Dwarves and Gold

[QES]

Yeah maybe this kind of stuff would word but you guys realize that dwarves already dont expand that much anyway....and if to many things bring culture down you at least will need some kind of extra thing that they can build to bring it back up..........not expanding at all or shrinking all the time is a bad idea........one more thing the Mushroom Farmer should be called Dwarven Farmer in my opinion because there are alot of things other than just mushrooms that Dwarves could eat this was discussed on the What Do Dwarves Eat thread..... .but Dwarves might specialize into different kinds of Farmers I dunno........ask Wilboman and Chalid the mighty black dragon.
Mushrooms are kind of a given but there are plenty of other things dwarves might eat....howabout..Dwarven Horticulturalist......or Dwarven Rancher....It might be different if it was simpler and more plausible to have an underground system but it doesn't look like that will happen.....but some of the Team have been working on other things that will come out later so maybe they'll have something to say about it.
....How about since this is a Dwarves and Gold thread........a Dwarven Mint of Foreign Currency Building....where other civs can get the dwarven expertise to mint better coins for them an excellent way for Dwarves to make a cut into others Gold without costing them anything but work and the quality would be better so the other civs wouldn't be out anything either.......it happens alot in RPGs and fantasy novels.

I'm with you in principle, the Khazad dont expand, but there are other dwarven civs out there. The new trait would also be useable by non dwarven races and they'd have to deal with the problems of not being able to use the second ring in different ways. In this I proposed that the dwarven races could build buildings inside their towns that would increase their population over time (food), but harm they're ability to culturally expand (we discussed it in the buildings thread, and decided that each building would have a -20% -1 culture negation, this is enough to threaten the extinction of the city, but more just a huge dampener on culture). Other civs that might make use of the "Compact" trait would be perhaps the desert peoples. Any civilization that is more "city state" than "grand nation" would be able to use such a thing. I know there is a civic "city state" that does not mean A) anyone uses it, or B) it actually generates the feel. I imagine the Malakim could have the compact trait, as desert dwellers, they could either make use of more land through the buliding of more cities, and they'd have specialists (i.e. sophisticated cities), instead of your general "centers" of land development, which is how cities work now. Or they could build out into open desert, relying on mostly their specialists to provide function to that city (they'd not be large cities, id not think, as there's little/no food out there, cept maybe with oasisi).

The Compact trait (1 specialist for every 3 population, rounding up, inable to use the 2nd ring around a city) has both good and bad consequences. As it stands, alone, it means that each city will only be able to use 8 of their 20 normal squares for production, but will potentially have the same population, much of which doesnt require food (someone told me free specialists dont eat) and have more options (according to tech) as to WHAT they want to produce. The one thing they cant manufacture, is food. But gold, research, culture, and hammers are all up for grabs at the CITIES discression.

I think its a pretty good idea that can be used outside of dwarves alone.
-Qes

 

[vorshlumpf]

Some brainstormin' on dwarf ideas:

1) They do not grow cities based on food (food being that which is grown on the surface - i.e., "winter has no hold on the underhome") but 'eat' production hammers. Their relatively high production yields (with a good vault and certain buildings) would fit this and bring their uber-factory feel down a notch. As a semi-related aside, Birthright dwarves actually eat rock and such.

2) I like the idea of compact working radii. How about a regular city radius, but only hills and mountains can be worked by the dwarven cities?

3) As far as I know, most if not all other civs have the benefit of upgrading terrain to boost food (and, therefore, production) of cities. The dwarves in this game obviously don't care much for the surface, but what about the ability to 'grow' hills? Personally, I think the third level earth spell that pushes away enemies is almost useless - dwarven druids using their powers to grow underground living areas sounds within the theme. If one is concerned about this being overused, a limitation could be put on it that hills can only be raised in tiles that are adjacent to a mountain - which would force the wise dwarven ruler to settle near mountains in the early game.

