Discussion: Balancing Unit Lines
- Thread starter Ekolite
- Start date
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
I assume you don't mean priests, as many of them are very powerful, and those which aren't are weaker because they come from religions with stronng advantages elsewhere. The tier 1 disciple is very handy for popping borders and spreading religions so I guess you don't mean them either.
Do you mean Crusaders/Paramanders?
Yeah, if you go down the metal line these kind of loose out to champions, but if you are focusing on the religion line they're a life saver! They're disciples so theyu can't get some of the useful promotions that the melee line can, but they have two movement from the offset if you use sa Spiritual leader, and they get xp from building the altar of the luonattar. Also, the anti-disciple promotion is far rarer then Shock promotions making them a little less vulnerable in some cases.
Basically, they fill a very nice niche, but you won't always have use for them.
I know this is about the "normal" FFH2...but you are actually interested in improving the other lines you might want to take a look at the orbis mod...
afaik, at least the archery line has been improved a lot in that modmod: archers have a range 1 "airstrike" and a fair chance for defensive strikes to damage incoming attacks. I almost never used archers in FFH2, but i frequently use use them in orbis.
just my 2 cents
afaik, at least the archery line has been improved a lot in that modmod: archers have a range 1 "airstrike" and a fair chance for defensive strikes to damage incoming attacks. I almost never used archers in FFH2, but i frequently use use them in orbis.
just my 2 cents
Monkeyfinger
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,002
MP players turn off tech trading because if a player ragequits, an AI takes over his civ, and the resulting feeding on this AI's techs can completely destroy a game's balance.
Archers IMHO are fine as it is (not that many disagrees), high defensive strength combined with inherent city and hill bonus, 1 first strike and ability for CG and flaming arrows promotions makes them much stronger at city defense than melee units of the same strength.
OTOH by the time bowyers become available the best defence is the strong offence so it's hardly worth researching.
Hunters could be good enough if not for one thing - to get most out of them you need yet another tech - animal handling and at that point it may be a better idea to just grab HBR for a more useful unit which is just as good at scouting.
Rangers, yeah, I don't see any reason to ever build them even if I play Svart, I just upgrade my few veteran hunters to a stronger version. Assassins are so much better for military use. Maybe we shouldn't try to rebalance rangers emphasizing their military use? How about giving them 1 extra movement, ability to ignore terrain movement costs and explore rival territory and reduce their attack strength by 2 points. That would make them really good for recon and animal capturing purposes as well as capturing workers in a time of war.
OTOH by the time bowyers become available the best defence is the strong offence so it's hardly worth researching.
Hunters could be good enough if not for one thing - to get most out of them you need yet another tech - animal handling and at that point it may be a better idea to just grab HBR for a more useful unit which is just as good at scouting.
Rangers, yeah, I don't see any reason to ever build them even if I play Svart, I just upgrade my few veteran hunters to a stronger version. Assassins are so much better for military use. Maybe we shouldn't try to rebalance rangers emphasizing their military use? How about giving them 1 extra movement, ability to ignore terrain movement costs and explore rival territory and reduce their attack strength by 2 points. That would make them really good for recon and animal capturing purposes as well as capturing workers in a time of war.
Perhaps Recon units could be reduced to One move ... but treat all terrain as roads.
Thats simply a suggestion for the entire recon-combat line.
However, when looking at rangers specifically, perhaps simply ignoring terrain penalties (for a constant 2 movement regardless).
Thats simply a suggestion for the entire recon-combat line.
However, when looking at rangers specifically, perhaps simply ignoring terrain penalties (for a constant 2 movement regardless).
Why not start from the beginning with rangers. What type of unit should it be? It hardly has a purpose as animalcatcher, since rarely any is left when they come around. Or as a non-city melee for the metal poor? In that case the cost needs to be lowered cause it's just to expensive and something also should differentiate it from the Horse Archer. Or does someone has any other idea?
My 2 centc
My first suggestion would be to give it a cost of 120, that it sounds like all agrees on.
But then it needs something more, to me the terrain movement bonus sounds like a good idea.
But i think it still falls short if it is supposed to be more then a specialist unit. I would vote against any direct promotions, Str 8 seems a little bit strong, straight non-promotion terrain attack/defense bonuses would be to prefer i think.
My suggestion
Strength 7
Movement 2
Cost 120
Ignores terrain movement costs, +25% forest attack/defense, +25% hill attack/defense +20% attack/defense within cultural borders
My 2 centc
My first suggestion would be to give it a cost of 120, that it sounds like all agrees on.
But then it needs something more, to me the terrain movement bonus sounds like a good idea.
But i think it still falls short if it is supposed to be more then a specialist unit. I would vote against any direct promotions, Str 8 seems a little bit strong, straight non-promotion terrain attack/defense bonuses would be to prefer i think.
