Fall Further 0.51 Balance Discussion Thread

[WarKirby]

(And note, btw, that "can't get any stronger" wouldn't be changed by +2 attack.)

What I meant here, is that outside of your borders (which is where all offensive war happens) A doomgiver has the exact same strength as a legate. He costs more hammers, and has a much higher tech requirement, but isn't any better at killing stuff. Even just 4 strength would make a big difference.

Another thing I'm not particularly opposed to boosting. The culture bonus is supposed to be the main thing. I was afraid that +14/+10% would be too much, but maybe it isn't at that stage of the game.

I wouldn't say a 10% boost is too much at any stage of the game. Carnivals, available at festivals, give +20% culture. And a lor of temples of various religions do too. Not to mention Sylliven's Lyre, which gives +100% and can be mvoed around.

I think it'd be nice to see the Archon's rule give some positive economic modifisers. like % bonuses to gold, research, production, etc. The opportunity cost of requiring such a high level unit to cast the spell, is enough to offset significant bonuses, and I'd say the trade penalty should go.

It's not meant as as an alternative to combat duties - a city isn't likely to become dependent on it, for one thing - but more as a continuation. Cultural warfare.

An interesting way to do things, although I've never seen cultural warfare be especially effective. It's much faster to just march up to a city and take it with a few Principes. And if you don't have the military to back it up, cultural warfare isn't much use anyways, the enemy can just declare war and take it back by force.

But don't forget he's got Marksman

This is nice, marksman can be a double edged sword at times, but is good for a low strength unit.

and reduces the population of cities he attacks by 1.

I don't see the benefit to this. Aren't the reborn you get from razing a city dependant on how big it was? Doesn't reducing it's population hurt you in the long run? I don't see the benefit to this at all.

 

[WarKirby]

You've got to be the only person I know who so severely twists and abuses the intent of the OO Priest units.

How do you mean?

A cultist is one man, with a pair of godlike powers. He seems perfectly made for solo distruction.

Envision the scene, a completely calm ocean. In the distance, a lone figure can be seen on the horizon. Miles out from the city. The seas stir as he marches closer (Water Walking). The ocean rises up around him as he approaches the shore, drowning a nearby coastal town (Cultist Casts Tsunami). Ships in port are sunk before they can launch, hundreds are killed instantly, smashed against walls by the force of the wave. Thousands more are injured. And it happens again (Twincast), and again. The man carries a long spear, walking among the town impaling anything that moves (City Raider). Nobody notices a lone figure in the confusion. Nobody realises it isn't just a natural disaster. Even those who try to stand against him, are easily annhilated. He wields his spear like a practiced warrior with decades of combat experience (Combat V, Shock), easily able to defeat the town's injured militia one by one (Blitz). He moves with such dexterity that the poorly trained militiamen can barely even touch him. Anyone approaching is cut down before they can swing a blade (Drill IV)

As he steps out onto the ocean again, a final colossal wave overwhelms the town, shattering buildings with it's force. The few still left alive are crushed under falling masonry, or trapped and suffocated. As he walks off into the horizon, (Mobility) only a drowned wreckage is left in his wake (I razed the city)

 

[Tarquelne]

I don't see the benefit to this. Aren't the reborn you get from razing a city dependant on how big it was? Doesn't reducing it's population hurt you in the long run? I don't see the benefit to this at all.

It'd be in hurting a city you don't take. A really tough city with any weak defenders could be reduced, and those weak defenders killed. And since there's not always a one-to-one relationship between population and Reborn gained.

So it's often going to reduce your Reborn, but not always. And never if you're just raiding.

But it's there mostly 'cuz it's kool. But maybe a bunch of extra unhappiness, with maybe some die off, would be better.

 

[far_wanderer]

Now, a completely different concern I'm having.

Great Commanders.
Specifically, the way they level up.

Currently, commanders get some % of the xp that their minions get in combat. This means that the more xp your minions get, the more your commander gets. This could easily lead to rather exploit-ish behaviour of suiciding millions of low level fodder at impossible odds, because they're bound to get a ton of xp when one eventually wins.

This eventuality was predicted though, and avoided. The percentage of xp that the commander gets is scaled based on the difference between his level, and the minion. Which prevents the above tactic.

