Feedback: Khazad

[xienwolf]

collateral damage is just out of place on a dwarf UU

Dwarven Druid: Collateral (Crush Spell)

Dwarven Shadow: Collateral (PLUS Marksman)

Trebuchet: Extra Collateral

Dwarven Cannon: Extra Collateral


They have 4 UUs which emphasize collateral, and you say it is out of place for them? Which other Civ has more (actually, which other Civ has ANY?)

 

[GePap]

For someone who likes a builder strategy, Khazad is a great civ, and on the longer settings, like epic, the time it takes for technological process I think helps because it is easier to build up bank reserves without having to cripple oneself technologically, allowing for moderate expansion as you also build up an economic base that in the end makes worrying about the money in your vaults a non-issue. I have also never been one to be constantly at war, or getting a few units to be completely unstoppable, so the lack of great heroes for Khazas or RoK has never been a big problem.

 

[uberfish]

Ok I mean collateral damage as a *spell* is out of place for Khazad as they're attuned to technology rather than magic.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Gunpowder isn't a late game tech at all. It is for you because you are biased towards cannons. Gunpowder also provides +1 from mines and Arquebusers.

Count the amount of beakers it takes to get gunpowder. Compare that to other techs. It's a late game tech.

Note: On Emperor, it takes 16,536 beakers to get Blasting Powder. It takes 19,383 beakers to get Strength of Will. So, I guess you can argue that Blasting Powder is not quite as end game as Arch Mages.. but pretty close.

Fireballs aren't better than cannons in any way. They do less bombardment damage and less physical damage. I have already said this, if you wish to contradict, then please go into details. Ritualists and Chalid require particular conditions. Skeleton swarms are usless against Longbowmen or Paladins/Eidolons etc. A strong hero is lost if he looses. Of course reloading the loss works better than cannons, I agree.

Fireballs

1) Do not have a constant military cost, you only pay for them the turn you use them, and only if they don't die.

2) Can be used turn after turn even if they die.

3) Move to squares, including over water.

Two mages with fireballs can provide all the city bombardment you need, as well as a lot of collateral damage.

Skeletons vs Longbowmen? Are you kidding? You get skeletons with KoE, and Longbowmen with freaking Bowyers. That's like saying axemen are terrible because they lose to Dragons.

Ritualists/Chalid: I'm not saying everyone uses these, I'm just including them in the long list of other things that you have access to to break through fortified cities.

I don't move to siege a city without 4 cats or 4 cannons, with ANY civ except the elves.

Maybe you are wrong to do so? Why even point this out? If I told you I always take at least 5 archers with me when I siege, would that somehow prove that archers are awesome at sieging? More likely, it'd just show me to be a fool. Obviously, siege units are designed for this, but they aren't necessary.

What I suspect is that once you get certain units you just quit the game.

Not quit, win. For a random example:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=277519

I tried a rather different strat with them than I normally do, and had a decent victory. Not my best, by any stretch, but not too bad. Out maneuvered by the opponents via mass of arms, instead of slow siege combat... and that was WITH the khazad, the faction with the strongest siege.

 

[Arcite36575]

I don't move to siege a city without 4 cats or 4 cannons, with ANY civ except the elves.

I don't see how that would work on higher difficulty levels (emperor and up) in the second half of the game. By then, your rivals almost always have vastly larger and more powerful armies. If you declare war, and then send a stack of movement 1 cannons to a city 4 or 5 turns away (in enemy territory), you'll usually get overrun in a counterattack. I would want to use mages, dwarvian druids, chalid, etc. to blitzkrieg my enemies before they have time to counterattack.

 

[uberfish]

Two mages with fireballs can provide all the city bombardment you need, as well as a lot of collateral damage.

Two? You can't be serious, two fireball mages would take forever to bombard any decently fortified city.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Two isn't bad for just run of the mill city defense removal, though I wouldn't consider it enough for trying to get any considerable collateral damage.

My point is that for most purposes, when you just need a bit of bombardment here and there, two is more than adequate, and you never have to rebuild them. If you want to crack something pretty major, than you'd want a bit more than two, for sure. But with the Mages movement + the two move of the fireball + possibly extensions, they can hit relevant targets before the main stay of your army gets there.

 

[onedreamer]

Count the amount of beakers it takes to get gunpowder. Compare that to other techs. It's a late game tech.

Note: On Emperor, it takes 16,536 beakers to get Blasting Powder. It takes 19,383 beakers to get Strength of Will. So, I guess you can argue that Blasting Powder is not quite as end game as Arch Mages.. but pretty close.

These values are not correct and anyways meaningless since they change due to many factors. Fact is, that end game techs are Divine Essence, Strength of Will etc. not Gunpowder. Even if it was, I really don't see the point, since as I have already made you note, there aren't stack damage spells of third level, and cannons are more powerful than these because of reasons already expressed, hence it is perfectly normal the tech will cost more. If you don't like them, fine, but that doesn't mean that mages are more effective.

