FfH2 0.15 Balance Recommendations

[Grillick]

but i dont have barny at that point yet.
-Qes

My point is that you should have Barnaxus at that point. If you don't, you should play something besides Luchuirp.

 

[Lord Vermillion]

Hmm perhaps beef up Barny to str 6 or 7? Make him like a Maceman?

 

[QES]

My point is that you should have Barnaxus at that point. If you don't, you should play something besides Luchuirp.

While I apprecaite specialties, Must i really follow a regimine? Must i play a certain way or suffer unduely? Perhaps I should suffer some, or struggle in other ways. But to be forced into warfare because of Barny seems odd, thematically and game play wise. I'm not partial to having been told "Play like this or dont play them." THe idea of an additive bonus is great, Barny is a great idea, but should the Luchurip strategy REQUIRE him? Should there not be "other" perhaps less effecient options?
-Qes

 

[Grillick]

There are, QES.

Use more golems. Or use archers and cavalry, as you seem to have already opted to do. How are those not other, less efficient options?

 

[BCalchet]

One solution for the Barnaxus problem might be to give the Luchuirp a series of unique buildings, replacing the hero shrine thingy that can be built when a racial hero dies.

With five expensive buildings like these, each one requiring the previous and granting a combat promotion for golems, getting Barnaxus killed would no longer permanently cripple any future golem use, but rather require a sizable hammer investment to make up for losing him.

 

[QES]

There are, QES.

Use more golems. Or use archers and cavalry, as you seem to have already opted to do. How are those not other, less efficient options?

I've played several games with the Golem-dwarves and each time ive lost barny at inopportune moments, times i hold him back, result in the same thing - no leveling. Having him come out for "hit and run" hasnt worked, because as soon as he's out he dies.

And ive continued playing well past his death anyway. Late game it's very noticeable because my units are about half as strong and MORE expensive than the units im fighting. I wind up using cavalry and archers (as i said in previous posts) instead of golems. But it doesnt make a lot of sense to have a golem-based society neglect golem usage.

I like barny, i just wish he was more of a bonus than a necessity.
-Qes

 

[Maniac]

A suggestion and a question:

Why not let Pacifism give a +75% birth rate without the need to have a state religion in the city? That way the Grigori would have more than one religion civic to choose between.

Also, what would you think of letting the Grigori Tavern give a happiness bonus if the city is religionless, but -1 happiness for each religion in the city? Currently Free Religion is the only possible civic for the Grigori in the religion category, which basically means the more religions the Grigori have in their cities, the better. Which I assume is the exact opposite of what the Grigori are supposed to be about...

With my suggested change to the Tavern, Free Religion would only compensate for the existence of religion, instead of rewarding you for it. It would also make the Luonnatar unit more useful.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Might be nice if there was a dwarven vault-like building in every Grigori city, which changed based on the number of religions in it. Then again, the Grigori aren't currently very economically strong as it is, so it might be wise to make this more of a bonus than a penalty.

 

[Zurai]

Grigori shouldn't get any bonuses from religions at all. If you read the story behind Cassius, he hates ALL religions and refuses to honor any of them. He doesn't honor them all equally - his entire realm is anti-all-religion.

 

[Grillick]

More accurately, Grigori should get bonuses from having no religions. It'd be a significant boost for them if they had an extra-high happycap in the early game pre-religion, and it would make the Luonnotar and, possibly, theocracy valuable for them, especially if you can make the agnostic trait allow 'no state religion' to count for effects limited to having your state religion.

In order to balance improving their early game so significantly, though, I think it would be necessary to implement my earlier suggestion that, instead of having a specific great person Adventurer, make each of their great people able to be upgraded into a military unit, so that the use of Adventurers becomes a truly strategic decision.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Did I ever say I wanted them to get a bonus for having more religions? Here's how I think it would work: every time a religion gets founded, each Grigori city gets a bonus, unless the religion spreads there, in which case it gets no bonus at all. Thus, they would be much the same in the early game, but as the religion founding era goes by, they get bonuses to rival those that can use those religions.