But I feel that this scaling measure is a bit too heavy handed. Specifically, in the other direction. It's all too easy for units to massively outlevel their commander, and then the commander effectively stops getting xp (0.1 per battle is essentially nothing) because of the massive, and ever growing difference in their levels.

This problem exists, even from the start. Commanders start off at lv1 with 0 xp. But units that you build will usually have some extra free xp if you're serious, by running apprenticeship/conquest and building command posts. This makes units outlevel the commander as soon as they're built, and thusly makes levelling the commander very difficult

Right now, I'm finding that the most effective tactic is deliberately limiting myself, ignoring the fact that a unit can promote, and only matching them with the commander's level so that he gets optimal xp from it. This is pretty silly, micromanagement intensive, and counterproductive. I don't think it should be rewarded, but as is, it's very difficult to level commanders (unless you're bannor, 50 xp in one turn, yay)

My thoughts on what to do here.

1. Start commanders off at some basic level of xp. I'd say give them 10xp to start, lv4. This would allow specialising and choosing some promotions right off, and also allow the commander to keep up with newly built troops getting free xp.

2. Remove or significantly relax, the xp scaling for minions that are levels above the commander. Since superpowered units don't get much xp from battles anyways, due to 99% odds, I don't think there's any need to restrict the xp a commander gets from your best units that are 10 levels above him.



If you want to think about it from an immersion POV, it's understandable that he wouldn't benefit much from low level units. How can a commander develop and grow, when he's placed in charge of incompetent fools?

But on the other hand, being placed in command of hardened veterans, he could learn from them

I agree entirely with your diagnosis of the problem and both of your solutions. I don't really have anything to add to it, just wanted to voice my support and make sure the issue didn't get buried.

Alternatively, I do have something to add if there's interest in changing the system instead of fixing it:

Spoiler :

I think everything about the new commander system is great, with one exception: the commander unit. I would much rather see the commander system applied to regular units instead, something like what the Bannor get, although on a not so absurd level. Make a "commander" promotion available at decently high levels (6 or 8, probably) and then give each unitcombat some specific command promotions that they can take at the end of other promotion trees to pass on some of their knowledge to the new recruits.

 

[Tarquelne]

Could maybe we work the scion priests in as commander units? Maybe even with a percentage chance to convert trickle-downing into the units they command?

We could... seems too "militaristic." And I'd feel like I was stepping on Chislev and Bannor toes. But I guess we could play with just what commander promotions they get, and add some more priestly ones. And a little might go a long way.

I guess I should say, is the issue that the preists themselves were becoming too much of a "build this in stacks = good" unit, or that the snagging reborn effect was too much?

I'd say "The former because of the latter." Priest stacks were too good because of the reborn effect. And I think it was really only a problem with offensive wars. Predation became too rewarding a strategy.

As it stands, one of the main things you get with an entire leader are Scion preists vs. a regular religion's priests. You should really get something neat for that. I always felt the Doomsayers and Doomgivers were the linchpin of a good reason to go Risen Emperor and give up, say, founding Order/OO.

Agreed.

I like the emperor... but he has zero mechanical advantage with the nerfs to his religious units.

That reads to me like the Emp. is balanced... You mean that the benefits offered by the Emperor's religious units don't outweigh the opportunity cost of not being able to get a 'real' religion?

EDIT: I consider the Emperor to be more of the "I bring da facesmashy"

Been playing Warhammer much?

I always thought the Legate line was a pretty good example of this - they go out, smash faces, and bring them back home to be fixed up.

Does that fit with your limited #s (by cost or fiat) idea for the priests? You may not have many, but that's OK as long as they got da choppy?

 

[xienwolf]

I'm perosonally finding that the barbs AI has been brought up more than the player AI. Stacks of barb archers pillage contryside, run from all threats, and wait for the player to put out another woker to start the cycle again. I manage to deal with it, but I find that the AI players (though still doing fairly well) are constently trying to fight off the orc invasions. Still, I don't think this is so much a problem as a good thing... I'm playing on normal speed, large, at prince... Has anyone else seen this?