3) Make the food production values for the surface not usable by the dwarves (except, perhaps, those gained from animals). Ideas already mentioned here for giving the dwarves appropriate food (mushrooms?) would be used to offset it.

Anyway, I like the discussions that have been going on. Insular and mountain hugging dwarves are what I'd like to see

- Niilo

 

[vorshlumpf]

In the game I just had, I noticed that when my gold was at 200, my capital (and only city) had just a Stocked vault. I purposely gained only 1 more gold for the next turn and that did the trick. I should have waited one turn with no income, though, because I noticed later that my second city didn't get a vault until the turn after it was created, so it my be a single turn delay situation. When I get back to the game, I'll see if that's the case.

By the way, I confirmed that there is a one-turn delay in updating the dwarven vault within each city. Obviously not a game-breaker - the main problem is that the text in the upper left of the main screen is out of synch with what the cities have.

- Niilo

 

[QES]

Some brainstormin' on dwarf ideas:

1) They do not grow cities based on food (food being that which is grown on the surface - i.e., "winter has no hold on the underhome") but 'eat' production hammers. Their relatively high production yields (with a good vault and certain buildings) would fit this and bring their uber-factory feel down a notch. As a semi-related aside, Birthright dwarves actually eat rock and such.

2) I like the idea of compact working radii. How about a regular city radius, but only hills and mountains can be worked by the dwarven cities?

3) As far as I know, most if not all other civs have the benefit of upgrading terrain to boost food (and, therefore, production) of cities. The dwarves in this game obviously don't care much for the surface, but what about the ability to 'grow' hills? Personally, I think the third level earth spell that pushes away enemies is almost useless - dwarven druids using their powers to grow underground living areas sounds within the theme. If one is concerned about this being overused, a limitation could be put on it that hills can only be raised in tiles that are adjacent to a mountain - which would force the wise dwarven ruler to settle near mountains in the early game.

3) Make the food production values for the surface not usable by the dwarves (except, perhaps, those gained from animals). Ideas already mentioned here for giving the dwarves appropriate food (mushrooms?) would be used to offset it.

Anyway, I like the discussions that have been going on. Insular and mountain hugging dwarves are what I'd like to see

- Niilo

1. Dwarves need to eat. The question is not if they eat, its where they get their nutrition from. The little "food" icons represent that intake of food. Sure, maybe they shouldnt get bonuses from common farms and the like, but they should still eat little food icons. (If we were all only so lucky)

2. Something like this is in the works. The "Compact trait" is also an idea for "non dwarven" races. Something that would have to be dealt with in different manners than the dwarves would. My theory is that the dwarves "build things" to compensate. Other people might just expand faster (more cities, but smaller). Or simply conquer "others" cities that dont have the same problem. I would assume the "compact trait" would only be based on "founded" not conquered, cities.

3. While im not a fan of hills appearing like forests do (seems like a repeat of a game mechanic), I do think that Kael and the team said they were working on Dwarven specific improvements, so that this problem would be worked on.

3 number two. I think 3 covers this.
-Qes

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Well, I cannot say I have had the optimum experience playing the Khazad / Arturus, as my world has been largely at peace. Left to themselves everthing I've seen shows they can build one hella gold-based empire.

Now on to the griping. Usually, I'd flatter the designers even more, but it's late.

Geeze, did the Dwarf Design Team think Dwarves are capable of doing anything besides dig holes in the ground? I've never seen so many units that are prohibited. Not being to build Shadows was the last straw. I had to save game and log on here to gripe. (Besides, I need to sleep sometime.)

Off the top of my head I've noticed the inability to build archers, longbowmen, all the advanced mounted units, shadows, any arcane units of tier two or three, and I can't think of any more. Oh yeah, Rangers. Hell, even their special melee unit is STR 6 versus the unit it replaces, the Maceman at STR 7. This is the only fantasy game I've seen where your basic Dwarf soldier is a p**** compared to his basic Human counterpart in a toe-to-toe bashfest.

