ExtraModMod

[Qgqqqqq]

I've never understood why you enjoy fragmenting the discussions like this...
I think that both your changes have an enormous effect on the fluidity of the game, especially considering the MP focus. This is, IMO, a bad thing, as it makes it even easier for a small turn by turn mistake to completely change the game state and overpower one faction in the mid-late game. I would argue that an effect needs to be applied to slow down movement in opposing lands (demotion of mobility?) but allow open use of roads.
Also, can't remember if added but you need a road-pillaging option.

 

[Tasunke]

I believe EMM has a self road pillage option ....

the rest of your post ... I Have no idea what your saying.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

The effect of increased mobility (both directly and indirectly) on a already high mobility game, especially within the MP context which it seems you (and others) use it in.

 

[Tasunke]

Increased mobility on an already high mobility game ....

Has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Dragon's Hoard buffs and anti-buffs has nothing to do with pacing ... its just a reward for a (Usually) difficult task.

Typically the Dragon's Hoard is simply 'meh' ... and killing Acheron is its own reward. I would prefer if there was somewhat of an incentive to beeline killing Acheron ( Currently Capturing Acheron is the only interesting result, but it is a HIGHLY interesting result I must say )

EDIT: I see that you are talking about Terkhen .... just found out about that. I'll have my own detailed criticisms and critiques following momentarily.

 

[Tasunke]

On the Mobility Proposal

It is my sincere belief that the proposed system would cause much chaos to the balance of the game. However I like where you are coming from. I have formulated an idea that I think could bring our ideas on mobility together

As follows:

add -1 movement cost to Flanking3, a cavalry only promotion

add -1 movement cost to Sentry2,a Recon/Archery only promotion

boost Sentry-line by making Sentry1 require one of either Combat 1 or Mobility 1. Make it a choice.

A way to give an additional barrier to Sentry 2 would be to make it require not only Sentry 1, but also either Mobility 2 or Combat 2. You could go Mob1, S1, Mob2, S2, or C1, S1, C2, S2.

In this way you get your 'Mobility 3' for your Cavalry and Recon (and occasional archer). This inadvertent buff to Archery would allow for further choice between the Longbow and the Champion ... a decision that has long been ignored due to the perceived superiority of the Champion unit.

Mobility 1 is still at Horseback riding ... and we will nerf Mobility 2 by making it only available after Stirrups is researched.

Mob1 will no longer be made available to Seige weapons.
Mob2 will be available for Recon and Cavalry units only.

In comes 'Logistics' promotion. A promotion previously awarded to Great General led units in BTS. Could have a different art. This promotion will not work like its BTS version of +30% withdrawal, but INSTEAD it will be giving +1 movement.

The beauty of Logistics is that it will only be made available to Units that cannot buy Mobility 2. It will also be made available to units that cannot buy Mobility 1! So Logistics will be your 'Mob2' for melee, archery, arcane, disciple, etc ... and it will be your 'Mob1' for your Siege and Golem units.

The trick of Logistics is that it will not be made available until the ENGINEERING tech. Still making Engineering a popular tech for those that wish to move more traditional armies (but largely useless for practitioners of the Lightning War). Certainly Engineering is a step on the way to Machinery ... but users of Cavalry and Recon won't see much need for it, unless they are a pure Recon user and do not wish to tech Stirrups for the promotion alone.

I believe that this combined method will make for more interesting strategies and will continue to uphold the balance of the game.

On the Roads proposal
... I like it. I suppose arguments could be made to have Paved Roads at either Machinery OR Blasting Powder (to make the asphalt, etc), since Blasting Powder may be seen as the more industrialized of the two techs ... with one giving Archery boosts and the other giving Gunpowder.

--> on a flavor note I think that Crossbows should have their nature tweaked ... but perhaps more on that later (or not ... but then how many games have we seen Crossbows used extensively?)