Fireballs

1) Do not have a constant military cost, you only pay for them the turn you use them, and only if they don't die.

2) Can be used turn after turn even if they die.

3) Move to squares, including over water.

Two mages with fireballs can provide all the city bombardment you need, as well as a lot of collateral damage.

Wow, how many imprecisions. 1) Fireballs cost the support of their casters. 2) the IF is really out of place. They WILL die and make no experience, contrary to siege weapons. 3) movement is the only downside of cannons vs malestrom and fireball, I agree -already said this too-
2 mages can provide all bombardment YOU need.

Skeletons vs Longbowmen? Are you kidding? You get skeletons with KoE, and Longbowmen with freaking Bowyers. That's like saying axemen are terrible because they lose to Dragons.

Heh, no mate. The answer was due to skeletons being listed as an alternative to cannons, hence it is perfectly reasonable.

Maybe you are wrong to do so?

When a strategy works in any situation, it's hardly wrong.

 

[onedreamer]

I don't see how that would work on higher difficulty levels (emperor and up) in the second half of the game. By then, your rivals almost always have vastly larger and more powerful armies. If you declare war, and then send a stack of movement 1 cannons to a city 4 or 5 turns away (in enemy territory), you'll usually get overrun in a counterattack. I would want to use mages, dwarvian druids, chalid, etc. to blitzkrieg my enemies before they have time to counterattack.

oh geez, now did I write I siege cities with ONLY 4 cannons ? Where ?

 

[Zechnophobe]

These values are not correct and anyways meaningless since they change due to many factors. Fact is, that end game techs are Divine Essence, Strength of Will etc. not Gunpowder. Even if it was, I really don't see the point, since as I have already made you note, there aren't stack damage spells of third level, and cannons are more powerful than these because of reasons already expressed, hence it is perfectly normal the tech will cost more. If you don't like them, fine, but that doesn't mean that mages are more effective.

The values are not incorrect, nor are they meaningless because 'they change'. The comparative cost of the two is going to be the same, and that's what we are talking about.

For more information, please check my thread on technology costs:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=277718

You'll notice that blasting powder is the 11th most expensive tech.

Wow, how many imprecisions. 1) Fireballs cost the support of their casters.

All the fireballs a mage casts, cost only the cost of one mage. When you attack on a war path of multiple cities, you don't have to replace 'lost fireballs' by paying additional production.

2) the IF is really out of place. They WILL die and make no experience, contrary to siege weapons.

The 'if they don't die' is referring to the fireballs. If they don't die, you can keep them alive until end of turn but pay unit costs for them, you could instead just disband them.

3) movement is the only downside of cannons vs malestrom and fireball, I agree -already said this too-

Sorcery costs about 1/3rd that of blasting powder. So you won't get to go to war with your silly little cannons on turn 300, because the fireball weilding mages, or equivalent, will have beaten you 50 turns earlier.

2 mages can provide all bombardment YOU need.

Generally I stop bombarding when the city defense gets to 0.

Heh, no mate. The answer was due to skeletons being listed as an alternative to cannons, hence it is perfectly reasonable.

As an alternative to Catapults, not cannons.

When a strategy works in any situation, it's hardly wrong.

So, I've got a city with 4 assassin's in it, plus a few defenders. The only method you know of cracking its defenses is with cannons. Do you just lose? Saying that a given strategy always works in a game as dynamic as Civ, is simple arrogance, and unreasonable.

 

[onedreamer]

All the fireballs a mage casts, cost only the cost of one mage.

1 fireball costs the support of one mage. The support cost is the same of a cannon. 1 Mage = 1 fireball = 1 bombardment per turn, the same of cannons.

When you attack on a war path of multiple cities, you don't have to replace 'lost fireballs' by paying additional production.

Neither do you have to replace cannons, unless you loose them in battle, which is the same with mages.

Sorcery costs about 1/3rd that of blasting powder. So you won't get to go to war with your silly little cannons on turn 300, because the fireball weilding mages, or equivalent, will have beaten you 50 turns earlier.

heh, I don't need cannons at that stage, in fact. Catapults will be enough. I mentioned cannons because you summarized "siege units" into Catapults only.

(skeletons) As an alternative to Catapults, not cannons.

You were comparing tech costs of Gunpowder, so you were definitely comparing Skeletons with Cannons.

So, I've got a city with 4 assassin's in it, plus a few defenders. The only method you know of cracking its defenses is with cannons. Do you just lose? Saying that a given strategy always works in a game as dynamic as Civ, is simple arrogance, and unreasonable.

