@ Terkhen,
Thank you for this detailed answer.
- I better understand the changes you did (for exemple, I understand now the problem of the plannar gate).
- About the questions you mentionned where you would like feedback, I would like to contribuate but, now, I don't have the time to play the game. I remember the generals system was completely unadapted, providing super high amount of generals. I wish now you found the way to rebuild it better !
Bear in mind that I discourage general balance discussions here for some reasons; it feels like doing the same work twice and that I don't want to separate much from EitB's implementation. Having said that, balance discussions about ExtraModMod specific topics are more than welcome and I know that balancing these extra things is something which still needs a lot of work.
- I understand. As EitB community is active in competitive multiplayer, it is logical to let them the job to speak about multiplayer balancing.
- Two year ago, I posted a message about balances problems and changements what I would like to see, in a mod. Qqqqqqqq, the creator and conceptor of Erebus in the Balance, was globally not agree with the problems I identified as majors (for exemple, to me, the commando promotion given by the Raider trait is absolutely unbalanced and unpossible to prevent, even by limiting the roading of yours city (with movement 2 and movement 3 units specially, as the horsemen).
- Even if you don't use the road buildied by the ennemy worker, you can still bring workers to build his roads inside his territory, and with that you can easily contournate the main defensive army and rape & razer his back cities.
- But I remember guys on civ fanatic or in realm beyond forum were not really concerned by the problem, as if they did not met it in their own multiplayer experience. So, if 95 % of people don't feel Commando is a huge problem, I don't think one day a guy will work on it, because the community is small and not growing.
I'm sorry about the rant, it wasn't specifically aimed at you or anybody else, but lately I've been thinking a lot about the status of ExtraModMod and its features and your question triggered my wall of text
No problem. Excuse me for my mediocre english.
@ lfgr,
Thank you. You have right, it would be the best solution for me, that to work for create the most suited modifications at my taste.
I know I should have do that. I tend to got habitude of consuming the mods and not producing, because the quality is really excellent, and because I am a beginner in programming. But fundamentaly you have right.
@ Terkhen,
I think that this is a bad idea. The value is visible for a powerful motive; the AI uses that value as the basis for most of their calculations regarding enemy players. Civilization IV in general, and MNAI in particular, have AIs that do not cheat. Therefore, allowing human players to see the value is the only way to ensure that the AI does not have access to hidden information. Needless to say, rewriting the whole AI to calculate approximated score values based on what it knows is completely out of the question.
- I don't well understand the argument which say that the A.I need to see the scores, because in BTS, scores can be hidden if you don't have enough spy points invested, but A.I works well.
- I suppose the A.I cheat so, because he seems to always well calculate what forces he needs to attack (in BTS). In my opinion it would be a really good experience in multiplayer, to could play games where the scores are hidden, as in BTS, if it would be possible to keep a normal A.I functionnement off course.
- But, bah, if it needs some works for you, and would destroy the A.I functionnement, it would not be good. ^^
You can't scout everywhere, hawks must be based on other units or cities, and invisible eyes are summoned by arcane units and they last only for a turn. Since those units are usually weak, you can negate this advantage to your enemies by using fast units to take off the unit in which the hawk is based or the arcane unit summoning the eye. Sure, they can spend resources in defending them, but then scouting with hawks and eyes is not cheap anymore. Both hawks and invisible eyes require a significant technology investment and are available in a point in the game in which you could be spamming your surroundings with scouts anyways, so I don't see why it breaks multiplayer either.
- No, you generally cannot use fast units to kill hunter(s) with hawks. Because haws will scout them from a suffisant time distance, and hunters are fast too.
- It breaks the multiplayer by the consequences of largely reducing the strategical effect of fog of war, so the idea of surprise. It means when you attack :
* You can complely see when you are approacing the ennemy territory, if he gots units close, and what units there are. And you can do it without he sees your hawk on him (if you use a suicide scout units, he will see it, your scout will see a very small portion of what a hawk could see).
* So, if you can see if the ennemy have defense and what defense, you change your decision to attack or not. Which is the crucial problem, because it means you always now what you will face, no more risk of seing your nice stack destroyed, no more game feeling of a taken risk. Without hawks, even with a 3 movement scouting unit, you cannot see these informations so easily and largely.
