FfH2 0.15 Balance Recommendations

[khanjackal]

if you eat your unhappy guys, and have less pop than your neighbors, you risk being overrun

 

[Hypnotoad]

If your Citizens knew you'd eat them if they rioted, wouldn't they avoid rioting?

 

[Bad Player]

In my famous survival game the enemy shadows seem to be quite powerful. A shadow beat my Bambur (who only had combat 1 and 2 IIRC) and when I build a new ranger it seems to die to shadows. I think the shadows might have city attack promotion though (enemy obviously built form of the titan).

Should shadows be allowed the city attack promotion?

 

[Yorgos]

If your Citizens knew you'd eat them if they rioted, wouldn't they avoid rioting?

Rioters always get eated (imprizoned, tortured, murdered). But uprizings do happen.

 

[Kael]

In my famous survival game the enemy shadows seem to be quite powerful. A shadow beat my Bambur (who only had combat 1 and 2 IIRC) and when I build a new ranger it seems to die to shadows. I think the shadows might have city attack promotion though (enemy obviously built form of the titan).

Should shadows be allowed the city attack promotion?

No, they shouldnt have city attack.

 

[Bad Player]

Well they were still kicking my arse!

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

10 xp and 8 movement points? I know conjurers can be gotten at 10 xp, but with the situations you're describing, it takes a bit longer. If you want to talk best-case scenario, I can put my macemen in a highly cultured wall city with a ring of warding in it. If you take measures to make your strategies specifically stronger, then they will be stronger, but just because you can beat a vanilla set of units at the same tech level doesn't make something unbalanced. How are summoner trait nightmares any worse than mass produced combat 5 golems or any of the other Civ-specific benefits?

Because summoned nits consume no . Killing summoned units or having your summoned units die has no impact upon a national resource base. Units built with do count as national assets. Summoned units are not national assets, the units which summon them are the national assets. Any time a summoned unit contributes to the death of a manufactured unit, the economic tradeoff is immense. The ROI (return on invenstment) is huge ... even a small gain bought at zero cost is a fabulous ROI.

This is no big deal on the skirmish level but it can become a problem when taken to the level of national policy. Your attempt to fight Nightmares (or Chaos Marauders) with Macemen is doomed to a slow death of attrition, and that is the very best-case scenario. The summoner can use his to improve hia national infrastructure and/or to build more Summoners. The Maceman nation will have to divert some production to replace combat losses. Let's say seven Macemen can neutralize seven Summoners. Twenty turns later, will ten Macemen still be able to hold off fifteen Summoners? That's the difference.

Summoned units are not the only way to get units without building them. The werewolves are very powerful in this regard too. Magnadine plus the Baron also saves a lot of , as I discovered one game.

Vamparism and Golems are great for producing experienced units quickly, but they do have to be manufactured at least. So it's a different issue. (That issue being spammed Contagion, which is even more devestating to the poor bastard what ain't got it.)

Far be it for me to suggest Summoning should be eliminated. However it does deserve some thought to make it less dominering a gambit. Casting times strike me as a good place to rein in the Mages and Summoners some. FWIW.

 

[Gamestation]

I just thought of something to help balance summoning:

The amount of life a summon starts with should be based on how much life the conjurer has left, and the temporary summons should not heal. Summoning should also lower the amount of life a conjurer has by a percentage of his current life.

My intended result would be that people can still spam summons if they think it is worth the cost but the summons get progressively weaker until it would be better just to stop for a turn to heal the worn out conjurer. Summons can still be used to weaken an opponent by attacking improvements or sacrificing them on a city you intend to attack immediately, but a person can not use them to slowly wear down the opponent's units because the summons become easier to defeat if they are summoned every turn. The risk of making the opponent stronger by "giving" them experienced units becomes apparent.

 

[Hypnotoad]

I just thought of something to help balance summoning:

The amount of life a summon starts with should be based on how much life the conjurer has left, and the temporary summons should not heal. Summoning should also lower the amount of life a conjurer has by a percentage of his current life.

I really like this idea. It's flavorful and balancing.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

I just thought of something to help balance summoning:

The amount of life a summon starts with should be based on how much life the conjurer has left, and the temporary summons should not heal. Summoning should also lower the amount of life a conjurer has by a percentage of his current life.