Barbarian AI is considerably easier than Player AI. You tell Barbarians "Go squish things" because they are ALWAYS at war with EVERYONE, and they never run out of troops. That is quite a few "absolutes" to make life more black & white for the program, which is what they like. The Player AI though has to worry about buildings, improvements, relationships, avoiding multi-front wars, maintaining a standing army in case of war, gaining resources, chasing techs, and trying to WIN the game. That is a lot to deal with, AND they have to build replacement troops for themselves.

Not to say they aren't going to get a lot smarter, but they will take longer to be notably better.

Now, a completely different concern I'm having.

Great Commanders.
Specifically, the way they level up.

Currently, commanders get some % of the xp that their minions get in combat. This means that the more xp your minions get, the more your commander gets. This could easily lead to rather exploit-ish behaviour of suiciding millions of low level fodder at impossible odds, because they're bound to get a ton of xp when one eventually wins.

This eventuality was predicted though, and avoided. The percentage of xp that the commander gets is scaled based on the difference between his level, and the minion. Which prevents the above tactic.

But I feel that this scaling measure is a bit too heavy handed. Specifically, in the other direction. It's all too easy for units to massively outlevel their commander, and then the commander effectively stops getting xp (0.1 per battle is essentially nothing) because of the massive, and ever growing difference in their levels.

This problem exists, even from the start. Commanders start off at lv1 with 0 xp. But units that you build will usually have some extra free xp if you're serious, by running apprenticeship/conquest and building command posts. This makes units outlevel the commander as soon as they're built, and thusly makes levelling the commander very difficult

Right now, I'm finding that the most effective tactic is deliberately limiting myself, ignoring the fact that a unit can promote, and only matching them with the commander's level so that he gets optimal xp from it. This is pretty silly, micromanagement intensive, and counterproductive. I don't think it should be rewarded, but as is, it's very difficult to level commanders (unless you're bannor, 50 xp in one turn, yay)

My thoughts on what to do here.

1. Start commanders off at some basic level of xp. I'd say give them 10xp to start, lv4. This would allow specialising and choosing some promotions right off, and also allow the commander to keep up with newly built troops getting free xp.

2. Remove or significantly relax, the xp scaling for minions that are levels above the commander. Since superpowered units don't get much xp from battles anyways, due to 99% odds, I don't think there's any need to restrict the xp a commander gets from your best units that are 10 levels above him.



If you want to think about it from an immersion POV, it's understandable that he wouldn't benefit much from low level units. How can a commander develop and grow, when he's placed in charge of incompetent fools?

But on the other hand, being placed in command of hardened veterans, he could learn from them

The base feedback rate for the commanders is 25%. That number was chosen VERY carefully. Base Command Limit is 3 units. So if you go off and use a single unit to win all your big battles and raise him beyond the level of everyone else like people normally do, Commander falls behind and gets crap for XP. If you level all 3 units roughly evenly, Commander lags behind very slightly.

Commander is able to go in 3 different ways with his promotions:

1. Enhance his followers - Most of his promotions do that. These are "easy choices" to make, beef up my army? SURE!
2. Enhance himself - A very few promotions do this. These are the harder choices to make. Do I carry Guardsman on one of the units in the stack to defend my GC, or do I buy him some defensive strength?
3. Enhance the relationship between the Commander and his Followers - These are actually the critical promotions to take. If you can lead 6 units instead of 3, now the Command will out-level his Followers if they all gain XP at roughly the same rate. You can also take a promotion specifically to enhance the Feedback percentage so that the Level difference is offset somewhat, or so you can use fewer units for the majority of XP gathering and keep the commander up to par.

It is a paradigm shift. For quite a while people have been accustomed to the massive promotable strength of units and they nurture one or two SUPER UNITS OF DEATH who are the crutch of the army. With a Commander involved though, if you want him to keep up with the Mega-Troop, you need to spread your XP out better, or consider having the commander swap out his followers periodically to act as a stepping-stool for units to have a momentary strength boost while climbing through the levels.

I think everything about the new commander system is great, with one exception: the commander unit. I would much rather see the commander system applied to regular units instead, something like what the Bannor get, although on a not so absurd level. Make a "commander" promotion available at decently high levels (6 or 8, probably) and then give each unitcombat some specific command promotions that they can take at the end of other promotion trees to pass on some of their knowledge to the new recruits.