I see and agree with the idea of designing different flavors and styles into the different realms, but it is possible to take the concept too far. For instance, let's say Dwarves have some sort of racial tabu about shooting arrows at frothing Orcs who happen to be trying to scale the town walls then subsequently dine upon gristly Dwarven young. Well, in Civ, even FfH, your mundane Archer/Longbow units happens to be your basic bang-for-the-buck cheap city garrison unit. The strategic need for cheap affordable garrison units does not go away just because Dwarves are too stubborn to learn which end of the arrow to point at the enemy. So considering all the above it seems to me that the stubborn and miserly Dwarven people whould, over the ages, develop another cheap, affordable tactical unit designed to fill the archer niche (i.e. a mid-powered unit with inherent +City Defense and First Strike (or reasonable alternative) abilities).

I can't say there's any play balance problems. The Khazad did well in my game, certainly. But flat-out prohibiting too many options strikes me as forcing a given race into the same play-style and strategy, game after game. That's the real concern.

Has it been taken too far in FfH? Hell, I don't know. I can't come close to saying without playing the other realms. Like I said, it's late and I came here to . Now I feel much better. We've all been there, before, right?

But I'm ready to do more than just gripe. I'll even play my next game as (shudder) elves so as so be able to offer more well-rounded FfH opinion in future. Elves. eew.

 

[QES]

Well, I cannot say I have had the optimum experience playing the Khazad / Arturus, as my world has been largely at peace. Left to themselves everthing I've seen shows they can build one hella gold-based empire.

Now on to the griping. Usually, I'd flatter the designers even more, but it's late.

Geeze, did the Dwarf Design Team think Dwarves are capable of doing anything besides dig holes in the ground? I've never seen so many units that are prohibited. Not being to build Shadows was the last straw. I had to save game and log on here to gripe. (Besides, I need to sleep sometime.)

Off the top of my head I've noticed the inability to build archers, longbowmen, all the advanced mounted units, shadows, any arcane units of tier two or three, and I can't think of any more. Oh yeah, Rangers. Hell, even their special melee unit is STR 6 versus the unit it replaces, the Maceman at STR 7. This is the only fantasy game I've seen where your basic Dwarf soldier is a p**** compared to his basic Human counterpart in a toe-to-toe bashfest.

I see and agree with the idea of designing different flavors and styles into the different realms, but it is possible to take the concept too far. For instance, let's say Dwarves have some sort of racial tabu about shooting arrows at frothing Orcs who happen to be trying to scale the town walls then subsequently dine upon gristly Dwarven young. Well, in Civ, even FfH, your mundane Archer/Longbow units happens to be your basic bang-for-the-buck cheap city garrison unit. The strategic need for cheap affordable garrison units does not go away just because Dwarves are too stubborn to learn which end of the arrow to point at the enemy. So considering all the above it seems to me that the stubborn and miserly Dwarven people whould, over the ages, develop another cheap, affordable tactical unit designed to fill the archer niche (i.e. a mid-powered unit with inherent +City Defense and First Strike (or reasonable alternative) abilities).

I can't say there's any play balance problems. The Khazad did well in my game, certainly. But flat-out prohibiting too many options strikes me as forcing a given race into the same play-style and strategy, game after game. That's the real concern.

Has it been taken too far in FfH? Hell, I don't know. I can't come close to saying without playing the other realms. Like I said, it's late and I came here to . Now I feel much better. We've all been there, before, right?

But I'm ready to do more than just gripe. I'll even play my next game as (shudder) elves so as so be able to offer more well-rounded FfH opinion in future. Elves. eew.

The dwarves have a lot of prohibited units..yes. But they're getting love soon. I too was talking about making the dwarves MORE dwarfy, in fact, and people were talking about they next addition will be a goodly portion to dwarves. I BELIEVE this is true, though I have 0 evidence.

