Elohim - How don't they suck?

[Zechnophobe]

not really, this is true only in case of relatively equal strengths, but if your enemy has a much higher strength, the withdrawal bonus is much more useful. In particular, attacking fortified units with good withdrawal units means wearing down their resistance, they will not gain xp if you retreat while you will and you will be able to take that combat promotion later and actually kill the unit with less losses.

Good point, so when your Warrior with 2 XP (Who has combat one) comes up against an opposing warrior with 2 XP (Combat one + Shock) then even though eh's got +40% on you, you'll have a chance of surviving!

Also, the whole 'wearing down' a unit generally only works if you have more than they do (Or with assassin's). We assume that we already have weaker units... why then would we assume we have the economy to outproduce them?

Even greater still, if we are adopting some sort of 'defensive' strat, we aren't even getting the withdraw rate while in a city.

(shrugs).

 

[EverNoob]

I'm pretty sure onedreamer wasn't referring to withdrawal rate on a melee unit, which is pretty useless. As I mentioned earlier it's not fair to compare withdrawal vs combat 1 on a melee unit. You have have to take into account the fact that +withdrawal rate benefits mounted units most.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Alright then, forget warriors, how about we switch to horsemen?

4.8 25% withdraw
vs
4.0 35% withdraw

It's the same paradigm. Also, the unit with 4.4 strength will get more XP on average because it will win more fights than it runs away from.

If we talk about horsemen attacking a city.

6.4 + 25% withdraw (Combat 1, either Shock or Cover promoted depending on the defender)
4.8 + 35% withdraw (Combat 1 only)

I guess you could instead of combat 1 get Flanking one to get 4.0 with 55% chance to withdraw. That'd give your unit about a 55% chance to survive! (And very close to 0 chance of winning).

 

[EverNoob]

I guess you could instead of combat 1 get Flanking one to get 4.0 with 55% chance to withdraw. That'd give your unit about a 55% chance to survive! (And very close to 0 chance of winning).

That's how mounted units are supposed to be used, you specialize them along 2 lines: +strength (combat) and +withdrawal (flanking). The ones with flanking attack first to soften up enemy, then the ones with combat come in for the kill. Wearing the enemy down as pointed out by onedreamer.

Also, the whole 'wearing down' a unit generally only works if you have more than they do (Or with assassin's). We assume that we already have weaker units... why then would we assume we have the economy to outproduce them?

Wearing down an enemy with high withdrawal units is basic cavalry usage in FfH2. I don't see how having more units than the enemy is a problem. Would you expect to win without an advantage? Advantage in numbers is not uncommon.

It's unclear what you mean concerning the relation between having weaker units and production capacity. How would having weaker units mean that you cannot have more of them? In any case mounted units are very mobile, you can move units very fast. Which means you can concentrate more units on a single location much more easily when it comes to attacking a city, giving you superior numbers at a particular location.

6.4 + 25% withdraw (Combat 1, either Shock or Cover promoted depending on the defender)

Shock and cover don't add to a unit. They subtract from the enemy.

 

[Demus]

not to mention flanking adds 20%, not 10% withdrawal. When the rates get over 80% (hippus horsemen hit this at 5 exp), you'll hardly ever lose a unit again, while softening up their major defenders enough for your strenght units to get the kill. In other words: their units die, yours don't, making sure the balance of the amount of units on both sides slowly shifts in your favour .

Honesly, give the tactics a try first, once you have come back and share your findings, i'm quite sure they'll be positive.

 

[Zechnophobe]

not to mention flanking adds 20%, not 10% withdrawal. When the rates get over 80% (hippus horsemen hit this at 5 exp), you'll hardly ever lose a unit again, while softening up their major defenders enough for your strenght units to get the kill. In other words: their units die, yours don't, making sure the balance of the amount of units on both sides slowly shifts in your favour .

Honesly, give the tactics a try first, once you have come back and share your findings, i'm quite sure they'll be positive.

This isn't a discussion about flanking, and the valuability of high withdraw. We are comparing the value of withdraw 10% vs +20% combat. The 10% base I'm giving in my figures is for the Defensive trait, not flanking 1.

Wearing down an enemy with high withdrawal units is basic cavalry usage in FfH2. I don't see how having more units than the enemy is a problem. Would you expect to win without an advantage? Advantage in numbers is not uncommon.