I would almost suggest right now to move Paved Roads to Blasting Powder

But in any case, my primary addition to this proposal is to have Roads twice the worker cost of Paths, and Paved roads as three times the worker cost of paths. Perhaps Machinery can increase worker speed? (making it worth taking both Techs for the Road savvy player )

 

[Izmir Stinger]

I had a hankering to dust off Civ4 and play some FFH2. I'm looking at the dates around the forums... is this the only FFH2 modmod still in active development?

 

[Qgqqqqq]

MNAI is still in development (this is in fact a modmodmod of it), as is Magister Modmod. EitB (at realmsbeyond) is technically in development, but the developer is working on his masters at the moment.
Otherwise, I believe there is a fixes thread at RifE, but not active development.

 

[Terkhen]

I've never understood why you enjoy fragmenting the discussions like this...

I don't understand. If you mean that I propose various topics at the same time, I can't help it. I link them here as I think of them

If you mean having each proposal in its own place instead of all of them in a single place, IMO having them separate is far more desirable because I can give them separate priorities (and even version estimates). I also think that it is far more clear to keep them separately.

If you mean that proposals can be discussed in both the issue tracker and this forum thread, well, it's true that it can be confusing, specially for those who only check the issue tracker when I link it from here. Both feedback methods have good points: the issue tracker allows interested people to comment in internal coding issues, or proposals that are far away from being implemented. The forum thread gives a unified place to discuss all proposals, and that's why I link them here when I think they are ready for being matured and included. I thought that most users would prefer the thread while developers would prefer the issue tracker, but lately I have been gladly surprised with additional feedback from users in the issue tracker

Any suggestions to improve this are welcome

I think that both your changes have an enormous effect on the fluidity of the game, especially considering the MP focus. This is, IMO, a bad thing, as it makes it even easier for a small turn by turn mistake to completely change the game state and overpower one faction in the mid-late game. I would argue that an effect needs to be applied to slow down movement in opposing lands (demotion of mobility?) but allow open use of roads.

The effect of increased mobility (both directly and indirectly) on a already high mobility game, especially within the MP context which it seems you (and others) use it in.

I disagree on FFH2 being a high mobility game, but I seem to be in the minority. I agree that my proposal would probably have a too big effect in the balance to be desirable, though. What do you think about Tasunke's proposal? (I'll discuss it in my next post)

Also, can't remember if added but you need a road-pillaging option.

It should be included already, although it is not a ExtraModMod change. IIRC it comes from MNAI, but it could be from EitB.

 

[Terkhen]

On the Mobility Proposal

It is my sincere belief that the proposed system would cause much chaos to the balance of the game. However I like where you are coming from. I have formulated an idea that I think could bring our ideas on mobility together

As follows:

add -1 movement cost to Flanking3, a cavalry only promotion

add -1 movement cost to Sentry2,a Recon/Archery only promotion

boost Sentry-line by making Sentry1 require one of either Combat 1 or Mobility 1. Make it a choice.

A way to give an additional barrier to Sentry 2 would be to make it require not only Sentry 1, but also either Mobility 2 or Combat 2. You could go Mob1, S1, Mob2, S2, or C1, S1, C2, S2.

In this way you get your 'Mobility 3' for your Cavalry and Recon (and occasional archer). This inadvertent buff to Archery would allow for further choice between the Longbow and the Champion ... a decision that has long been ignored due to the perceived superiority of the Champion unit.

Mobility 1 is still at Horseback riding ... and we will nerf Mobility 2 by making it only available after Stirrups is researched.

Mob1 will no longer be made available to Seige weapons.
Mob2 will be available for Recon and Cavalry units only.

In comes 'Logistics' promotion. A promotion previously awarded to Great General led units in BTS. Could have a different art. This promotion will not work like its BTS version of +30% withdrawal, but INSTEAD it will be giving +1 movement.

The beauty of Logistics is that it will only be made available to Units that cannot buy Mobility 2. It will also be made available to units that cannot buy Mobility 1! So Logistics will be your 'Mob2' for melee, archery, arcane, disciple, etc ... and it will be your 'Mob1' for your Siege and Golem units.