Also, I think the Adventurer mechanism really hinders the Grigori economically more than it helps them. They ought to have some way of getting other great people without sacrificing their heroes (which they get none of besides the Adventurers, if I remember correctly).

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Grigori shouldn't get any bonuses from religions at all. If you read the story behind Cassius, he hates ALL religions and refuses to honor any of them. He doesn't honor them all equally - his entire realm is anti-all-religion.

I think he meant bonuses decreasing as the # religions increase.

I'm not so sure, though. Even if Cassiel is zealously anti-religion, I don't think his people would neccesarily be. It makes sense that he gets happy poeple for free religion--people are happier when they get to choose what they want, even if their leader disdains their choices. After all, if having religion in the city at all made people unhappy, why would it have spread there in the first place? Unless you think religion is more likely to cause conflict in Gigori lands than in lands with a strong state religion.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Also, I think the Adventurer mechanism really hinders the Grigori economically more than it helps them. They ought to have some way of getting other great people without sacrificing their heroes (which they get none of besides the Adventurers, if I remember correctly).

Adenturers give such a strong starting military in the early years that it can translate into a great economic bonus. Shortly after your second adventurer comes around, you can upgrade them both into city raider + shock axemen or archers, then take a rival's starting city.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

That's certainly true, and it could be a nice econimic advantage to capture some prime city spots and wipe out a rival that would be landgrabbing against you, but do we want to force the Grigori into an early war?

I could certainly see Cassiel waging all-out war against a foe, using Adventurers to their fullest, but under what circumstances. I'd say it would be most likely for him to war against the strongest promoters of the gods he's taken vendetta against. In the early game, before many religions are founded, would not be the time that he'd be warring.

 

[eerr]

heros in quick games almost seem... underwelming.
heros in marathon are the end all be all cure all
i think the xp for heros(and maybe magic users) need to be balanced based on gamespeed

 

[Serthorn]

I would suggest allowing removing jungle earlier, then it is right now. Especially in epic and marathon game this is very annoying, to have the ability to remove jungle after 400-700 turns. Civilization that has a lot of jungle within its border has practically no chance against other civs. Removing jungle takes longer then removing forest, so it wouldn’t be a drastically advantage anyway. I would suggest allowing jungle removing with “smelting” technology or sooner.

 

[Jono]

Removing jungle takes longer then removing forest, so it wouldn’t be a drastically advantage anyway.

Of course it would be "/.

 

[Sureshot]

i hate jungles for this reason, but i think its beter to just play Ice Age maps where theres less jungle (and it makes sense with the theme)

 

[Maniac]

Did I ever say I wanted them to get a bonus for having more religions? Here's how I think it would work: every time a religion gets founded, each Grigori city gets a bonus, unless the religion spreads there, in which case it gets no bonus at all. Thus, they would be much the same in the early game, but as the religion founding era goes by, they get bonuses to rival those that can use those religions.

That's a much better idea than tying it to the Tavern.

After all, if having religion in the city at all made people unhappy, why would it have spread there in the first place?

Well, Agnostic reduces religion spread, so they're not really supposed to spread in Grigori lands.

I'm not so sure, though. Even if Cassiel is zealously anti-religion, I don't think his people would neccesarily be. It makes sense that he gets happy poeple for free religion--people are happier when they get to choose what they want, even if their leader disdains their choices.

That's why with Free Religion it should be possible to counter the negative effects of many religions, let it have no effect. But them giving a happiness boost doesn't seem in the spirit of an agnostic civ.

 

[eerr]

That's a much better idea than tying it to the Tavern.



Well, Agnostic reduces religion spread, so they're not really supposed to spread in Grigori lands.



That's why with Free Religion it should be possible to counter the negative effects of many religions, let it have no effect. But them giving a happiness boost doesn't seem in the spirit of an agnostic civ.

it's cassiel, not his people who are agnostic-if he wants to let his people pursue religion freely then he can do so by all means.