Dwarves and Gold

[Unser Giftzwerg]

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

Crossbowmen must buy city defender bonuses. Archers and Longbowmen are given city defender bonuses upon creation. Crossbow units do no good during the early mid-game, when everyone is building STR 3-4 units. (And Spiders can be captured and used as city-crackers in the opening game. Laugh if you like, but you won't during a game when an opponent is throwing them at you.) Where's the race-that-is-good-at-defending's good defensive units then? Why is the race that is good at defending, seemingly the only race that cannot figure out how to build a unit with inherent city defensive bonuses?

Role-play should now stop at the first level of imagination: i.e. Dwarves don't shoot bows. Role-play comes alive when imagination is allowed to explore past first-assumptions: i.e. Dwarves don't use bows, so they developed new tactics for the vital task of keeping Orcs from killing them in their beds - every Dwarf militia stockpiles boulders atop their walls which the hardy Dwarves enjoy dropping on attackers. Or flasks of oil, or piles of old Dwarves too tired to mine any more - SOMETHING more imaginative should be done than just walk through a given race whacking everything in sight with a prohibited stick.

Look, my point is not about the lack of Longbowmen per se. I happen to think this is a good example for discussion, but if STR 3 and 6 archer units were the only prohibited Khazad unit, I wouldn't even bring it up. But once again, the archers are just one in an incredibly long list of options denied to the Khazad. Like I said, I'd like to see a list of prohibitions on the elves listed side-by-side. I am way out on a limb here, I have no idea what prohibitions apply to FfH Elves ... but right now I feel like a gambling man. I'll bet that the beloved Elves don't have a third of the restrictions placedupon them as do the Khazad.

If there is more to come for the Dwarves, that's great. But isn't this the forum where we are to give our feedback tothe design team? I'm not jumping on other player's suggestions, saying this or that shouldn't be included in FfH. That's Kael & Co.'s job. I'm just trying to play a small helpful role by offering some honest feedback.

 

[Kael]

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

There is a dwarven replacement for the archer in 0.15. A Dwarven Slinger.

 

[QES]

Crossbowmen must buy city defender bonuses. Archers and Longbowmen are given city defender bonuses upon creation. Crossbow units do no good during the early mid-game, when everyone is building STR 3-4 units. (And Spiders can be captured and used as city-crackers in the opening game. Laugh if you like, but you won't during a game when an opponent is throwing them at you.) Where's the race-that-is-good-at-defending's good defensive units then? Why is the race that is good at defending, seemingly the only race that cannot figure out how to build a unit with inherent city defensive bonuses?

Role-play should now stop at the first level of imagination: i.e. Dwarves don't shoot bows. Role-play comes alive when imagination is allowed to explore past first-assumptions: i.e. Dwarves don't use bows, so they developed new tactics for the vital task of keeping Orcs from killing them in their beds - every Dwarf militia stockpiles boulders atop their walls which the hardy Dwarves enjoy dropping on attackers. Or flasks of oil, or piles of old Dwarves too tired to mine any more - SOMETHING more imaginative should be done than just walk through a given race whacking everything in sight with a prohibited stick.

Look, my point is not about the lack of Longbowmen per se. I happen to think this is a good example for discussion, but if STR 3 and 6 archer units were the only prohibited Khazad unit, I wouldn't even bring it up. But once again, the archers are just one in an incredibly long list of options denied to the Khazad. Like I said, I'd like to see a list of prohibitions on the elves listed side-by-side. I am way out on a limb here, I have no idea what prohibitions apply to FfH Elves ... but right now I feel like a gambling man. I'll bet that the beloved Elves don't have a third of the restrictions placedupon them as do the Khazad.

If there is more to come for the Dwarves, that's great. But isn't this the forum where we are to give our feedback tothe design team? I'm not jumping on other player's suggestions, saying this or that shouldn't be included in FfH. That's Kael & Co.'s job. I'm just trying to play a small helpful role by offering some honest feedback.

I wrote you a long retort - but it seems to have disapeared in the aether of this forum. So my short reply.

First off, Kael said dwarven units are coming. Art is causing them problems, and they dont dish out half-made products. So there are a lot of "gaps"

Secondly, your imagery of tossing bolders of the walls implies that walls (as boulder is not really a legitimate weapon for armies) are what's doing the defending. And I think what most everyone is saying is not that the dwarves DONT need more units, but instead that the answer to the problem may not NECESSARILY be a carbon copy of another technique in defense.

