frankly wish to keep it as intact as possible. But is there a possibility of adding a last tier mundane mass production war unit? The idea here is to reenact the epic conflicts that fantasy is prone to expouse. With a few (often many) specialty units, this is grand, and a lot of fun, but one cannot "draft" national units effectively, or safely. There should be a unit, IMHO, that promotes the particular use of the "Draft" function in nationalism. In fact I dont think this civic is ever used by me, and i never hear it discussed by others. I would like it to become a viable "end-game" strategy. One that is designed to "overwhelm" opponents.

If all(most?) civs had acess to an endgame mundane unit (better than a pikeman), that had draft-partiuclarlity (only 1 population spend regardless of cost, and no unhappiness?), it would allow for the great populations of FFH to be transformed into a moving armed mass, on collision with another likley armed mass. Armedggedon wonders would be more applicable with the advent of MORE units on the field.

The hope here is for a "world war" in fantasy feel. Like Tolkien. A war to end wars in the end game. While specialty units add "awesomeness" and "hard points" along a front, there really arnt.."Fronts" at all. There are massive stacks that duke it out. If the endgame warfare were to switch into fronts and overwhelming strategems, then the specialization would allow for different variations on that prime mode. Using sheild walls and phalanx and paladins would be effective ways to create a "vanguard" section along a front, and a flanking ability. The importance of fronts can be expanded if improvments (late game) are more important, and therefore worthy of protection.

As it is, the way that unit production is garnered, The goal is to make a national unit (or more) and stick them in your cities behind your defenses, and simply "wait" out the enemy. WHile seige warfare is cool and should not be eliminated, it would be great to see massive armies stretched out across the topography. The only reason for this to occur IN game, is if there was a unit that was draftable/mass produceable AND that improvments in city tiles would A) be very hard to initially create (maybe late game improvements should take a long time to produce and B) provide individual and unique benefits that cannot be lived without and C) would bring much benefit to pillaging civilizations.

The comibination of important imporovments (that one does not feel he/she can afford to allow to be pillaged) and endgame en masse units, would provide the epic feel of "The end times" that FFH cultivates throughout the game, but then fails to deliver on.

"War is where Hero's die, in the din and blood of our sins manifest." Something epic would give the sense of the 'last generation'.
-Qes
 
I think the large scale armies aren't seen due to inconvienence rather than lack of use. It is easier to move a stack around than to remember what 12 different groups all around the border are doing.
And really, there are alot of national units availible. 4 melee, 3 archer, 2 recon, 4 cavalry, 3 mages types (inc leeches), 3 disciple types, paladins or Eidolons make 20 types, times 3 is 60. That's pitance for real world wars, i guess, but in the game is quite a large number, then you can have one or two heroes, golems, and T3 units aren't useless end game. Plus werewolves, summons, any converted units, ships, seige units... stretch your late game army out, I'm sure it'll cover the horizon well enough, but stacks are simply easier, imo of course.
 
Nikis-Knight said:
I think the large scale armies aren't seen due to inconvienence rather than lack of use. It is easier to move a stack around than to remember what 12 different groups all around the border are doing.
And really, there are alot of national units availible. 4 melee, 3 archer, 2 recon, 4 cavalry, 3 mages types (inc leeches), 3 disciple types, paladins or Eidolons make 20 types, times 3 is 60. That's pitance for real world wars, i guess, but in the game is quite a large number, then you can have one or two heroes, golems, and T3 units aren't useless end game. Plus werewolves, summons, any converted units, ships, seige units... stretch your late game army out, I'm sure it'll cover the horizon well enough, but stacks are simply easier, imo of course.


I agree with you. Thats why I'm advocating slight variations in the endgame. If improvements are more important - perhaps getting to the level of importance that superceeds in-city buildilngs, then there is a cause and need to defend multiple locaitons at once. WHen all one has to do is sit behind their city walls, then all the armies have to do when on a conquering-run is be in one large stack. It's stack v stack warfare. If there is reason for the defense not to be in a stack (to protect improvements) and the offense to not be in a stack (to get at those improvements) then we will see something far more stretching.

And yes, national units make up a huge portion of the game, if you've access to them all then you can field 21 national units alone, i believe. Thats quite a few. But my point was about "fodder" and "scale". If there is a more basic unit that can be mass produced through the "draft" system, especially in nationalism, it makes nationalism a great end game civic, for one. And secondly wars will be shorter becuase the amount of units on the field at any given time can be a lot larger. The death tolls will be equivilantly large, so it functions a population-reduction. Finally for theme, it serves the intersts of "large-epic-scale battles" AND since populations, or PEOPLE are doing the fighting, it gives the sense of crusade and luster that only "final battles" can exude.

