Fall Further 0.51 Balance Discussion Thread

[rocklikeafool]

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.

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?

I agree with Xienwolf. However, if others wanna "fix" GCs, particularly making Scion Priests into a unit like the Bannor Captian or the Chislev Warcheif, I suggest someone makes a modmod. There's plenty of "room", so to speak, in the code to do that, according to what Xienwolf and others have said. There's even a Thread called "Modmodders Guide to Fall Further" to make it easier.

I'd try (I say try cuz I'm still learning a lot of code) to make the modmod myself, if I agreed sonething needed to be done. Originally, yes, I saw a problem. But as it's all been explained in this thread, I don't see any balance issues with anything that's been brought up so far, except I'd like to see the Scion priest nerf go from -2 to -1. But that's not enough to base a modmod off of.

 

[2Hydroclopse]

I wonder, should the items dropped -by those who die at combat- fall into the defender's square? Anytime I get a powerful item and I have a stack prepared to attack a city, I'll give the item -say orthus' axe- to one guy, have him suicide charge, give the item to the next guy... ...rinse and repeat until city captured.

Dropping it onto the defender's tile kinda makes more sense. (Unless in the final seconds of the dying/holding unit's life are spent chucking the item back to the square he came from)

Now, its been this way since FFH2 I believe, so I imagine it isn't a big issue;but, would it not be neat for the defenders to get it? Oh sure an archer defense in the early game is crazy hard to penetrate but why not give them Orthus's Axe anyway just to be crazy?

I suppose this might be more of an exploit, but I figure if there is ever a place to talk about fixing exploits then its the balance thread.

 

[WarKirby]

I remember Shatner mentioned this strategy in one of his AARs. Following FoL, summon masses of tigers and suicide them with Orthus' axe. It makes them more likely to win, and if they somehow do, it counts as blitz so they can use their 2 movement to attack again, where they'll certainly lose in their injured state.

As long as the attacker dies, someone else can just pick up the axe and go with it. And once you're done suiciding all your cannon fodder with the axe, you just have someone serious pick it up and use it to crush the weakened defenders.

Dropping in the tile of the defending unit does sound like a logical solution. It would mean that putting orthu's axe on cannon fodder would be stupid, as it should be. Legendary weapons should only be wielded by heroes.


While we're on the subject, am I the only one that finds it silly for animals and beasts to be able to use equipment? How does a tiger swing an axe anyways? Doesn't make much sense for dragons either.

I'm thinking animals and beasts shouldn't be able to use equipment. Except possibly equipment which specifies animal/beast as a valid unitcombat. So that you could still make "tiger armor" or somesuch, but not have tigers wielding axes.

Also, I guess a unit based exemption would be needed, as baron duin halfnorn is a beast, but he should logically be able to use equipment.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

and war elephants are mounted, but they shouldn't be able to. I agree, animals wielding weapons and armor makes no sense at all . an XML tag with a boolean that defines whether or not the unit can use equipment would be pretty nice I guess.

 

[far_wanderer]

I remember Shatner mentioned this strategy in one of his AARs. Following FoL, summon masses of tigers and suicide them with Orthus' axe. It makes them more likely to win, and if they somehow do, it counts as blitz so they can use their 2 movement to attack again, where they'll certainly lose in their injured state.

As long as the attacker dies, someone else can just pick up the axe and go with it. And once you're done suiciding all your cannon fodder with the axe, you just have someone serious pick it up and use it to crush the weakened defenders.

Dropping in the tile of the defending unit does sound like a logical solution. It would mean that putting orthu's axe on cannon fodder would be stupid, as it should be. Legendary weapons should only be wielded by heroes.

I agree.

While we're on the subject, am I the only one that finds it silly for animals and beasts to be able to use equipment? How does a tiger swing an axe anyways? Doesn't make much sense for dragons either.

I'm thinking animals and beasts shouldn't be able to use equipment. Except possibly equipment which specifies animal/beast as a valid unitcombat. So that you could still make "tiger armor" or somesuch, but not have tigers wielding axes.