Maybe the dwarves get a low-tech crossbowman.
Maybe the dwarves get different/improved building defenses.

But that doesnt mean they OUGHT to get the automatic city defense. There is never an "OUGHT" in true strategic gaming.

Maybe the "ought" (and i dont really think this) is that the dwarves should always be on the offense, and never have to worry about defense...this is a viable and real tactic/strategy.

Just because everyone else can, doesnt mean they NEED to also.

IMHO. Dwarves defensive abilities dont come from archery (which itself lends itself to city defense) but the construction OF those cities (walls and the like) that make it such a pain to get in.

Your "issue" with city defense means you want defensive units on the front lines, something that can help hold conquered territory. Because if its really about early game woes, then truly, culture and defensive structures are the best sure way to hold off enemy hordes, including spiders and even Giants. A Dwarven Soldier fortified, in a decent culture city with walls is going to be just as potent, as a fortified archer in unwalled cities.

"But i can build walls and make the archer even more uberly defensive."

Yeah, and maybe the dwarves can build even BETTER walls?
The answer to the dilema doesnt always have to be the same. Is all were saying.
-Qes

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

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.

This is using the noggin.

 

[QES]

There is a dwarven replacement for the archer in 0.15. A Dwarven Slinger.

Lol it winds up being a unit anyway...but it still didnt "need" to be.

-Qes

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

There is a dwarven replacement for the archer in 0.15. A Dwarven Slinger.

Sweet! This is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks Kael, now I can shut up.

 

[QES]

This is using the noggin.

It sounds to me like you want to be impenetrable. Not trying to offend, its just that i realize that archers BIGGEST asset is their first strike and their ability to go into recently conquered territories. Becuase as it is, their defensive strengths can be reached through normal culture and wall additives.
-Qes

p.s. This is not to say that the dwarves should be INCREDIBLY tough to crack, they should. But maybe they should be less effective on the offense (holding foreign soil should be hard, since its not their rocky-homes.) Demolishing might be easy...holding? Less so.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

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.

I should read these thigs in order.

Hey hey, even better. It seems like I have been preaching to the choir all this time. Well, like I said, it was cathartic to gripe.

I just hate it when the Elves get all the goodies and the Dwarves get a solid kick in the nuts. Hell, even in LotR Gimli was used mostly for comic relief. If you didn't see the extended versions, you could almost colclude the only reason he carried around that axe was to have something to lean upon while frowning. Elves!

 

[QES]

I should read these thigs in order.

Hey hey, even better. It seems like I have been preaching to the choir all this time. Well, like I said, it was cathartic to gripe.

I just hate it when the Elves get all the goodies and the Dwarves get a solid kick in the nuts. Hell, even in LotR Gimli was used mostly for comic relief. If you didn't see the extended versions, you could almost colclude the only reason he carried around that axe was to have something to lean upon while frowning. Elves!

Well...just so you know WHY people love elves, its cause they're pretty, graceful, intelligent, and clean.

Besides, isnt kicking a dwarf in the nuts the initiation of the mating ritual? Or is that pulling the beard of the woman-dwarf? Its all terribly complicated as i understand it.
-Qes

P.s. I find it midly amusing that theres classic anti-dwarf anti-elf sentimenalties on a fantasy forum. Well, mostly because anti-elf senement is rediculous, whereas anti-dwarf sentiment only makes good sense.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

It sounds to me like you want to be impenetrable. Not trying to offend, its just that i realize that archers BIGGEST asset is their first strike and their ability to go into recently conquered territories. Becuase as it is, their defensive strengths can be reached through normal culture and wall additives.
-Qes

p.s. This is not to say that the dwarves should be INCREDIBLY tough to crack, they should. But maybe they should be less effective on the offense (holding foreign soil should be hard, since its not their rocky-homes.) Demolishing might be easy...holding? Less so.

How does my assertation that the Dwarves should not be weaker in city defense than the standard civ equate to a desire for impreginibility.

As the least militaristic civ in the game, I can build a Longbow unit for 150 shields. Usually new units will get a couple free experience points, so let's assume our new unit gets one promotion at creation.

The Khazad can build a Crossbow unit for 150 shields and gain a 6STR unit. That unit will get a defensive bonus for the City Defense 1 promotion is bought for its 2 exp points.