First off, I never said I know only one method. What I meant with "situation" is a game situation. Multiplayer, Single Player, resources etc. To use fireballs and Malestrom you need Fire and Air Mana, to use cannons you need gunpowder. Anyways, I find siege weapons very useful, if you can't find a use for them just don't use them and be happy with your single-choice strategy (save coming here to tell this about those who also use siege units )

 

[Demus]

So, I've got a city with 4 assassin's in it, plus a few defenders. The only method you know of cracking its defenses is with cannons. Do you just lose? Saying that a given strategy always works in a game as dynamic as Civ, is simple arrogance, and unreasonable.

if i've got a city with 4 assassins in it, and you come running up with air/fire mages, you still won't be able to crack the defences, since the assassins will be able to kill the mages easily. Cannons have a lot higher defensive bonus (dwarven cannons are 10/7 in strenght if i recall correctly). The collateral damage from a single cannon is also twice as high as that from a single fireball, and targets a lot more units (taken from Xiens manual). So both have their benefits and drawbacks.
You're claiming he's being unreasonable for always relying on cannons, while you're doing the exact same thing with mages! talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[onedreamer]

The funny thing is I never said I rely only on cannons, I said I normally don't go to siege without them... 2 quite different statements.

 

[Demus]

adding to that: the khazad don't even have mages, so that entire arguement is in the wrong topic at the moment. They were designed to rely on their superior siege weapons to take down heavily fortified cities.

 

[Zechnophobe]

if i've got a city with 4 assassins in it, and you come running up with air/fire mages, you still won't be able to crack the defences, since the assassins will be able to kill the mages easily. Cannons have a lot higher defensive bonus (dwarven cannons are 10/7 in strenght if i recall correctly). The collateral damage from a single cannon is also twice as high as that from a single fireball, and targets a lot more units (taken from Xiens manual). So both have their benefits and drawbacks.
You're claiming he's being unreasonable for always relying on cannons, while you're doing the exact same thing with mages! talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

What? My argument is that there are a lot of alternatives to siege that always seem in any specific game, to be better. I'm just using mages as an example. So he's arguing that just the one unit (Well, two I guess) are a must, and I'm saying that it's not true, and giving examples of it. We've just persued the mage line of thought a great deal longer.

For instance, reason I cite mages here, is because with both of the spells commonly used for city busting, they have a range of 2, and can use their ability on the same turn they come in range, meaning it is much much more likely they'll get to hit the city first. In the case of Maelstrom, you even have the added bonus of always hitting the assassin's who would then be attacking you. And strength 4 mages at that point, no doubt with numerous combat promotions, will actually have an advantage against strength 6 assassins, if they are green or almost, and wounded. Obviously mages cost more than catapults, though... but dreamer keeps going on and on about the hideously expensive Cannons (The 11th most expensive tech in the game, Blasting Powder costs nearly three times the total cost of Sorcery, see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=277718 ).

 

[onedreamer]

I didn't say they are a must but that I don't go to siege heavily defended cities without them. That's a personal preference not a must. Instead, you've been saying all along that siege weapons are weak, that magic is stronger, and so on

In FFH, there are many other ways to achieve what siege does, and generally in a more efficient manner.

Well, the dwarven trait is nice for double move over hills, but really the only strength they have is in siege units and Druids. And siege are pretty weak in this game, so they only really get a unit advantage at the end of the tech tree.

note: with "game" you meant mod (FFH2), as already discussed.

also, your post about techs is incorrect, already said it. Although it is roughly ok and the point about gunpowder is remotely true, it's not very precise. I don't know how you got those values... and you make no mention about it.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I didn't say they are a must but that I don't go to siege heavily defended cities without them. That's a personal preference not a must. Instead, you've been saying all along that siege weapons are weak, that magic is stronger, and so on.

You did say you didn't move to siege a city without 4 'cats or cannons'.

note: with "game" you meant mod (FFH2), as already discussed.

A mod of a game, is still a game. Now you are just grasping at straws to find some vein of logic that has you being correct.

also, your post about techs is incorrect, already said it. Although it is roughly ok and the point about gunpowder is remotely true, it's not very precise. I don't know how you got those values... and you make no mention about it.

You've said that it is incorrect, and not backed it up. The way those techs are derived is quite simple. The total cost of any tech is equal to it's cost, + the total cost of it's prerequisites. You don't count the same prerequisite more than once, and if you have options, take the lowest one (Though this happens all of like 2 times in FFH). The numbers listed are the number of beakers, total beakers, it takes to research that tech, start to finish. I've put a fair bit of work into developing those numbers, so if you want to just say 'they are incorrect' you should back it up a bit more. Note in the thread I mention they are the numbers for Chieften difficulty and standard size map. While that changes the absolute value of the numbers, it won't change their proportions, which is all we are talking about anyway. (Tech cost is based on difficulty. For instance, a tech that costs 120 on that tech cost list, costs 202 when I play on Immortal difficulty).

 

[Ksi]

If you guys are seriously trying to prove Zechnophobe wrong about the seige point I would gently suggest you turn the difficulty up in order to learn some of the finer points of the game.

 

[smusebaer]

I think you start to miss the mages, when your units are fireballed to death and ripped appart by storms. And no mages means no terraforming...

 

[onedreamer]

a) none said mages are not needed. Where did you read it ?
b) mages are ripped apart and fireballed to death just like siege units.