As defenses go, i think the intention is that you build walls/palisades, and then have more "numbers" on your side. I dont really see the dwarves as having "First strike" very often, or at least not cheaply, but it wouldnt be hard to see them building more and more intricate defense structures. The benefit would be instead of a unit with city defense promotions, you had a building that provided as much (or more) defense to ANY unit within the city limits. These same units, unlike other civs, can then be used on OFFENSE. ALSO, any experiance gained, could go tward different promotions, instead of keeping to the city defense line of thinking. Since the "dwarf walls" are doing the work for them.

Argument:
If an Archer has 3 str, and a dwarven unit (for the sake of argument) has 3 str. ANd the archer has city defense (+30%) and the dwarven unit does not. THen in a city on defense, the archer has the advantage. However, if the dwarven races have a wall structure (unique perhaps?) that gives 30-50% defense, then the DWARVES have the advantage (even at just the 30%) becuase their units can be used on OFFENSE as well. The issue of "first strike" becomes the only real issue. And if dwarves can quickly travel around in hills...as they can, they're forgoing the first strike for mobility in their lands.

As it is, anyone can build walls. So Archers gain back their superiority. BUt if dwarves had another building to add (instead of a multi-tierd unit structure) on the defensive they'll be superior on a 1-1 basis. It only becomes more problematic when its a 1-3 or 1-5 or 1-10 basis. Becuase then first strike matters more and more. Given the dwarves ability to produce however......odds like this, and the lack of "fresh troops" will never really hurt the dwarves.
-Qes

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

QES

In vanilla civ, I almost always had warrior units unit the very end days. One would sit in some interior city, there to maintain the 1-unit military presence minimum.

In FfH with Shadow and other hidden units, I want at least one strong garrison unit in each and every city. I don't give one whit about offense. They are to sit there enjoying their +25% defense ability.

Eliminating the basic bang-for-the-buck bland, boring, mundane city defensive unit, and failing to provide a replacement, is IMO perhaps going a step too far towards role-playing. To those for whom role-play is the paramount concern, I ask would not the canny and efficient Dwarven people develop an effective and efficient defense for their cities? Again, just because the Dwarves dislike a certain weapon, that does not relieve them of the need to accomplish the mission that weapon achieves.

I was admittedly suprised to learn of the huge number of prohibited units. Perhaps every race is forbidden to build the same % of unit types in the game. With so many units forbidden to the Dwarves, it seems like they deserve to have a few more tricks up their sleeves.

 

[QES]

QES

In vanilla civ, I almost always had warrior units unit the very end days. One would sit in some interior city, there to maintain the 1-unit military presence minimum.

In FfH with Shadow and other hidden units, I want at least one strong garrison unit in each and every city. I don't give one whit about offense. They are to sit there enjoying their +25% defense ability.

Eliminating the basic bang-for-the-buck bland, boring, mundane city defensive unit, and failing to provide a replacement, is IMO perhaps going a step too far towards role-playing. To those for whom role-play is the paramount concern, I ask would not the canny and efficient Dwarven people develop an effective and efficient defense for their cities? Again, just because the Dwarves dislike a certain weapon, that does not relieve them of the need to accomplish the mission that weapon achieves.

I was admittedly suprised to learn of the huge number of prohibited units. Perhaps every race is forbidden to build the same % of unit types in the game. With so many units forbidden to the Dwarves, it seems like they deserve to have a few more tricks up their sleeves.

Hey im with you buddy! Dwarves will be getting some love soon. Units and other things. But i dont know what they are.

My responce wasnt to say that they shouldnt get something, it was the method to the madness im talking about.