Right, and wearing down units is done better not by having a higher withdraw, but by having a strong mix of damage and withdraw. Afterall, if they all come back alive, but do no damage, it matters not.

All in all, we are ending up trying to find a small smidge of value in the Defender trait, whereas the Aggressive trait has a constant and noticable advantage at every other area.

So in the situation wherein you have a lot of units attacking much stronger ones,and you have noticeably more, you will a little under 10% more of them come back alive to fight another day. That's a pretty slim bit of the balance pie.

Also, lastly, withdrawl rate on melee, archer, whatever, all has the same potential value. Do you think changing from 25% to 35% is somehow a better 10% change than the one from 0 to 10?

 

[Demus]

defender also adds +10% strenght within your own borders, making the difference only 10% between defender and aggressive while on the defence (hence the name defender).

Besides that, it's already been established that individual traits aren't balanced, it's the combined package of leader and civ on a macro level that's being looked at.

and lastly, yes changing from 25 to 35 % is indeed more important than changing from 0 to 10. Just like changing from 90 to 100% (never have your units die on the offence again) is more important than changing from 40 to 50%

 

[MagisterCultuum]

+10% isn't that useful, especially if it only applies in your territory. Plus, this promotion is not a prerequisite for anything, like combat 1 is.

I hardly consider the leaders with Defender to be particularly powerful in other ways.


Actually, withdrawal chances are capped at 90%; you can never get units that have no chance to die on the offense.

 

[EverNoob]

Right, and wearing down units is done better not by having a higher withdraw, but by having a strong mix of damage and withdraw. Afterall, if they all come back alive, but do no damage, it matters not.

Higher withdrawal reduces casualties in total, even if units do less damage individually. For a unit to do no damage consistently, the defender needs to be extremely strong (something in the order of +300% strength advantage) and have first strikes.

Also, lastly, withdrawl rate on melee, archer, whatever, all has the same potential value. Do you think changing from 25% to 35% is somehow a better 10% change than the one from 0 to 10?

10% withdrawal is nice on a unit that doesn't usually withdraw, but it's not something you can build a tactic on because it's not dependable enough. 55% withdrawal is high enough for tactical use. Look at the scenario this way, you attack with 10 units, and only 1 suvives. It is not the same as if 5-6 of them survived, or even 3-4. The increased chance of survival is only useful when it is high.

As I mentioned earlier it's generally accepted that Aggressive is better than Defender, there's no denying that. Traits are not all equal. But Defender does not suck and still makes a significant difference properly used.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I still say that the bonus from Homeland should be based on the owner's culture on the tile, rather than just a flat bonus in your territory. The current way favors defending recently conquered territory (including cities still in revolt) while my suggestion would make them stronger at actually defending the heart of the empire and at retaking lost territory.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I still say that the bonus from Homeland should be based on the owner's culture on the tile, rather than just a flat bonus in your territory. The current way favors defending recently conquered territory (including cities still in revolt) while my suggestion would make them stronger at actually defending the heart of the empire and at retaking lost territory.

It's too bad we don't use a great General system in FFh. The Great Wall effect was always one of my favorites.

Actually, there's an interesting thought: Maybe Defender could be the opposite of raider: Gives +2 XP, but only when defending? That would be AWESOME for Sandalphon. It'd also give you a reason to go plop your early warriors near lairs/ruins etc and wait to be attacked. (Alternatively, maybe just +2 XP in general while in your cultural borders).

I do dig the idea of Culture giving you a strength bonus, especially if it worked in areas that were technically under your control. Maybe 30% of your cultural % in the tile combat takes place? So if you attack an enemy city where you have 50% culture, you still get a solid 15% bonus (Even though not in your borders)?

 

[PotatoOverdose]

It's too bad we don't use a great General system in FFh. The Great Wall effect was always one of my favorites.

Actually, there's an interesting thought: Maybe Defender could be the opposite of raider: Gives +2 XP, but only when defending? That would be AWESOME for Sandalphon. It'd also give you a reason to go plop your early warriors near lairs/ruins etc and wait to be attacked. (Alternatively, maybe just +2 XP in general while in your cultural borders).