It depends on two things.
1 - how you interpret the makeup of an individual unit. Is that pack of wolves really just a pack of wolves? Or are there a few people with them to train them and handle things like receiving orders?
2 - how you interpret the magical properties of weapons and how they're used. Does carrying the axe make you better at fighting or is it that the axe is easier to use? And this breaks down further when you consider that only about half of the equipment is weapons. An axe might be silly for a dragon to use, granted, but what about a mirror or a crown?

Also, I guess a unit based exemption would be needed, as baron duin halfnorn is a beast, but he should logically be able to use equipment.

Duin really shouldn't be a beast anymore. It made sense back when all the other werewolves were beasts as well, but now that they all stay regular units it makes little sense for the Baron, who is the most in control of his powers of any werewolf in existence, to be the only one that's classified a beast.

 

[WarKirby]

The baron gets a few neat promotion options from being a beast, like Mobility II and Woodsman II. Which are recon promos mostly. But he can also learn city raider, which recon normally an't learn. Beast unitcombat makes him more flexible, and unique. I like it personally.

 

[xienwolf]

Actually I could pretty easily forbid removal of a promotion from Containers that are not older than 1 full turn (the promotion age, not the unit age). Reasonably certain that I can do so anyway...

 

[far_wanderer]

Actually I could pretty easily forbid removal of a promotion from Containers that are not older than 1 full turn (the promotion age, not the unit age). Reasonably certain that I can do so anyway...

While that would be a good fix mechanically, it doesn't really make any remote kind of sense flavor-wise.
In the heat of battle:
"Hey Bob! My sword broke, toss me that axe!"
"I can't do that yet, Fred was holding it and we haven't had a chance to give him a funeral yet."

The baron gets a few neat promotion options from being a beast, like Mobility II and Woodsman II. Which are recon promos mostly. But he can also learn city raider, which recon normally an't learn. Beast unitcombat makes him more flexible, and unique. I like it personally.

Actually, according to the civilopedia, Mobility 2 is out for Beast units now. Meaning that in comparison to a melee unit (assuming I didn't miss something - why isn't there a simple way to view promotions by unitcombat in the pedia?), he's up by Woodsman 2 and down Tactics and a few Esus-only promotions.

So, outside of a few minor religious-specific situations and Tactics, it comes down to mechanically whether he should be weak to Shock or Subdue Beasts, and flavor-wise whether he's a human with superpowers or a glorified animal. Like I said, it used to make sense, but now that all the other units get to keep their old class, it seems silly that he doesn't.

Addendum: I just remembered the HUGE mechanical factor I forgot to account for: the Master Smith. No such building exists for Beast units.

 

[odalrick]

"Hey Bob! My sword broke, toss me that axe!"
"I can't do that yet, Fred was holding it and we haven't had a chance to give him a funeral yet."

"Oh, bugger. Well, Joe, you're done attacking, could you lend me your sword?"
"Sorry, no can do. I only picked it up recently."

(You can only transfer equipment once per turn.)

assuming I didn't miss something - why isn't there a simple way to view promotions by unitcombat in the pedia?

A simple way is selecting a unit of the unitcombat and looking at it's allowed promotions.

 

[xienwolf]

I dunno, Bob would have to go over to Fred and pry it from his cold, dead hands. You drop the weapon when you die, it takes some time to locate it and pick it up. But it would be mostly a mechanics/balance move, not a drop of realism consideration involved. If the unit had survived you wouldn't be able to transfer the weapon, so why let you do so when he died?

As odalrick points out, look at the Allowed Promotions box. I made that actually be worthwhile a little while back. Now instead of displaying half the damn promotions in the game, it should only display what will actually be available to that unit via XP during the game (and what they start with). Only Adepts/Mages/Archmages show the hundred or so magical promotions to clutter out everything else.

 

[WarKirby]

I think changing the placement of the dropped item would be most logical.

If someone charges headlong into the enemy army and dies, their body is among the enemy army. And if you want something that was on their corpse, you're going to have to fight through the enemy to get it.

On the other hand, if the enemy attacks your unit, and wins, the corpse is among your ranks, and is much easier to retrieve.

So in general, I'd say when a unit carrying equipment dies, the equipment should drop in the tile of the defender, regardless of which role the equipment holder was on.

if he dies attacking, the stuff drops where he was trying to attack into
if he dies defending, it drops where he was.