The trick of Logistics is that it will not be made available until the ENGINEERING tech. Still making Engineering a popular tech for those that wish to move more traditional armies (but largely useless for practitioners of the Lightning War). Certainly Engineering is a step on the way to Machinery ... but users of Cavalry and Recon won't see much need for it, unless they are a pure Recon user and do not wish to tech Stirrups for the promotion alone.

I believe that this combined method will make for more interesting strategies and will continue to uphold the balance of the game.

Although there are a few details I feel that should be changed or tweaked, overall I feel that this proposal is better than my original one mostly because of the reasons you mention. I also like that it gives an indirect buff to archery units (one of these days we should make them usable) and that getting the equivalent of Mobility III is not something immediate promotion-wise. I also like the idea of the Logistics promotion, although I'm not sure about the tech requirement. I wouldn't mind making Siege units get their +1 movement promotion later than Horseback Riding, but Engineering feels like too late for them (IIRC the main reason for giving them Mobility I early in EitB is that they are unberably slow). Engineering is IMO okay for other units.

On the Roads proposal
... I like it. I suppose arguments could be made to have Paved Roads at either Machinery OR Blasting Powder (to make the asphalt, etc), since Blasting Powder may be seen as the more industrialized of the two techs ... with one giving Archery boosts and the other giving Gunpowder.

--> on a flavor note I think that Crossbows should have their nature tweaked ... but perhaps more on that later (or not ... but then how many games have we seen Crossbows used extensively?)

I would almost suggest right now to move Paved Roads to Blasting Powder

I don't mind either way, both technologies seem like good prerrequisites to me.

But in any case, my primary addition to this proposal is to have Roads twice the worker cost of Paths, and Paved roads as three times the worker cost of paths. Perhaps Machinery can increase worker speed? (making it worth taking both Techs for the Road savvy player )

I agree about duplicating and triplicating the the costs. I did not meant to keep them equal for all road types; I just did not mention them in my proposal; its poorly worded mention of "equivalency" refers only to movement, not costs

Having paved roads at blasting powder and giving workers a speed increase with machinery sounds fine to me.

I think the best choice for Dragon's Hoard would be to have it at
+2 culture, +100% culture, and +8 gold.

The resources and promotion granting can remain the same.

If anything else, I believe either +25%/+50% military production, or giving some extra Grigori Adventurer Points (or both ... if you wanted to get really crazy )

Would giving the building Aventurer points have the effect of giving an Adventurer counter for whomever has the Hoard?

My first thought about 100% culture is that the Hoard would downplay the role of the Perfect Lyre. Then again, the Hoard is hard to get and Culture victories are tedious and slow enough to worry about speeding them up. With regard to military production, IMO a 20% would be fine along with the other changes you mention.

Spoiler :

The Dragon's Hoard already gives as much Adventurer Points as the Palace; it is a somewhat obvious easter egg (Grigori should be slaying dragons anyways) already discovered and mentioned in this thread

 

[scutarii]

IN my opinion, good elfs special trait "dexterity" sucks. I yet have to see a good reason to build archer line because of dexterity. My idea - instead of dexterity trait - good elf archers use metal weapons. Mithril reserved for flurries, archers - bronze only and longbowmen - bronze or iron. Metal weapons for archer line but -1 defense strenght.

Of course, whatever makes archer line "special" for good elves...

 

[Qgqqqqq]

If you mean that proposals can be discussed in both the issue tracker and this forum thread, well, it's true that it can be confusing, specially for those who only check the issue tracker when I link it from here. Both feedback methods have good points: the issue tracker allows interested people to comment in internal coding issues, or proposals that are far away from being implemented. The forum thread gives a unified place to discuss all proposals, and that's why I link them here when I think they are ready for being matured and included. I thought that most users would prefer the thread while developers would prefer the issue tracker, but lately I have been gladly surprised with additional feedback from users in the issue tracker

I meant this. Thanks for the explanation, though it would be good if you at least copied (and perhaps spoilered) your off site proposals that you want discussing over here for easy reference.