IF your interior cities (as the dwarves) have walls, they are enjoying essentially (as of now a 5% discrepency) the same benefit. Granted this is with units that are very green. And an "uber archer" is a pain in the buttocks to get rid of. I know that the "pain in the buttocks" is what your after. But im saying that the dwarven "answer" to the problem isnt with archer units, but instead with buildings with more and more defense bonuses. Perhaps they could have walls, 25%, and then maybe "Dwarven keep" another 50%, then maybe Castle another 50%. At this point, they are getting 125% which is near those uber archers abilities. The "other side" of this is that while an archer will ONLY ever sit in a city, a dwarven player has the OPTION - and there are times ive used it, to use 'defending units' on the attack, to quickly get rid of oposition where i dont want it (like if they're gonna pillage my squares) an archer cant defend improvements very well, but a highly mobile hill dwarf CAN.

On shadow units....yeah they need some. Dark Dwarves or "dwarven mercs" or something. And i dont have a responce to that, but im sure they'll get something soon.
-Qes

EDIT: To Sum up, the dwarven responce shouldnt be an equivilant unit, it should be a different method entirely. Dwarf-specific buildings.

 

[chocmushroom]

Well, as far as I can remember from my years of gaming, Dwarves are very very good at defending their homes, but they use crossbows, cannons and walls.
The problem with this game, is that the ability to get crossbows and cannons is limited to later in the game, where it's not in usual fantasy settings.
But, Dwarves, according to this thread, have a lot of money. So maybe there should be a way of them buying defense in their cities. Maybe the more gold they have the more they have general citizens with bows and walls, slings and armour.
So, why not also add a city defence bonus to the Vault settings. I mean, the little stunties will fight harder to protect their money if they have a big horde to keep from the invaders.
Or, maybe with every level of Vault, you get a different free building in all cities, so for a little money you get a free Paliside, then free walls and free castle.
You can still build these if you want, as you may want to have your cities protected even if you loose some money.

 

[QES]

Well, as far as I can remember from my years of gaming, Dwarves are very very good at defending their homes, but they use crossbows, cannons and walls.
The problem with this game, is that the ability to get crossbows and cannons is limited to later in the game, where it's not in usual fantasy settings.
But, Dwarves, according to this thread, have a lot of money. So maybe there should be a way of them buying defense in their cities. Maybe the more gold they have the more they have general citizens with bows and walls, slings and armour.
So, why not also add a city defence bonus to the Vault settings. I mean, the little stunties will fight harder to protect their money if they have a big horde to keep from the invaders.
Or, maybe with every level of Vault, you get a different free building in all cities, so for a little money you get a free Paliside, then free walls and free castle.
You can still build these if you want, as you may want to have your cities protected even if you loose some money.

BRILLIANT! Its like a ready-made system!
I dare say this is genius. But, what about the dwarves who dont get the vault? Or friends the Luchuirp? They should have options too. Unless...they ARE dwarves arnt they?
-Qes

 

[SchpailsMan]

I can't remember where I've read this, but I think the defensive bonus provided by buildings DOESN'T stack with the defensive bonus provided by culture. Basically, archers would still be better in the long run than wall-shielded dwarves because their city defense promotion would stack with either walls or culture (whichever is the highest), whereas dwarven walls wouldn't stack with culture (only replace it altogether if ot's greater) NOR city defense promo (for lack of having it to begin with).

Then again I guess you're right about dwarves being more "unique" without any archers nor city-defense units... it would be better to set them in balance using other means than introducing some "ok, I know I've got city defense and first strike, but I'm telling you : I'm NOT an archer !" unit. For example, if the idea is to stick with walls, I'd think the defense bonus in the long run should be comparable to (possibly lower than, but still not too much lower than) the one you get with city defense + high culture.

I also think dwarves should be allowed to build arquebuses (don't know if it isn't already the case, I still didn't try the Khazad, but from what's reported above I guess it's not). It does fit well with ingeniosity, and would eventually kill the need for meta-über-gigantic walls in the endgame (I never like stuff that ends up getting too many superlatives ).