I do dig the idea of Culture giving you a strength bonus, especially if it worked in areas that were technically under your control. Maybe 30% of your cultural % in the tile combat takes place? So if you attack an enemy city where you have 50% culture, you still get a solid 15% bonus (Even though not in your borders)?

+2xp while defending would be the most broken thing. ever. I mean if you consider how many times a unit can defend against barbarians in the first 100 turns.... You'd put Grigori Adventurers out of business. I mean raiders is bad enough as it is... In my current game (svart) I have 11 units that are level 9+. The map is creation, no special barbarian or animal options, with 6 more civs then usual for the size in question, it's kinda ridiculous. Oh, and I'm only on turn 120 or so...

 

[Zechnophobe]

+2xp while defending would be the most broken thing. ever. I mean if you consider how many times a unit can defend against barbarians in the first 100 turns.... You'd put Grigori Adventurers out of business. I mean raiders is bad enough as it is... In my current game (svart) I have 11 units that are level 9+. The map is creation, no special barbarian or animal options, with 6 more civs then usual for the size in question, it's kinda ridiculous. Oh, and I'm only on turn 120 or so...

Yeah, my mistake here was balancing defender as compared to raider... which is a really <i> really </i> strong trait. I'd kinda like to see them get SOME advantage out of in border military victories.

 

[EverNoob]

Maybe defender could increase the chances of the Brotherhood of Wardens popping up in your cities. Or even pop up automatically when an enemy approaches a city with a certain amount of culture. That would be very nice flavour wise, and not affect balance too much I think. Though I'm not even sure the Brotherhood is implemented since i've never seen it in action.

Say we should probably start a new thread specifically devoted to the defender trait...

Edit: nm there already is one here

 

[Blackmantle]

+10% isn't that useful, especially if it only applies in your territory. Plus, this promotion is not a prerequisite for anything, like combat 1 is.

I hardly consider the leaders with Defender to be particularly powerful in other ways.


Actually, withdrawal chances are capped at 90%; you can never get units that have no chance to die on the offense.

That withdrawl is hard codedly capped at 90% is not true. You just can't promote Flanking past that mark.
But going above 100% seems to have its drawbacks... (look it up at the Bug thread. If that is intended is completely another question.)

In FFH Withdrawl also seems to work defensively at times. If it does to the same margin and is not limited by movement i haven't figured out yet. It whould be nice indeed (and disbanding one of these units cost them homeland so i couldn't test for sure (the resulting 95% knight died on first test so i thought it might not. Only to realise that Homeland was lost if enraged + disbanded, hence the rate going to 95% from 105%. On second test he fled so at least at times it does work.). For that you whould need Hippus: Perhaps someone could test in World-builder by giving a horselord horse-archer enraged and Flanking 3.). Whould it be not for the bug which renders using those Units rather dull unless promoted heavyly before upgrading.

But Mounted defenders are nice indeed (and going to 95% withdrawl is easy by promoting Homeland / Horselord Flanking 3 Horsemen to Horse Archers or Knights. In addition they are immune to first strikes then. Which makes sure they do get a chance to make damage and are not shot dead before actual combat.)

Also Sandalphon is not particularly weak but rather insanely strong (vs. AI not in PvP i guess). But thats because of the Sidar are against unworked AI.

But i do agree, that Elhoim should be given back spiritual whould be a good thing and if compensation is needed Monks be made slower or somesuch.

 

[EverNoob]

I'm not sure giving Monk 1 is a good idea. Right now it's still possible to have a 3 Monk. If we had spiritual back and decreased Monk speed, it would be capped at 2 . It would take away much of the Monks uniqueness, turning it into a weaker Paramander/Crusader essentially. And since Monks can't be upgraded, you'd be more inclined in that case to wait for Paramander/Crusader and just skip Monks altogether.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Well, my version if a monk would also have spirit affinity (with reduced base ) and a spell or two (I haven't decided between unit specific or giving them spirit and/or life spheres).

I might also let them upgrade to priests (at least of the Empyrean, probably all non-evil religions), so giving them spheres would make these priests stronger than most.

I'm also considering whether I might want to let monks move through rival territory (like Devouts can), or maybe give them xienwolf's ambassador promotion (allowing them to keep this ability when they upgrade), or make this promotion their racial promotion, or (if xienwolf adds a civ prereq tag to promotions like I requested) to make this a promotion only Elohim units can get.