On Tasunkes proposal:
Why is sentry 2 going to cost?
Its not that good a promotion, especially for recon who could just take a hawk along as well for superior visibility and no promotion cost (more expensive of course). For archers, that ain't going to be enough to build them, especially if your sentry units can't keep up. Could you explain the rationale here?
I don't see why you'd make flanking 3 cost either - it just kills that strat when it doesn't deserve it IMO.
Putting Mob2 at stirrups is just a nerf to recon.

 

[Ominous Destiny]

I had a hankering to dust off Civ4 and play some FFH2. I'm looking at the dates around the forums... is this the only FFH2 modmod still in active development?

These four are being developed, my knowledge:

MNAI is being actively developed (this forum)

ExtraModMod for MNAI (which is this thread) is being actively developed

Wildmana, or some version of it... ( Link )

Ashes of Erebus, which is a Rife revival... ( Link )

But I'm sure Terkhen doesn't want this thread too far off topic

 

[Calavente]

That's the recent link I meant. It gives me a "file not found error" after the filefront countdown finishes.

please oriente me to a site where I can upload for free (and mid-term) and I'll upload the last Orbis version I have

 

[Tasunke]

I meant this. Thanks for the explanation, though it would be good if you at least copied (and perhaps spoilered) your off site proposals that you want discussing over here for easy reference.

On Tasunkes proposal:
Why is sentry 2 going to cost?
Its not that good a promotion, especially for recon who could just take a hawk along as well for superior visibility and no promotion cost (more expensive of course). For archers, that ain't going to be enough to build them, especially if your sentry units can't keep up. Could you explain the rationale here?
I don't see why you'd make flanking 3 cost either - it just kills that strat when it doesn't deserve it IMO.
Putting Mob2 at stirrups is just a nerf to recon.

Sentry 2 cost? Flanking 2 cost?

I need some of that weed ... when did I say anything about Sentry2/ Flanking3 tech requirements? I was actually trying to have Sentry2 (and Sentry) EASIER to get than it is currently .....

-------------

I got the Sentry2 idea from Magister's Mod, and I liked it. As Stirrups (and horse archers) are far more expensive than Construction and Chariots ... why not have an additional reason to want the tech? Plus, it makes sense, as its easier to ride w/ Stirrups (ergo can move farther).

 

[Qgqqqqq]

Unless I misunderstood, you said that sentry 2 and Flanking 3 would lose a movement point each.

 

[Tasunke]

nah, i meant as buffs ... basically hills would cost 1, forests 1, and forested hills only 2 (instead of 3)

its meant as a bonus for moving within rough terrain, rather than a direct speed increase.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

Oh I thought you meant -1 speed.
Apologies.

 

[Tasunke]

Okay, I wanna know what people think about Luonnotar.

If we take away Magic Immunity, can it be available at Fanaticism with no level prereq and 160 hammers? I'm thinking yes. w/ magic immunity, it might also require Sorc or Arcane Lore, probably in the form of a promotion that can be bought once that technology is researched

 

[scutarii]

Okay, I wanna know what people think about Luonnotar.

If we take away Magic Immunity, can it be available at Fanaticism with no level prereq and 160 hammers? I'm thinking yes. w/ magic immunity, it might also require Sorc or Arcane Lore, probably in the form of a promotion that can be bought once that technology is researched

maybe we can borrow some ideas from magister's mod, speaking of luonnotars...

 

[Tasunke]

How does magister's mod deal with luonnotar?

Key concepts in the unit design are ...

1)Grigori's Paragon unit

2)magical immunity

3)bonus vs Disciple units

4) access to the heal spell

I see no reason for the 10 str to change, as it's up there with Paladin's 11 and Eidolon's 12.

I'm actually starting to lean towards having them at Arcane Lore and Fanaticism, having them graphically appear I whichever tech had the higher beaker count. I know, I know, but trust me, it's better this way than having them at Strength of Will (IMHO)

Speaking of making ladder techs useful ... Royal guards should seriously be moved back to Feudalism.