My suggestion
Strength 7
Movement 2
Cost 120
Ignores terrain movement costs, +25% forest attack/defense, +25% hill attack/defense +20% attack/defense within cultural borders
What about lowering strength, giving them retreat odds and collateral damage? Then they really would be great harassment units, faster than siege, slower than spells, bad at killing anything but great for whittling the opponent down for the main force. Then they really would serve as recon\harassment forces.
Or better yet, keep the same strength and just give them collateral. Even if it was something like 10%\4 units it would make them more interesting and appealing.
Or better yet, keep the same strength and just give them collateral. Even if it was something like 10%\4 units it would make them more interesting and appealing.
cabbagemeister
Please wait...
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2008
- Messages
- 517
The problem is that Recon needs to be a viable ALTERNATIVE to melee, not a COMPLIMENT to melee. Giving recon lower strength and collateral would still require you to go down the melee path first to build the core of your army; after that you would decide whether recon, siege, or magic/religion would be the best option for melee support (and recon will lose that decision every time).
I like the ideas centering on making recon superior at dealing with terrain movement and terrain defenses. Recon would still be unable to take cities, but it could help dominate the field so you can get your city-cracking mages/siege/heroes into play.
Senethro
Overlord
For the same reasons as cabbage I don't think this is workable, but its still a very cool idea. If I was reimagining the game then I'd have a metal-using heavy cavalry line and turn horse archers into the unit you're suggesting.
Cabbage: What if their terrain related special ability was offensive instead of defensive? Units defending in forest or hills receive no (or half) terrain defense value vs. Rangers and Beastmasters? (Druids...?)
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
I actually quite like the idea by Tlaylynet. I think what rangers need is a niche, they do not neccessarilly need to a viable alternative to melee at all. After all, just look at the rest of the recon line. Each unit (except the ranger) has a unique role. Scouts for early exploration, hunters for more successful exploration and animal catching, assassins for harrassment and druids for vitalise and other spells. Even the beast masters have a unique niche in that they allow you a nice chance to capture Archeron and/or other beasts. None of this line (except possibly under the svarts) is an alternative to melee, viable or otherwise, and making them so is not the answer.
Making them an alternative to melee will make them no more useful as players will still only want to pick one. Idealy we want to give the player the choice to pursue one or two lines purely, or spread their research amongst many lines. Rangers need a niche to make them attractive, and worth ploughing through the recon line to get your hands on. I think that's a nice way of doing it.
Making them an alternative to melee will make them no more useful as players will still only want to pick one. Idealy we want to give the player the choice to pursue one or two lines purely, or spread their research amongst many lines. Rangers need a niche to make them attractive, and worth ploughing through the recon line to get your hands on. I think that's a nice way of doing it.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. If you've just got rangers you should struggle to capture enemy cities, even worse maybe than if you had only longbowmen. My concept of rangers would be units that are the strongest defenders of your countryside with added skills to help an advance into enemy territory, letting other units assault and defend cities.
Rangers do however need a useful function that they perform better than other units. At the moment they don't defend better than longbowmen, don't attack better than assassins, don't hunt much better than hunters, don't skirmish as well as horse archers, don't have any use near cities, don't have any army role in big stack battles, and have no impact on strategy.
Senethro
Overlord
I disagree. A Ranger with Combat I/Shock is 11.2 vs Champion. A Combat II Champion is also Str11.2. If Hunters appear earlier they'll be gaining all kinds of XP from animal clearing etc. If the beaker cost of Animal Handling is reduced then you'll have upgraded high XP Rangers appearing early enough that they can lead newly built Rangers to victory over the prevailing unit of the time - Axemen. Just like Mounted units, you have to use their higher movement to keep them alive long enough that they'll be able to get promoted. As long as you're active about getting your army trained then you'll be well prepared by the time Champions decide to show up.
My first suggestion was that units defending against rangers don't get their Forest/Hill defense. Alternatively, what about making Rangers roll higher on the Lair exploration table, the same way Scouts/Hunters roll higher on the Tribal Hut?
Rangers already have a slight niche in that Animal Handling is a pre-requisite for Feral Bond. We don't need big changes here. Just a little tip and theres room for at least one Ranger/Werewolf army in every game.
I still agree with making Rangers beaker cheaper, but I don't think that any unit necessarily be an alternative for another unit. It's not bad when it happens, but we don't want to encourage unilateral stacks either.
But if you want them to be competitive to Melle give them 25% collateral, Combat+Shock Ranger Vs 80/100 Combat 2 Iron Champion would be 8.4 (7+20%) Vs 6 (9-2str +40%-40%) Rangers win on open ground when the Champions are stacked is damaged and they are not attacking a city. 25% seems like a little too much though, 20 might be better to avoid making them overpowered but it would be less of a clear win over Melle.