I have to keep on reminding myself that FF 051 hasn't been out very long. Ideas along these lines are what I am looking forward to seeing people try out in mod-mods and personal tweaks. The code I write tends to leave a LOT of possibilities open, and it'll take years to explore every nuance and possibility, decide which are most enjoyable, and figure out a nice balance for them. History of the Three Kingdoms has been pointed out a couple of times as having a fairly similar mechanic to our Commander System which they recently implemented, but I am quite certain that once people start to play with this they'll find that the flexibility is there to work absolute wonders (I mean, just look at Domination under the new system. A couple of things there which are relatively revolutionary, and that was just a quick idea implementation)

 

[Lemminkäinen]

One thing I'd like to address is the tendency of the AI to explore the Bradeline Well. I was wiped out twice yesterday by some horrid stack that someone had released from the Well wondering my way after it had already decimated one or two other civilizations at the part of the game when most civs are thinking of where to put their second city.

(Two other times I was wiped out by the Gargoyles from Pristine Pass... not a good day though I did get one good game as Khazad, which leads me to another point further down.)

Could the AI be given a buffer of quite a few turns in which it wouldn't explore the high level dungeons as the results are usually catastrophic if done at the beginning stages of the game?

Second, that Khazad game, the whole world is Runes of Kilmorph. This is an old problem, but since there were no Ljosalfar RoK spread all by its lonesome to the whole world. The passive spread of religions should, IMHO, be nerfed by a lot or even eliminated completely until some appropriate tech was researched. Trade? Or some religious tech.

 

[Iceciro]

Dunno, but I've at least seen Honor, Order, and OO gain ground in games. I didn't used to.

 

[Lemminkäinen]

Dunno, but I've at least seen Honor, Order, and OO gain ground in games. I didn't used to.

Could be that it was an anomaly and that the things have gotten better. The continent I was on didn't have any particularly religious civs (aside from my Khazad there were the evil Lizardmen, the evil Spiders, the evil Vampires and the neutral Explorers - which all turned neutral except for the evil Lizards ).

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

weird, I'm pretty sure the Gargoyles from Pristine Pass got ANIMAL_AI a lot of time ago, and should never come inside cultural borders..

 

[WarKirby]

You can also take a promotion specifically to enhance the Feedback percentage so that the Level difference is offset somewhat, or so you can use fewer units for the majority of XP gathering and keep the commander up to par.

I'm pretty sure this is Bannor only. I've not seen any kind of feedback enhancement promotion for non bannor civs.

It'd be extremely useful if there were one.

 

[Grimz101]

I'm pretty sure this is Bannor only. I've not seen any kind of feedback enhancement promotion for non bannor civs.

It'd be extremely useful if there were one.

catapults.. group them with commander, bombard and commander has free XP with 0 risk of the units dieing, that should get the commander up those first few levels, then you have to start using other units or attack the cities with the catapults because bombard will become limited for xp gain after awhile.

 

[readercolin]

Another possible idea for great commanders. Instead of them being a unit like it is now, instead make it like the old great commanders. However, now when they join a unit, that unit is now a commander (and also make him unable to split off to join a new unit - hero's can't be joined by a commander). This would give the GC some strength, and allow him to start off with a few levels instead of starting off at 0xp. That being said, I haven't played around with GC much yet.

-Colin

 

[rocklikeafool]

Note : Some of my longer responses in this post are in spoilers.

How do you mean?

A cultist is one man, with a pair of godlike powers. He seems perfectly made for solo distruction.

It was a joke, man.

I agree entirely with your diagnosis of the problem and both of your solutions. I don't really have anything to add to it, just wanted to voice my support and make sure the issue didn't get buried.

Alternatively, I do have something to add if there's interest in changing the system instead of fixing it:

Spoiler :

I think everything about the new commander system is great, with one exception: the commander unit. I would much rather see the commander system applied to regular units instead, something like what the Bannor get, although on a not so absurd level. Make a "commander" promotion available at decently high levels (6 or 8, probably) and then give each unitcombat some specific command promotions that they can take at the end of other promotion trees to pass on some of their knowledge to the new recruits.

And I'd feel like I was stepping on Chislev and Bannor toes.