 

[Lemminkäinen]

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.

This might be it! I also play mostly small or tiny maps and the religion spread really is really problematic.

 

[rocklikeafool]

I think changing the placement of the dropped item would be most logical.

If someone charges headlong into the enemy army and dies, their body is among the enemy army. And if you want something that was on their corpse, you're going to have to fight through the enemy to get it.

On the other hand, if the enemy attacks your unit, and wins, the corpse is among your ranks, and is much easier to retrieve.

So in general, I'd say when a unit carrying equipment dies, the equipment should drop in the tile of the defender, regardless of which role the equipment holder was on.

if he dies attacking, the stuff drops where he was trying to attack into
if he dies defending, it drops where he was.

While I agree with everyone that it makes sense for the equipment to fall on the tile of the defender, it's gonna suck half the time trying to get it back. Though this would cause the player to plan better, which I like. Hmm...it's prolly a good idea.

Just be prepared for people going, "Why does equipment land on the defender's tile? I liked it the old way...wahhhhh..."

 

[far_wanderer]

"Oh, bugger. Well, Joe, you're done attacking, could you lend me your sword?"
"Sorry, no can do. I only picked it up recently."

(You can only transfer equipment once per turn.)

A simple way is selecting a unit of the unitcombat and looking at it's allowed promotions.

I dunno, Bob would have to go over to Fred and pry it from his cold, dead hands. You drop the weapon when you die, it takes some time to locate it and pick it up. But it would be mostly a mechanics/balance move, not a drop of realism consideration involved. If the unit had survived you wouldn't be able to transfer the weapon, so why let you do so when he died?

Which is why, now that you mention it, that system could use some changing too. Perhaps making the act of picking up or taking a weapon use up the unit's movement for the turn?

As odalrick points out, look at the Allowed Promotions box. I made that actually be worthwhile a little while back. Now instead of displaying half the damn promotions in the game, it should only display what will actually be available to that unit via XP during the game (and what they start with). Only Adepts/Mages/Archmages show the hundred or so magical promotions to clutter out everything else.

It is very worthwhile, and I appreciate the improvements. But it's still a unit allowed promotions box, not a unitcombat allowed promotions box. Meaning it shows any bonus promotions the unit might get and doesn't show any that are blocked for that unit. I'm talking about a thing that would appear in the Unit Categories section, telling you what the default promotions are for each class.

Also, I'm amused that a one-sentence parenthetical observation drew two comments, but the argument that it was a part of did not .

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

not really a balance thing, but one thing I noticed: civs that start with 2 scouts ( ljolsafar, not sure if there are others ) currently set them to explore on turn 1, leaving their capitol unprotected. this leaves them very vulnerable in the chance they get lucky and something attacks them in that timespan, for whatever reasons. 1 of the scouts should defend the city until they spit out a warrior. similarly, civs that start with 2 warriors ( khazad, cualli, others? ) should probably set them both on defense and then spit out a scout to do the usual hut-popping ( due to their better results from huts )

 

[Hawkwood]

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?

This may be why you're one who mas a made successful mod and I'm not. I just saw that it's an interesting mechanic and that since all (other, if it's actually implemented) civilizations have militaristic leaders with promotions that show it, so having one where they're religious leaders are also those who lead them in battle could be interesting (they would still be tacticians and strategists of course, they just also have a religious focus).

 

[Tarquelne]

so having one where there religious leaders are also those who lead them in battle could be interesting

It is indeed an interesting suggestion. "Interesting" is worth quite a bit in itself.

An improved Weird Wrack is in the works, and Archon's Rule will probably get a boost. Beyond that I'm not sure what (if anything) will be done. But the Commander thing is something I want to consider more. If nothing else granting Priests access to a a few Commander promotions would be an interesting alternative to straightforward strength boosts. I want to play with the Commander system more before fiddling with it, though.

 

[xienwolf]

I think changing the placement of the dropped item would be most logical.

If someone charges headlong into the enemy army and dies, their body is among the enemy army. And if you want something that was on their corpse, you're going to have to fight through the enemy to get it.

On the other hand, if the enemy attacks your unit, and wins, the corpse is among your ranks, and is much easier to retrieve.