Scouts don't get better rolls out of Tribal villages, they just re-roll when 'the villagers are hostile' comes up, I don't know how that can be applied to Rangers.
But if you want them to be competitive to Melle give them 25% collateral, Combat+Shock Ranger Vs 80/100 Combat 2 Iron Champion would be 8.4 (7+20%) Vs 6 (9-2str +40%-40%) Rangers win on open ground when the Champions are stacked is damaged and they are not attacking a city. 25% seems like a little too much though, 20 might be better to avoid making them overpowered but it would be less of a clear win over Melle.
Scouts don't get better rolls out of Tribal villages, they just re-roll when 'the villagers are hostile' comes up, I don't know how that can be applied to Rangers.
The biggest problem for recon units is that they are never a cost-conscious choice for military capability, which means late-game recon units are almost never built by players, and only occasionally by AI.
The recon tree would do fine with a tech-cost reduction (especially Hunting, which is insanely expensive and doesn't even get researched early by AIs that really ought to; i.e. elves) and making all of them illusory so they simply couldn't eliminate enemy units on their own, but giving them much-improved mobility by having them ignore terrain penalties to movement.
That completely changes their functionality, but makes them an excellent complement to mounted units. In fact, it gives mounted units a very strong strategy in complement, which is better than it currently stands with a handful of mounted units being used to flush out enemies within your own territory and harass individual enemy units traveling just outside your territory, for the most part (if you bother to build any at all).
Guardsman should be removed from most of the melee line, but consider that a certain leader grants it to all units (and, indeed, is one of the major reasons to choose him) and you'd essentially be adjusting those races' potential power. Not a bad thing, by any means, but something to keep in mind.
Archers are essentially fine. They are second-rate attacking units, but first-rate defenders. With a couple of city defender promotions, they can turn back even mithril-equipped champions, so they hardly seem to be a poor use of hammers.
The real trick to the whole mess, of course, is that heroes tend to be overwhelmingly powerful when compared to regular units. It becomes even more striking when you compare them to top tier units. How often would you risk a well-promoted national unit against Duin? You just throw fodder at them and hope you have enough, usually. That lends itself very heavily to the melee line.
The recon tree would do fine with a tech-cost reduction (especially Hunting, which is insanely expensive and doesn't even get researched early by AIs that really ought to; i.e. elves) and making all of them illusory so they simply couldn't eliminate enemy units on their own, but giving them much-improved mobility by having them ignore terrain penalties to movement.
That completely changes their functionality, but makes them an excellent complement to mounted units. In fact, it gives mounted units a very strong strategy in complement, which is better than it currently stands with a handful of mounted units being used to flush out enemies within your own territory and harass individual enemy units traveling just outside your territory, for the most part (if you bother to build any at all).
Guardsman should be removed from most of the melee line, but consider that a certain leader grants it to all units (and, indeed, is one of the major reasons to choose him) and you'd essentially be adjusting those races' potential power. Not a bad thing, by any means, but something to keep in mind.
Archers are essentially fine. They are second-rate attacking units, but first-rate defenders. With a couple of city defender promotions, they can turn back even mithril-equipped champions, so they hardly seem to be a poor use of hammers.
The real trick to the whole mess, of course, is that heroes tend to be overwhelmingly powerful when compared to regular units. It becomes even more striking when you compare them to top tier units. How often would you risk a well-promoted national unit against Duin? You just throw fodder at them and hope you have enough, usually. That lends itself very heavily to the melee line.
I'm a little bit surprised that fewer people mention the recon line's synergy with Esus. At least in SP, mask is an incredibly powerful ability. The ability to turn hidden nationality on and off means I'm going to tank the economy of any AI foolish enough to sign open borders with me. "Oh, look! You built another worker." *STAB* "You're sending out a settler?" *STAB* "You're mapping out my territory?" *STAB* "You're building a huge stack?" *STAB* "My unit is wounded and needs to heal." *declare nationality*
Granted, this is a mid-game strategy. The end game is still going to require the metal line to take out those crippled cities. But I can leverage this strategy into a virtually guaranteed tech lead going into the end game.
Granted, this is a mid-game strategy. The end game is still going to require the metal line to take out those crippled cities. But I can leverage this strategy into a virtually guaranteed tech lead going into the end game.
HN games are only really feasible with assassins upgraded from nightwatch as otherwise getting coe on a unit is quite low, especially if you have several religions in a city. No one is disputing their usefulness. The biggest problem is the ranger which doesn't seem to serve any real purpose and is sitting on an expensive tech.
Just wanted to point out that this is only true if the ranger is defending. If it is attacking, it's 8.4 vs the champions 8.0, giving it 65.5% chance of winning.