Spoiler :

The fact that many civs have unique features like this is the beauty of mods like FfH and FF. I feel like making everyone have this ability would take away from that. I'd rather keep a feature like that.
It makes the Chislev much more interesting. They're still tribal, but with an interesting twist via something like the Native Americans had in RL. (Geronimo, anyone?) More draw for people to play em, ya know.
As for the Bannor, they've needed something like this for a long time. There have been various modmods for FfH which tried to accomplish the same thing, but didn't do so in a succinct and pleasing manner. (At least for me. Also, no offense to the modders of those modmods.) This does.
It also allows for various modmods like the Bannor promotions modmod and various other potentially. Basically, it accomplishes the task of portraying the Bannor military as a force with as much discipline as the Ancient Roman Legions, while using the heavy religious connotation of the Bannor civ to strengthen it. (And also strengthening the religious connotation of the Bannor at the same times. The whole "Humans who survived hell by their trust in the Good Angels and their military discipline" concept definitely is enhanced by the Bannor Captian unit.) It just adds enough that more can be added (or things can be edited/deleted to suit the player), while enhancing the lore.

By the way, I'm not saying the Chislev don't have a lot of modmod potential. It's just that no one's done any modmods for them yet. (Personally, I'll be getting back into modding, but I have no ideas on what would a good modmod for the Chislev. Apparently no one else does either.) I'm sure that stuff'll come soon.

Could maybe we work the scion priests in as commander units? Maybe even with a percentage chance to convert trickle-downing into the units they command?

Response:

Spoiler :

I don't really see priests as commanders. I also don't see the point. I mean most priests are meant to be the support units. (With the possible exception of Speakers, if one has the inclination to go nuts. Jk, WarKirby. I'm quite sure you enjoy doing that. I just never did. To each his own.) They are powerful of course (in this case cuz of Reborn), but not as commanders.



Let's picture this more microscopically. Take ourselves from behind the PC screen and instead look at the units as (semi)rational beings for a sec. I ask we look at them this way purely for the sake of argument, not cuz they are. (Trying to prove a point here, if you'll bear with me.)

A priest usually spends a large portion of his/her life devoting themselves to a diety (or, in the case of the Doomsayer/giver, the Emperor), in both RL and fantasy games (books, movies, etc.). In fantasy, that means their diety (or their devotion to the Emperor) grants them divine guidance both indirectly, usually through a loyalty toward the diety (or the Emperor), and directly, through spells to be used at the priest's discretion.

A commander, on the other hand, is purely a product of the military. For us, that means that, depending on the civ we're playing atm, the commander is a member of either an offensive, defensive, expeditionary, mercenary, or piractical force. (Think Austrins for expeditionary [I doubt they'd go to war unless they were seeking adventure {which is what an expedition is}]; for the other types of armies, it should be obvious as to which civ those cover.) They spend their entire lives dedicating themselves to the military and (1 or more of the below)

Spoiler :

1. Defending and upholding the ideals of their civ.
2. Striking down the enemies of their civ.
3. Leading men (and, depending on the civ, preventing losses [not that most of the evil {and some of the neutral} civs care about losses]).
4. Upholding the military glory of their civ, (in whatever manner that is, assuming the manner would be different for each civ).

A commander spends most of his life training towards 1 or more of these goals and is either loyal to a specific leader or to a specifc civ (except in the case of Decius [play some of the Scenarios and that'll make sense]). The commander unit is, in theory, a leader who has made his way up the ranks and is rewarded for some particular battle s/he wins or proves pivotal in.
RL Example (For those who care):

Spoiler :

Consider RL history and you can see how this would work in a fantasy world. As an American, I tend to think of men like Nathanael Greene, who was pivotal in the 2nd half of the American Revolutionary War and started out as the son of a Quaker with very little formal education. (I'd have picked George Washington, but he's a civ leader in BtS, so not really a GC for our purposes, despite the fact he was a military genius in many ways in RL.) Ultimately, despite lack of formal schooling in his early life, his strategies in the Southern American colonies contributed greatly to the success of the Americans in winning their independence. Ya know, someone who goes from being largely an unknown individual to an important pillar of a war, in this case the American Revolutionary War. Although I doubt many people know of him today in the USA [and even less so outside the USA], except history buffs. Do a wikipedia search on him. Anyway, in a fantasy world, I picture a GC as coming up the same way, working hard to get through the ranks and then doing something spectacular to warrant GC status.