So in general, I'd say when a unit carrying equipment dies, the equipment should drop in the tile of the defender, regardless of which role the equipment holder was on.

if he dies attacking, the stuff drops where he was trying to attack into
if he dies defending, it drops where he was.

In the way that FfH handled equipment, placing it on the defender's tile wasn't completely possible due to the item actually being a unit that the attacker owned. In our system that portion of things is simplified because it always belongs to the Orcs, but the issue which will come up now is that when the equipment is actually dropped the game no longer has any record at all of why the unit died, just which player was responsible, if any. I could possibly store a "death Plot" variable just for this purpose though. But I'll have to talk with the team and see what they think about the three options (delay to pick up from chest, place in defender tile, or leave as it is)

Which is why, now that you mention it, that system could use some changing too. Perhaps making the act of picking up or taking a weapon use up the unit's movement for the turn?

It is very worthwhile, and I appreciate the improvements. But it's still a unit allowed promotions box, not a unitcombat allowed promotions box. Meaning it shows any bonus promotions the unit might get and doesn't show any that are blocked for that unit. I'm talking about a thing that would appear in the Unit Categories section, telling you what the default promotions are for each class.

Also, I'm amused that a one-sentence parenthetical observation drew two comments, but the argument that it was a part of did not .

Using movement for the turn wouldn't be a completely ideal solution IMO. Do you use up both units' movement? Do you require that they had full movement available before the transfer? Do you link the movement only when picking up from a chest?

The pedia will be getting a bit of a facelift sometime semi-soonish. It has never really satisfied me and recently I got an image of how to make it work the way I want it. Lots of code to write, and all in python too, so it'll be a while in coming. But it will address your particular concern at the least.

not really a balance thing, but one thing I noticed: civs that start with 2 scouts ( ljolsafar, not sure if there are others ) currently set them to explore on turn 1, leaving their capitol unprotected. this leaves them very vulnerable in the chance they get lucky and something attacks them in that timespan, for whatever reasons. 1 of the scouts should defend the city until they spit out a warrior. similarly, civs that start with 2 warriors ( khazad, cualli, others? ) should probably set them both on defense and then spit out a scout to do the usual hut-popping ( due to their better results from huts )

AI doesn't do well with being forced to do things which it doesn't want to do with units. The best solution in this case would simply be to ensure that the AI always starts with at least 1 explorer and at least 1 defender, each of which being units that it will personally decide fit those roles. I might be able to adjust things so that if it has no units who are flagged for defense it is willing to flag ANY unit for that purpose who has a combat strength, and if it has none for exploration the same (only if already defended). But I'm not sure that section of the code is easily manipulated in such a simplistic manner.

This may be why you're one who mas a made successful mod and I'm not. I just saw that it's an interesting mechanic and that since all (other, if it's actually implemented) civilizations have militaristic leaders with promotions that show it, so having one where they're religious leaders are also those who lead them in battle could be interesting (they would still be tacticians and strategists of course, they just also have a religious focus).

90% of it for me is actually just trying not to have the Scions have a special take on this new system without very good reason. They already have a special take on almost every other aspect of the game, so I'd like to kick the habit of always striving to give them their own set of rules to learn

 

[odalrick]

AI doesn't do well with being forced to do things which it doesn't want to do with units. The best solution in this case would simply be to ensure that the AI always starts with at least 1 explorer and at least 1 defender, each of which being units that it will personally decide fit those roles. I might be able to adjust things so that if it has no units who are flagged for defense it is willing to flag ANY unit for that purpose who has a combat strength, and if it has none for exploration the same (only if already defended). But I'm not sure that section of the code is easily manipulated in such a simplistic manner.

Is it worth it, though? Is having a city defended by one scout different from not having it defended at all?

Just put a priority on building defenders. I often leave my city unguarded for the 6-13 turns it takes to build a defender in the beginning.

 

[ogre25]

Scouting promotions line for GC seems strange. GC cannot get faster than two movement, while most scouts will pick mobility, and even more get one more movement point from Scouting II.

Possible solution would be to make scouting promotions give GC additional movement or allow GC access Mobility. Otherwise having scouting promotions doesn't make much sense because GC can't follow the recon units fast enough.