 

[QES]

I can't remember where I've read this, but I think the defensive bonus provided by buildings DOESN'T stack with the defensive bonus provided by culture. Basically, archers would still be better in the long run than wall-shielded dwarves because their city defense promotion would stack with either walls or culture (whichever is the highest), whereas dwarven walls wouldn't stack with culture (only replace it altogether if ot's greater) NOR city defense promo (for lack of having it to begin with).

Then again I guess you're right about dwarves being more "unique" without any archers nor city-defense units... it would be better to set them in balance using other means than introducing some "ok, I know I've got city defense and first strike, but I'm telling you : I'm NOT an archer !" unit. For example, if the idea is to stick with walls, I'd think the defense bonus in the long run should be comparable to (possibly lower than, but still not too much lower than) the one you get with city defense + high culture.

I also think dwarves should be allowed to build arquebuses (don't know if it isn't already the case, I still didn't try the Khazad, but from what's reported above I guess it's not). It does fit well with ingeniosity, and would eventually kill the need for meta-über-gigantic walls in the endgame (I never like stuff that ends up getting too many superlatives ).

Lol, Meta-walls makes me think that they're defensive against the conceptualizations of "what is city attack?" and "What does it mean to be 'an attacker?'"
-Qes

 

[vorshlumpf]

In FfH with Shadow and other hidden units, I want at least one strong garrison unit in each and every city. I don't give one whit about offense. They are to sit there enjoying their +25% defense ability.

Don't you get crossbowmen before or when hidden troops appear? In my dwarven game, I gave every city a crossbowman with City Defender promotions as soon as I was able, and feel quite safe.

The dwarves in this game seem more mechanically inclined, so a preference for crossbows over bows seems to fit. Perhaps an upcoming dwarven unit will be a minor crossbowman to replace the STR 3 archer?

In any case, I've gotten the impression that there is still more to come for the dwarves.

- Niilo

 

[vorshlumpf]

1. Dwarves need to eat. The question is not if they eat, its where they get their nutrition from. The little "food" icons represent that intake of food. Sure, maybe they shouldnt get bonuses from common farms and the like, but they should still eat little food icons. (If we were all only so lucky)

Yes, but what do they eat? With the feel I'm getting from the Khazad, it doesn't seem like they're the kind to "till the soil" above ground. To me, the number of hammers (typically increased with mining) indicates dwarven infrastructure below ground, where one would assume they have no trouble getting their food.
And, not to say the Khazad are the same as Birthright dwarves, but those dwarves actually do eat what they mine out of the ground.
Anyway, it was a thought I wanted to throw out there.

Thanks for your responses to my ideas.

- Niilo

 

[wilboman]

My favourite "How/what do dwarves eat"-explanation stems from the Artemis Fowl books (they're really kid's books, but then again, so are the Harry Potter books, and Artemis Fowl is about Faeries on steroids): Dwarves are basically dirt-processing units. They unhinge their jaw, literally eat enormous amounts of dirt, process what they can get out of it, and shoot the waste out the other end. That's how they're so good at tunneling

 

[QES]

Yes, but what do they eat? With the feel I'm getting from the Khazad, it doesn't seem like they're the kind to "till the soil" above ground. To me, the number of hammers (typically increased with mining) indicates dwarven infrastructure below ground, where one would assume they have no trouble getting their food.
And, not to say the Khazad are the same as Birthright dwarves, but those dwarves actually do eat what they mine out of the ground.
Anyway, it was a thought I wanted to through out there.

Thanks for your responses to my ideas.

- Niilo

Well im with you on that premise. But i dont think hammers = food. Nor should it. Instead, hammers should be forcebily transfered into food. Earlier i talked about some buildings that the dwarves could/should build. Each was a building that produced 4 food. Now, buildings dont often produce food, in fact most buildings offer percentages on other forms of income. But my idea was food directly. In this, they would use their "production" to "make food".

Another idea i JUST had is this.

Mushroom Farm: +4 food -20% -1 culture (my previous Idea)

But how about

Mushroom Farm: +2 Food -20% -1 Culture and citizens each produce 2 food.