Every other civ in the game can build Longbows which gives a 6STR unit for the same 150 shields. This 6STR is multiplied by the purchased City Defense I ability, and also by it's innate city defense bonus. Therefore we have the "defensive specialists" unable to build the optimum basic defensive garrison unit.

How is an even playing field in tis regard equal to a desire for "impregnibility"?

Is there anything about the Khazad that makes them so overpowered that they need trimming back? No, there is not. This is what I mean by taking role-play too far.

 

[QES]

How does my assertation that the Dwarves should not be weaker in city defense than the standard civ equate to a desire for impreginibility.

As the least militaristic civ in the game, I can build a Longbow unit for 150 shields. Usually new units will get a couple free experience points, so let's assume our new unit gets one promotion at creation.

The Khazad can build a Crossbow unit for 150 shields and gain a 6STR unit. That unit will get a defensive bonus for the City Defense 1 promotion is bought for its 2 exp points.

Every other civ in the game can build Longbows which gives a 6STR unit for the same 150 shields. This 6STR is multiplied by the purchased City Defense I ability, and also by it's innate city defense bonus. Therefore we have the "defensive specialists" unable to build the optimum basic defensive garrison unit.

How is an even playing field in tis regard equal to a desire for "impregnibility"?

Is there anything about the Khazad that makes them so overpowered that they need trimming back? No, there is not. This is what I mean by taking role-play too far.

Because "Specialization in defence" does not necessitate it coming from units, but perhaps other sources. The answer to the dilema (and i didnt say there wasnt one) could be non-unit based. It could be buildings. An extra +50% defense wall/keep or something. That dwarves only - have access to. The answer does not need to be identical. Unit-based bonuses as the ONLY acceptable solution, imply an offensive land-grab mindset. And this is a VERY effective tactic, for most civs. But maybe the dwarves arn't land-grabbers. I know your suggesting there is a dispairty, and i dont disagree, im just not thinking that it MUST be a unit that brings the answer.

Although this is all a moot point, as its going to be a unit.
-Qes

 

[Sureshot]

Don't crossbowmen have +50% vs. melee?

Could dwarves be given a UB (Unique Building replacement) for palisades, walls, and castles that have a greater defense %? That would be ideal to me, though building on mountains is more important!

 

[vorshlumpf]

Don't crossbowmen have +50% vs. melee?

Could dwarves be given a UB (Unique Building replacement) for palisades, walls, and castles that have a greater defense %? That would be ideal to me, though building on mountains is more important!

I agree with this. There defensive nature comes mainly from their engineering ability, in my opinion. That and the fact they're tough SOBs (until you get Iron Working ).

Not sure if it's possible, but perhaps another way to demonstrate their defensive ability is not through promotion, but increasing their fortification value. For instance, cap it at 35% instead of 25% and/or allow them to build 10% fortification per turn instead of 5% . . .

As for units, one thing I wanted to mention after playing with the Khazad is that they can currently get war chariots, but only after first researching some useless techs - e.g., stirrups, war horses, etc. I don't know if there is going to be a specific dwarven chariot at some point, but I didn't even bother going for the war chariots.

- Niilo

 

[Sureshot]

I agree with this. There defensive nature comes mainly from their engineering ability, in my opinion. That and the fact they're tough SOBs (until you get Iron Working ).

Not sure if it's possible, but perhaps another way to demonstrate their defensive ability is not through promotion, but increasing their fortification value. For instance, cap it at 35% instead of 25% and/or allow them to build 10% fortification per turn instead of 5% . . .

As for units, one thing I wanted to mention after playing with the Khazad is that they can currently get war chariots, but only after first researching some useless techs - e.g., stirrups, war horses, etc. I don't know if there is going to be a specific dwarven chariot at some point, but I didn't even bother going for the war chariots.

- Niilo

Really like the increased fortification rate and max idea.

It'd be nice if they had boars they could ride instead of horses! (that only get 2 movement but are dwarven so can move double in mountains/hills and get defense bonuses there; but need pigs to make them).

 

[Xuenay]

Oooh, I really like the idea of dwarves eating production ("rocks"). That'd really serve to make them unique. How about so that dwarves get no food icons from terrain tiles, but instead they also gain part of the city's base production as food? For instance, if a city's base production would be 15 hammers, they'd get both the 15 hammers and 15 icons worth of food.