My ultimate point is...the difference in training. A priest trains towards honoring a diety (or the Emperor). A commander towards the art of war. It's a difference in focus really and a difference in what a the unit puts 1st. Does the unit put a diety 1st? Or does the unit put military succes 1st? Of course, both units are still loyal to their civ (or at least their civ's leader [and in the case of some of the evil civs, they're not really loyal to their civ's leader, they just fear the leader enough that they will always follow them]), but it all depends on how they train to show that loyalty.

EDIT: I consider the Emperor to be more of the "I bring da facesmashy" type compared to Korinna.

Response:

Spoiler :

I disagree. I don’t think the Emperor is facesmashy kinda guy. He’s more cruel than that imho. I mean, look at his civ, he basically has fostored a cult of incredibly loyal fanatics to do his will, by manipulating their desire for life (escaping Arawn’s clutches) into a state of undeath. If that’s not cruel, tell me what is. Also, units like Redactor (loyalty to the Gift, twisted form of druids) and Doomgiver (loyalty to Emperor, “religious” oppression toward the ungifted) are pretty much an expression of the Risen Emperor’s cruelty.
Really the Orcs and Doviello are more the facesmashy types, at least the horders. Their leaders are smart enough not to rushing off yelling, “Kill, kill, kill”. They just send everyone else rushing off to do that.

catapults.. group them with commander, bombard and commander has free XP with 0 risk of the units dieing, that should get the commander up those first few levels, then you have to start using other units or attack the cities with the catapults because bombard will become limited for xp gain after awhile.

Response:

Spoiler :

In my experience, siege weapons don’t level too much, at least not very often. Maybe you use yours more, Idk.
If you’re smart with your units, meaning no headlong suicidal charges or dumbass heroics (think Colonel Custer there), your units won’t die anyway. It doesn’t matter if your units are melee, archer, siege; use them well and your commander flourishes. (Though I don’t see the point in attaching any Priest units to a commander.) It’s all about tactics and strategy with commanders. I see this as a good thing, it shows that the modders in FfH and FF are trying to make the game more intelligent, causing the player to make more thoughtful decisions and turn warfare of the mods into more than just… “YOU PISSED ME OFF, DIE!” with lots of bashing (and units with xp 100 destroying whole civs).
I don’t know how many times I’ve thought to myself that if I took a bunch of fodder and a few Stygian Guards, I could conquer the world. But the idea bored me, so I never did. I like warfare that uses lots of units and advanced strategy, not just more of the “bashy”.

Another possible idea for great commanders. Instead of them being a unit like it is now, instead make it like the old great commanders. However, now when they join a unit, that unit is now a commander (and also make him unable to split off to join a new unit - hero's can't be joined by a commander). This would give the GC some strength, and allow him to start off with a few levels instead of starting off at 0xp. That being said, I haven't played around with GC much yet.

Response:

Spoiler :

I think the main reason the GCs are now more like the Warlords GG is cuz GCs became nothing more than a nice little bonus. They used to give a +1 att/def bonus, as you know. That was nice, but all it was was a bonus. It didn't do anything spectacular. I mean getting Iron and Mithril weps gave a bigger bonus. Really getting a GC and attaching it to a unit was equal to giving recon unit or a mounted unit Mobility. It's an excellent bonus, but there are much better bonuses. (Not that +1 move is equal to +1 att/def.) So, GCs just didn't stand up to other unit bonuses.

As they are now, GCs actually do something very useful. They give bonues to the units under their command. They can get nice bonuses themselves. And, this is the part I like most, they give the player the option to use a new strategy.
You have to plan how to use the units under your commander. You need to keep them from dying. (I found that out the hard way, when I purposely deleted a unit so I could put another unit under the commander. Crippled the new unit, the units already under the commander, and the commander himself.) You have to be careful you don't take too many risks. You also have to put good units under the commander. For example, since seige engines don't usually get as much xp as melee units, maybe catapults aren't the smartest units to put under the commander. You also have to plan a few units for the possibilty of an upcoming GC. It's a lot to think about, but I like that. Imho, it's good to have more emphasis on strategy and tactics in a modmod like this.

 

[Iceciro]

Depends on the moment, really. At some point some neighbor civ always annoys me and gets overran with something though.