* In my opinion, hawks should have never give full informations about one area like that. Hawk are animals, they are not a military aeronef.
They should just see the land shape (hills, plains, mountain, territory color and things like that), not the units, except if you use hawks on your own land, where they could see the hidden units.
- You have right to say that Invisible Eyes and Hawks are a signifiant investement (except for the armurite, which always got the metamagic node of their palace^^). It is a good argument, but in the multiplayer games I did in good levels, the players always aimed it as soon as possible after the important economic techonology. Because, having the possibility to scout a large area before attacking is hyper important. It is not realy a choice to decide to have hawks. It is a necessity (and even if you don't really need them fast, you will necessarly need them to prevent a hidden unit stack coming, unless you are Empyrean, which have reachable perfect sight promotion for their units, or by spells).
Again, I disagree on hidden units being too strong, and you provide no arguments on behalf of your opinion. It may be possible (and even desirable) to increase the number of units that can see invisible,
- The hidden units are too strongs but the invisible units are a major break. But first, why hidden units are too strongs :
* You need a specialised technology and units to counter them, and in some situations you could have decided to aim others tech. For exemple, it needs each game you need to have this late recon technology. If you don't, you are completely vulnerable to hidden units, so to see back cities destroyed quickly.
* You need each turn (or each two turns, things like that) scout the area with hawk, near your cities, to be sure there is no entering of hidden units.
Invisible units are a major break problem for the multiplayer games, because there is very few ways to see them :
* You need the empyrean technology and religion, to have the global anti illusion & invisibility spell of the empyrean disciples. If not, you COULD have the perfect sight promotion with combat IV (I guess, but not sure it is a far souvenir now). But you still need the empyrean technology and religion to access to the perfect sight tech.
* If you don't have this special tech and units choice (for exemple, some civs generally follow their natural combo religion, as Ashen Veil for Sheaims, or Fist of Leaves for Elves, etc.) you are ed, very very few units can break the invisibily covering. I guess the Magic Dissipation spell can do it, but it would need you use it at 1 case of the invisible units, which means you know they are here...
* The worst situation is to fight Sidars, because they can use they ghouls which can go invisible at any time. Moreover, I guess now, any recon units of Sidars can use the Severed Soul, so Ghouls too. But maybe I make mistake about that, now. Severed Souls should off course be heavily changed or removed, and what we banned from any offensive using in our games, when we played with a group of guys.
but I don't believe that these units should be removed in any case.
- I never said here that the hidden or the invisibles units should be removed. I asked for a game option to remove them. I say that because I am not sure you don't say that I want to remove them. Off course, games with these units on can be very fun, it is just that I would like the players could choose.
- I would prefer a rework of them, a rework on the counter of them (as more early anti invisible spell or units), but as It needs some works I prefered just as for game options.
I'm also wondering something... if you believe that hidden and invisible units are a problem, why are you requesting to remove hawks and invisible eyes when they are one of the best counters for invisibility?
- Because Hawks and Invisible eyes are a problem by their very large scouting (and no risk scouting) ability. It is a different question that the scouting of hidden units. I love hawks to scout hidden units, I find them good for it (even if as I argumented, it is not well suited because you need each turn to use them again and again, which is boring).
I would like hawks and invisible eyes as I proposed them : they would keep their anti hidding ability, but without the scouting of ennemy unit, army composition (only landscape). Off course, when a land would have been scouted by normal units, hawks could then scout for hidden units.
Bring hawks, set them to scout automatically and kill the assassins before they can touch your stack.
- Oh it is good that now, hawks can be set to automatiquelly scout an area. When I played I guess this was not existant.
But, even with that, it would not change the problems of the super power of assassins. The problems is (I try to explain in with my bad english) :
* When you go for attack, you bring one doom stack. The defendor player can buff his own stack, then bring assassins to kill your weak units, as mages or priest or wounded hero.
* BUT you, you cannot use your own assassins when you attack. Why ? Because the defendor vulnerables units can be separated from the main defendor stack, when they have used their spell. The defendor can so : buff his mains stack, approching with debuffing units (as veil priest for exemple) then get back, then killing your weak units with his assassins, and staying in his city with all his units (or attacking your stack).