When the whole of end-game combat is done by hardpointe large stacks, there is very little "epic feel" and more of just hammers and nails. Who's got the harder? The hammer or the nail? I would prefer to see armies engaging in the field, and the victor moving on to the city.

ANOTHER way of doing this, and discouraging seige warfare late game (and ONLY late game) is to have a city only able to defend x amount of units. Massive cities could have several units inside it, smaller cities less. The goal here, for me, is to force battles out onto battle fields, and force tactical desisions instead of merely math equasions at the city gates. One should be encouraged to leave their heavy crossbowman in the city, for example, mabye even a few other units, but the city should be in A LOT OF TROUBLE, if the army stack heading twoard the city isnt engaged out in the field instead of bunkering down in the city.

As it is, everyone comits to seige warfare. Either offensively or defensively. THis looses the sense of mighty armies clashing with fantastic heros and monsters. My idea is that after X amount of units per city, all units IN that city start taking penalties. Like for a size 8 city, beyond 4(military) units in that city, all units start taking a -5% cumulative penalty. If you had 8 units in a size 8 city, then youd have a -20% penalty for all units. The reasoning behind this is A) its crowded, and B) large stacks should fight in the fields, and "holdout/bunkers" function as small numbers of units holding out against LARGE.

I sense players would not like this, but it would create MORE strategy, and be JUST as useful as it would be burdensome. (The AI would suffer too, and after breaking the army, the cities would be less defended.)

Also it would make the fort useful again, as it would/should have no limiations, and it would allow for defendable positons outside a city in which to "keep" the stacks of units you have beyond what the cities can have without penalty.

-Qes
 
Deleted: Weird Repeating
 
Deleted: Wierd repeating.
 
QES said:
I agree with you. Thats why I'm advocating slight variations in the endgame. If improvements are more important - perhaps getting to the level of importance that superceeds in-city buildilngs, then there is a cause and need to defend multiple locaitons at once. WHen all one has to do is sit behind their city walls, then all the armies have to do when on a conquering-run is be in one large stack. It's stack v stack warfare. If there is reason for the defense not to be in a stack (to protect improvements) and the offense to not be in a stack (to get at those improvements) then we will see something far more stretching.

And yes, national units make up a huge portion of the game, if you've access to them all then you can field 21 national units alone, i believe. Thats quite a few. But my point was about "fodder" and "scale". If there is a more basic unit that can be mass produced through the "draft" system, especially in nationalism, it makes nationalism a great end game civic, for one. And secondly wars will be shorter becuase the amount of units on the field at any given time can be a lot larger. The death tolls will be equivilantly large, so it functions a population-reduction. Finally for theme, it serves the intersts of "large-epic-scale battles" AND since populations, or PEOPLE are doing the fighting, it gives the sense of crusade and luster that only "final battles" can exude.

When the whole of end-game combat is done by hardpointe large stacks, there is very little "epic feel" and more of just hammers and nails. Who's got the harder? The hammer or the nail? I would prefer to see armies engaging in the field, and the victor moving on to the city.

ANOTHER way of doing this, and discouraging seige warfare late game (and ONLY late game) is to have a city only able to defend x amount of units. Massive cities could have several units inside it, smaller cities less. The goal here, for me, is to force battles out onto battle fields, and force tactical desisions instead of merely math equasions at the city gates. One should be encouraged to leave their heavy crossbowman in the city, for example, mabye even a few other units, but the city should be in A LOT OF TROUBLE, if the army stack heading twoard the city isnt engaged out in the field instead of bunkering down in the city.

As it is, everyone comits to seige warfare. Either offensively or defensively. THis looses the sense of mighty armies clashing with fantastic heros and monsters. My idea is that after X amount of units per city, all units IN that city start taking penalties. Like for a size 8 city, beyond 4(military) units in that city, all units start taking a -5% cumulative penalty. If you had 8 units in a size 8 city, then youd have a -20% penalty for all units. The reasoning behind this is A) its crowded, and B) large stacks should fight in the fields, and "holdout/bunkers" function as small numbers of units holding out against LARGE.

I sense players would not like this, but it would create MORE strategy, and be JUST as useful as it would be burdensome. (The AI would suffer too, and after breaking the army, the cities would be less defended.)

Also it would make the fort useful again, as it would/should have no limiations, and it would allow for defendable positons outside a city in which to "keep" the stacks of units you have beyond what the cities can have without penalty.

-Qes

We could make an armageddon spell that disbanded all cities except for the capital, turned all the other cities into units based on their population and started wars between the various civs. Or maybe apocalypse turns the killed population into barbarian zombies. Tons of fun things we could do.
 