I'm really enjoying Korinna's ability to play RoK and get insane funds, insane production, and produce str4 Dwarf units that don't cost me additional upkeep to go do conquering with.

 

[xienwolf]

I'm pretty sure this is Bannor only. I've not seen any kind of feedback enhancement promotion for non bannor civs.

It'd be extremely useful if there were one.

Well crap, there isn't one. I swore it was in the design docs, because it is one of those "interesting idea" type of promotions. Especially if it is a LARGE feedback boost and comes with a loss of 1 Command Limit (you deal closer with the troops, so learn faster, but can handle fewer)

Another possible idea for great commanders. Instead of them being a unit like it is now, instead make it like the old great commanders. However, now when they join a unit, that unit is now a commander (and also make him unable to split off to join a new unit - hero's can't be joined by a commander). This would give the GC some strength, and allow him to start off with a few levels instead of starting off at 0xp. That being said, I haven't played around with GC much yet.

-Colin

Making GCs be a unit themselves was done on purpose so that they have to start at ground zero and work their way up, and so that they are forced to gain their XP through the followers. If I can just slap a GC on my favorite Vampire Lord then there is little to no risk involved in getting XP to be a better commander. Especially tied with the 25 XP per level cap we introduced, that would be too much of an advantage. Instead, the ability to have your commander do some attacking is handed to a few Civs to emphasize their ability to fight intelligently.

 

[rocklikeafool]

The passive spread of religions should, IMHO, be nerfed by a lot or even eliminated completely until some appropriate tech was researched. Trade? Or some religious tech.

I strongly disagree. I've noticed the spread of most religions was fairly normal in all my games. No one religion totally dominated. Granted I usually spread OO a bit, but not enough for a Religious Victory. (The other civs simply wouldn't let me. ) Besides, there is still the option in custom game to choose to omit certain religions. So, if you notice ROK is spreading too much, turn it off there. I see no reason for the rest of us to suffer a nerf for passive spread of religion cuz of this.

Edit:

Spoiler :

As an alternative to shutting ROK off, you could give other civs techs that would potentially allow them to discover and found another religion. I know giving techs isn't a good idea most of the time. I don't advocate doing it, especially since the AI is smart enough to research techs that make sense now. However, if another civ founds a different religion, there's more competition religiouswise. This'll allow, if all goes as it's sposed to (and you don't have some weird and giant file error I've never heard of), a more equal balance of religion.
In fact, it should work out so all the early religions spread pretty equally. Lately, in my games, I've even seen the Empyrean spread well. (Haven't seen CoE at all, prolly cuz the AI doesn't like to spend gold very often.) So, try that and my other suggestion before you try to get us all nerfed. Thank you.

(Hopefully, ROK won't go totally batsheit crazy before an AI founds a new religion. If it does again, you should prolly report it in the Bug Thread. Then I'd suggest you send your files to whoever offers to fix it for you. Be sure to thank them.)

 

[far_wanderer]

I have a theory about the religion spread: what size maps do people play on? I play on Tiny and Small maps most of the time, and the ease of religion dominance is absurd. Whatever gets founded first takes over almost immediately. I'm wondering if the people who don't see it as a problem play on bigger maps with more players. That would indicate that it's not a problem with religion spread in general, but in how it scales with map size.

 

[Hawkwood]

Could maybe we work the scion priests in as commander units? Maybe even with a percentage chance to convert trickle-downing into the units they command?

This is the solution I like the best, it makes use of a really nice new mechanic, resolves the problem with Doomsayer stacks and can be done in a way so it doesn't intrude on the mechanics of other civs. For example if the few command promotions they can take (if any) is more focused on a different type of support than just helping winning battles then it doesn't really intrude on the Bannor (since they can't grow their own commanders, can't construct a chain of command with multiple commanders and the commanders doesn't increase their strength as drastically as the Bannor's). Apart from the aforementioned "Chance-to-create-a-reborn" promotion, they could also have one similar to Cannibalism and perhaps one with a minor strength increase. 2-4 (since they can't have multiple commanders following each other) units with a chance to create a reborn, a Cannibalism-like effect and slightly higher strength is very different from the massive armies the Bannor can create.

 

[xienwolf]

What would be gained by that as opposed to making the priests personally stronger, or granting other units a natural ability to generate reborn, or to take a promotion which gives such ability?