To conclude : the assassins greatly increase the defensive power of an intelligent player (which dont expose his casters to the stack of the offensive player), but dont greately increase the offensive power. SO, it tends to greatly reducing the force of offensive action, letting it very vulnerablable to attacks (when wounded, and debuffed).
- Assassins should be heavily tweaked, or removable by game options, for these reasons and because the assassins break the offensive \ defensive balance, and reduce the interest of diversity of games (because offensive players will not build any weak units, but will prefer massive doom stack, or fast surprise attack doom stacks).
Promote a few strong melee units to Guardsman.
- It is generally not possible, because guardsmen promotion require combat 4 on a close combat unit, so level 5. It can be possible if you got veterans units from war. It is too hasardous to have several level 5 close combat units. It is not good to let to the hasard the capacity to protect you from the assassins threat.
It is not a sucess in the game design if a player can, may, only defend vs a threat if he gots the luck, the opportunity, to have war and enough surviving close combat units, with combat V. Moreoever, few guardsman will not been enough to really protect your stack from assassins. Assassins have a good power, and can be mass produced, but not guardsmen.
Promote some scouts or archers to Perfect Sight and kill enemy assassins as they come.
- You cannot promote "some" units to perfect sight. Perfect Sight promotion needs Combat 1, Combat 2, Increased View 1 Increased View 2. So level 6 units. Which is very difficult to have. Moreover, seing the invisibility is only possible into the spotted area of the unit. So even with one unit, you can only covert one city, or one small region, but not distant cities, or another cities. Unless to have level 6 perfect sight units in all the sensibles points of your empire.
The solutions you propose are known, but theoricals. In real games it is quite unpossible to acess to perfect sight units, or some guardsmen etc. whereas the ennemy can MASSPRODUCE assassins units, or invisible units (Sidar I mean), you may produce very few counter units. That is, again, a missconception problem which became a problem in multiplayer, where players tend to fully exploit it, and being more concerned by balancing specially if they played some games, in a good level of players.
Bring up low level adepts alog with your stack to be used as bait, as both assassins and runewyns (in EMM) will target them first.
Caste Stonekin.
If none of the above works, go Empyrean or Bannor.
- Here I agree to say it is a viable "counter" because adepts can always been builded, for a decent cost, without a rare tech it means you can save one or two turns, your mages or priests.
- But in my opinion it is not a real design solution, and not very logical too. I would like a functionnal and elegant solution to these assassins \ vulnerability problems.
- I don't know, buy at a point it is a question of feeling. Trying to find desesperates and unfocused solutions to a problem (assassins here) is not good, it would be better to solve the problem by reducing the assassins power (for exemple 4 assassins per civ max), or giving the option to remove them from game, or letting guardman promotion more reachable etc.
I also want to mention something that applies to all of the balance suggestions you made. In a game like FFH2 units and strategies are not equally powerful, and therefore they are designed by taking into account not only their raw power, but also their counters and what they counter. These conections imply that you can't simply take one aspect of the game out, even if it is truly overpowered. The reason is that you would be making units and strategies countered by that aspect of the game completely overpowered, and the units and strategies that used to counter that aspect would now be more useless. If after removing something and realizing that you broke other things you continue trying to balance the game just by removal, you will end up with either something that is not FFH2 anymore or with something extremely plain and boring (and in that case you may as well be playing checkers).
- I agree with your critic, the need of a global approach. But I really think I got this global approach. I don't try to amputed a special feature, or to attack a certain civ, for exemple. The problems of too fast units, or too strong invisible units, or the hawks overpower scouting ability, is a general problem, what I try to see in a global view of the game.
Anyway, no changements can really break something, because all changements can be canceled.
- Do what I said and my arguments changed something about your views of the problems I spoke (hawk, assassins power) ? If what I tried to say have changed nothing, it means I will never influence the things.
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
. I had two lizard lairs and a goblin fort pretty close to me. Another goblin fort and a burrow were farther away. So no complaints about barbs this time, though I had the impression that the burrow which was protected by a single ghoul was spawning axemen instead of ghouls, skeletons or zombies (do normal non-pyro zombies even exist in FFH2?!?). Not 100% sure about that though. It's possible that the axemen just spawned in the area close to the burrow.