This would mean that citizens, i.e. the crap specialist, could produce food for themselves, they naturally give you 1 hammer. So basically, each citizen would pay for themselves, food wise, and wind up contributing another hammer to the city. The downside, is that there's no gold in this. But other buildings could change that, and possibly other buildings could be added to increase citizens production power.

Dwarven Brewery +4 food +2 happiness from corn wheat, etc and -20% -1 culture (Previous idea)

How about
Dwarven Brewery +2 Food +1 Happiness for corn, wheat, etc. and +1 Happyness per citizen (not population). -20% -1 culture.
Again, making each citizen self sustaining. What dwarf isnt happy when he's drunk? Other specialists and worker tiles wouldnt get the extra happy, but citizens (mushroom farmers, and brewers) would be happy and self-fed.

Finally Maybe the "Dwarven Keep" which is intended to be an expensive building

Previously - +4 Food, -20% culture -1 culture, +50% defense

Now? - +2 food -20% -1 culture +50% defense +2 Gold and +1 Hammer from each citizen.
At this point the citizen is producting 2 food, 2 hammers, and 2 gold, and keeping himself happy. The only thing that would keep dwarven populations lower is the health content. Otherwise, they'd be able to perpetually build more citizens.

THey are taking a -60% culture hit, and another -3 culture hit on top of that though. They're boarders wont be very large.....but they'll be little stacks of dwarfy doom.
-Qes

P.S. Naturally, Dwarves using this model, should not be allowed to construct farms, or perhaps even work floodplains. Normal plains i see as acceptable. Though, frankly they need their own version of "villages" because right now there's no real difference, and the worker AI, never really builds many farms anyway.

P.P.S Maybe each building would also eliminate the use of some kind of tile? Mushroom farm -4 Food from farms, Dwarven brewery - 4 food from floodplains, dwarven keep - 4 gold from village/cottage/towns?

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

EDIT: To Sum up, the dwarven responce shouldnt be an equivilant unit, it should be a different method entirely. Dwarf-specific buildings.

Why "should" this be the solution instead of this "could" be a solution?

I cannot build a wall in my city containing my +100% military production wonder and march it to a small, threatened city that takes 6 turns to build a Warrior. Once again, at this point in time the Khazad have so many prohibited units, they should have some consideration regarding additional unit types to fill their ranks. Forcing them to build another building is not the same thing as having mobile units. If Nation A can build 14 different STR 12+ units while the Khazad can build only 8 different STR12+ units, that's not just a small 'role-playing flavor' thing. That's a major kick in the nuts.

Look, I'll admit my biases. There are any number of fantasy game rules I have seen that seem to have been designed from the mindsets of "Elves can do this and this and this and this and this great. Dwarves are no good at this and this and this and this. Like I said, I'll play the Elves in ffH next. And I bet the frail, 100 lb weakling Elves will not have any prohibited heavy infantry types, the Elves will be able to form heavy armored cavalry, will be able to form Hv Crossbows ... I'm expecting they have few if any prohibited units (save the siege equipment prohibition I picked up on in the forum ... and with magic who needs catapults anyway?)

My point is that it is all well and good to design some tendancies into the various races, but they should be tendancies, not iron-clad paths the player must take every game. I don't think prohibited units should be used widely. I don't think it is the optimum design approach; players should be encouraged with effciencies/inefficiencies, but should rarely be flat-out denied a strategy. But you look at the Khazad and they were hit repeadedly by the prohibition stick.

Once again, I admit to my biases up front, I like playing the Dwarves. (Which which should be already known to anyone who speaks German (I do not BTW)). And it's been a pet peeve ever since I played D&D to see Elves designed with all sorts of special abilities and powers. And surprise surprise, every adventurer party for some reason always was comprised of elf characters in the majority. Why? Because everyone wanted their own character to have access to all those neat powers. Well, this sort of imbalance is merely peeving in a role-playing game where there is no competition, just story-telling. But I see Civ as a competative game. Therefore, IMHO, role-playing elements "should" take 2nd priority to solid game balance design considerations. And disallowing the Dwarves from building about half the top-tier unit types is more than role-playing flavor. It is cutting the size of the Khazad army by over one-third, and that spells d-e-a-f-e-a-t in a war between commanders of equals skill. Every time.