Kael said:
We could make an armageddon spell that disbanded all cities except for the capital, turned all the other cities into units based on their population and started wars between the various civs. Or maybe apocalypse turns the killed population into barbarian zombies. Tons of fun things we could do.

All sounds fun. I dont care how it works, id just like Drafting to be a viable strategy. :) Plus.....who doesnt love epic tolkienish-style warfare?

-Qes

EDIT: In that armegeddon spell, would there still be the option to build settlers? It'd be VERY cool, if this armegeddon spell also removed all techs from all civs....forcing everyone to start over. The army produced would be used to fight a massive battle, and survive. Any survivors would get whatever improvements were left unpillaged, and the ability to expand. So it'd not be "exactly" starting over, but i would create a cool "second age". AND if the particular "armeggedon" spell could be made again later, when everyone teched up again, it'd make an interesting repetition situation. Each "age" bringing the fall and subjugating everyone to warfare, then the survivors (because i would hope that without boarders and cities lots of barbarians would appear) would have to fend for themselves and rebuild. Only to repeat the process later? Sounds fun.
 
Kinda offtopic, but is there a way to specify how many people are actually in a unit?
 
Is the 'trick' to upgrade The Drown to Stygian Guards who keep their water walking 'officially' allowed? If that's the case, why not simply give Stygian Guards the water walking promotion standard? It would remove the current silly need to keep a city of you without an Overlords Temple, to assure a steady The Drown supply. It would also benefit the AI, who no doubt doesn't know how to exploit this tactic.
 
Kael said:
This is the counter to tech rushing. Tech rushing (going down one branch to an expensive late game tech in the early game) is a very viable 3rd tier strategy. And its even a viable 4th tier strategy, you can rush to a t4 unit and produce 3 of them.

But if we didn't limit them everyone would tech rush to their favorite t4 unit and produce nothing but them. Thats specialization, but its also boring. IN such cases your unit tree might as well look like this

Some good points. Though I'm not sure the bolded part would be true. (Note that I was not proposing to make them unlimited btw - just a softer changeable limit)

Indeed, most civs would have one 'standard unit' that would form the core of their army, garrison their cities etc. However it wouldn't be wise to build no units at all of other types. Reason is that most units have counters that can easily defeat them, but without those counters, you might be helpless against the assault of another civ who specialized in something else.

For example, take a civ who has specialized in melee units. However big problem, he's facing an attack by Saboteurs and Shadows. All those neat melee units won't be able to do much if he doesn't research to Marksman as well and have at least one of those as well.

Other way around. You specialized in the ranger branch, but are facing a melee unit invasion, or are invading a melee unit civ. Rangers and their tier 4 successors can do a decent job, but it sure would be handy to have a couple Assassins as auxiliary troops in your army as well.

So as far as I can see it's still necessary and useful to research all branches or have a more balanced and general research path and army composition.

I think there's a way to combine both specialization and diversification.

1) Reduce the national unit limit from three to one.
2) Make it possible to raise the national unit limit of a certain tier 4 type by having x amount of tier 3 units.

Currently the high number of tier 4 unit types combined with the national unit limit of three means that you can have a sufficiently large offensive army existing solely out of tier 4 units (at least on the small/standard map sizes I play on - perhaps it's different on huge maps). Tier 3 units aren't necessary.

However by reducing the basic national unit limit to one, your army is less likely to be big enough existing only out of tier 4 units. So you'll be forced to still build tier 3 units as well. And here kicks the specialization in. While it's good to diversify by using up all available tier4 nat unit slots, you can keep your specialization by building additional tier 3 units and thereby raise your nat unit limit of certain types.

So instead of having uniform armies of three of each tier 4 type and nothing else except some more mages/summoners (which strikes me as almost as boring choice-wise as having a uniform army of only one type), you'll see more diverse armies, with of course the standard one tier 4 unit of each type, but besides that a more diverse army of tier 3 units and a couple extra corresponding tier 4 units.
 
I started a new game last night as Malakim, and really enjoyed the starting lightbringer, it adds to the feel of the civ.
Got me to thinking that maybe some magic orientated civs could start with an adept, but with 3 str they'd be overpowering.
So how about a new unit, a Novice, for Amurites and Sheaim only, I think, that costs maybe 1.5X a warrior, str of 1, move 1, upgrades to adept, and starts with channeling and sorcery I, and is availible with ancient chants.
These two units would get one instead of their scout or warrior. It would not be overpowering, I don't think, since they will only be able to access their palace mana. But the advantage would be that once knowledge of the ether is researched, you will have a strong unit ready to be upgraded.
 
Back
Top Bottom