I like the idea of big defensive fortifications for the dwarves, as well. Give them a chance to build buildings (underground fortresses or whatever) that give a +150-200% defense modifier or something (yes, it's higher than the highest cultural defense, but it isn't overpowering since you can always just bombard it away - and most defensive fortifications are useless as it is, since you'll quickly get the cultural defense anyway).

 

[QES]

Oooh, I really like the idea of dwarves eating production ("rocks"). That'd really serve to make them unique. How about so that dwarves get no food icons from terrain tiles, but instead they also gain part of the city's base production as food? For instance, if a city's base production would be 15 hammers, they'd get both the 15 hammers and 15 icons worth of food.

I like the idea of big defensive fortifications for the dwarves, as well. Give them a chance to build buildings (underground fortresses or whatever) that give a +150-200% defense modifier or something (yes, it's higher than the highest cultural defense, but it isn't overpowering since you can always just bombard it away - and most defensive fortifications are useless as it is, since you'll quickly get the cultural defense anyway).

This has been argued, but when it comes down to it the "food" iconts represent nutrition, not actual food. So it doesnt terribly matter if the dwarves eat plants, rocks, or people, its all still food icons.
What PRODUCES those food icons determines what their eating.
-Qes

 

[Xuenay]

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.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that some races have heavy synergies with some religions. Those hated elves play the best with Fellowship of the Leaves, too.

It'd be a problem if *every* civilization was forced into a certain play style, but there are different civilizations for each style of game. The civs with the Barbarian trait require you to play with heavy early raiding to make up for the lack of experience from killing barbarians, while the Kuriotates force you to concentrate everything on making your initial three cities as good as possible. It *is* possible to play every civilization in a way that they're not intended to be played as, and some civilizations are better for this than others - which is to say, they're generalists and not as heavily optimized towards a certain style of play as the others. But ultimately every civilization has *some* sort of play which is optimal for them - if they didn't, they'd all be the same.

If you want a civ which can be played in a variety of ways, some other one that Khazad might be the best. Likewise, if you love playing a Runes of Kilmorph-moneygrabbing-greedy capitalist game, you'll love Khazad exactly *because* they're optimized for that sort of game. As long as there are enough civs to cater for everyone's tastes, and a couple that can be played in any taste desired, one being heavily optimized towards one direction isn't really a problem.

 

[Xuenay]

This has been argued, but when it comes down to it the "food" iconts represent nutrition, not actual food. So it doesnt terribly matter if the dwarves eat plants, rocks, or people, its all still food icons.
What PRODUCES those food icons determines what their eating.
-Qes

Yeah, I agree with that. But, uhh, so what? It'd still make a very different game for the dwarves if production was what they got their food from. Dwarven players would start looking at possible city spots in a completely different way from everybody else.

Arguably, it might make things a bit *too* easy since they wouldn't have the usual "food or production" tradeoffs to make - but arguably the case is the same for anyone running the Slavery civic. Also, there are more tiles granting lots of food than tiles granting lots of production, which would probably help balance it out. And it'd have the flavor effect of making dwarves prefer hilly terrains more, which is what dwarves should do.

 

[Sureshot]

I like the idea of big defensive fortifications for the dwarves, as well. Give them a chance to build buildings (underground fortresses or whatever) that give a +150-200% defense modifier or something (yes, it's higher than the highest cultural defense, but it isn't overpowering since you can always just bombard it away - and most defensive fortifications are useless as it is, since you'll quickly get the cultural defense anyway).

I'd prefer walls-like buildings that can't be reduced by bombardment myself. And 150% doesn't seem to crazy (thats a couple promotions worth at best).

 

[QES]

Yeah, I agree with that. But, uhh, so what? It'd still make a very different game for the dwarves if production was what they got their food from. Dwarven players would start looking at possible city spots in a completely different way from everybody else.

Arguably, it might make things a bit *too* easy since they wouldn't have the usual "food or production" tradeoffs to make - but arguably the case is the same for anyone running the Slavery civic. Also, there are more tiles granting lots of food than tiles granting lots of production, which would probably help balance it out. And it'd have the flavor effect of making dwarves prefer hilly terrains more, which is what dwarves should do.

These goals can be accompilshed without eliminating the use of the food icon. If one simply changes (for dwarves) what produces the food icon, you maintain the concept of "which is more important". And as Kael has often said, sometimes merely being forced to choose betwixt two "good" options is how blanace is created. IF you eliminate food, you eliminate that forced choice. (unless the dwarves are granted a super improvment that gives lots of everything ) .
-Qes