Rant over.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

A question for playtesters of the Khazad:

Has anyone played the Khazad and not taken pains to ensure Runes of Killmorph was their state religion?

I ask because that Dwarven Vault concept has a lot of good mechanics going for it. But ... does it also pretty much force the Khazad into being active Runes religionists game after game after game? How about the Khazad under the influence of the Overlords, or the Veil ... can they make enough money to prevent the Vault from becoming a burden instead of a boon?

Obviously, the concern here is if the Khazad are being designed into a one-trick pony civ that has really only one viable strategy. But I've played way-y-y-y-y-y too few games to say one way or the other.

 

[evanb]

Dwarves are basically dirt-processing units. They unhinge their jaw, literally eat enormous amounts of dirt, process what they can get out of it, and shoot the waste out the other end. That's how they're so good at tunneling

Umm, don't worms do that?

 

[Kael]

Well, I cannot say I have had the optimum experience playing the Khazad / Arturus, as my world has been largely at peace. Left to themselves everthing I've seen shows they can build one hella gold-based empire.

Now on to the griping. Usually, I'd flatter the designers even more, but it's late.

Geeze, did the Dwarf Design Team think Dwarves are capable of doing anything besides dig holes in the ground? I've never seen so many units that are prohibited. Not being to build Shadows was the last straw. I had to save game and log on here to gripe. (Besides, I need to sleep sometime.)

Off the top of my head I've noticed the inability to build archers, longbowmen, all the advanced mounted units, shadows, any arcane units of tier two or three, and I can't think of any more. Oh yeah, Rangers. Hell, even their special melee unit is STR 6 versus the unit it replaces, the Maceman at STR 7. This is the only fantasy game I've seen where your basic Dwarf soldier is a p**** compared to his basic Human counterpart in a toe-to-toe bashfest.

I see and agree with the idea of designing different flavors and styles into the different realms, but it is possible to take the concept too far. For instance, let's say Dwarves have some sort of racial tabu about shooting arrows at frothing Orcs who happen to be trying to scale the town walls then subsequently dine upon gristly Dwarven young. Well, in Civ, even FfH, your mundane Archer/Longbow units happens to be your basic bang-for-the-buck cheap city garrison unit. The strategic need for cheap affordable garrison units does not go away just because Dwarves are too stubborn to learn which end of the arrow to point at the enemy. So considering all the above it seems to me that the stubborn and miserly Dwarven people whould, over the ages, develop another cheap, affordable tactical unit designed to fill the archer niche (i.e. a mid-powered unit with inherent +City Defense and First Strike (or reasonable alternative) abilities).

I can't say there's any play balance problems. The Khazad did well in my game, certainly. But flat-out prohibiting too many options strikes me as forcing a given race into the same play-style and strategy, game after game. That's the real concern.

Has it been taken too far in FfH? Hell, I don't know. I can't come close to saying without playing the other realms. Like I said, it's late and I came here to . Now I feel much better. We've all been there, before, right?

But I'm ready to do more than just gripe. I'll even play my next game as (shudder) elves so as so be able to offer more well-rounded FfH opinion in future. Elves. eew.

I want a bunch of new dwarven units. The team speced some concepts for them (bebematos listed some good dwarven nit ideas too). But right now we are waiting for the art. When the art comes the new dwarven units will begin showing up. Right now what you have is the base unit tree without the units the dwarves wont get, but it doesn't have any of the dwarves special units which are supposed to compensate for this loss.

So I agree with you. Dwarven models are just more difficult (I dont like the normal models resized) so its taking a little longer.