My intended result would be that people can still spam summons if they think it is worth the cost but the summons get progressively weaker until it would be better just to stop for a turn to heal the worn out conjurer. Summons can still be used to weaken an opponent by attacking improvements or sacrificing them on a city you intend to attack immediately, but a person can not use them to slowly wear down the opponent's units because the summons become easier to defeat if they are summoned every turn. The risk of making the opponent stronger by "giving" them experienced units becomes apparent.

This is using the noodle! This idea has potential ... perhaps require the summoning unit to "fight" the summons for a round or three to determine how much injury is sustained? Or just subtract a flat rate, say 20%(?) per summons casting. Either way, I think you are onto something.

 

[Kael]

I just thought of something to help balance summoning:

The amount of life a summon starts with should be based on how much life the conjurer has left, and the temporary summons should not heal. Summoning should also lower the amount of life a conjurer has by a percentage of his current life.

My intended result would be that people can still spam summons if they think it is worth the cost but the summons get progressively weaker until it would be better just to stop for a turn to heal the worn out conjurer. Summons can still be used to weaken an opponent by attacking improvements or sacrificing them on a city you intend to attack immediately, but a person can not use them to slowly wear down the opponent's units because the summons become easier to defeat if they are summoned every turn. The risk of making the opponent stronger by "giving" them experienced units becomes apparent.

There is no way the ai would understand this. The ai would cast himself to death.

It would be better to take it the other way and allow summoners to "charge up" in preceeding turns to use an ability to gain bonuses. Then when they cast their charge is reset and the summon gets the bonus's. And of course adjust all summones strength down so that the charged level is the current level.

But even that would further imbalance the ai and human players (because even though I could teach the ai to do that they wouldnt do it as well). But even more importantly I dont know that it makes the game more fun.

 

[Yorgos]

I just thought of something to help balance summoning:

The amount of life a summon starts with should be based on how much life the conjurer has left, and the temporary summons should not heal. Summoning should also lower the amount of life a conjurer has by a percentage of his current life.

I think that the summoning system is already balaced. Different style of players may find it very powerful or useless, but that's only a matter of approach.

But this idea may add a little flavour to the game, eg powerful summoned demons which require a sacrifice (life, xp, or even another living unit).

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

There is no way the ai would understand this. The ai would cast himself to death.

It would be better to take it the other way and allow summoners to "charge up" in preceeding turns to use an ability to gain bonuses. Then when they cast their charge is reset and the summon gets the bonus's. And of course adjust all summones strength down so that the charged level is the current level.

But even that would further imbalance the ai and human players (because even though I could teach the ai to do that they wouldnt do it as well). But even more importantly I dont know that it makes the game more fun.

Ahh, the AI. Well, a lot of ideas that sound good crash and burn when it comes to practicality.

As for why the changes would be more fun (besides personal tastes) there are three possible reasons:

1> Balance. If FfH was primarilly multiplayer then balance would be super important. But it is not the same killer issue in single player, so long as it "feels balanced" as a poster here put it once.

2> Cookie-Cutter. If one style works spectacularly well regardless of which civilization is in play, then the game loses replay value.

I don't think the issue of summoned monsters in FfH meets either of these two descriptions. I just acknowledge the possibility exists, in light of the "zero-resources-required" nature of summoned units. This is the sort of situation where players find traditionally loopholes/exploits.

3> Too Easy. I suppose in one sense this is just a restatement of possibility #2. But when it comes to the case if summoned units, in FfH, I do think they make city captures 'too easy'. I find myself able to take down even heavilly defended cities while owning quite a small army myself and quite early in the tech tree progression. I rely heavilly upon mobility and summoned cretures for cannon fodder. I've not built siege equipment since 0.15 was released. So from this respect, I think summoned units are a bit out of line WRT manufactured units.

But even so this does not mean the best approach is to aler the summoning system. If the AI was able to garrison it's cities with Longbowmen/Macemen and such, instead of Archers and Warriors and Adepts, that would make it much harder to KO the AI opponents early on.

So, no, the summoning system does not absolutely need change in order to add a bit of fun. Bit at the same time, yes, summoned units do currently detract some from the fun, because they play a big role in the early blitzkreig malady which so far continues to prevent any of those Armegeddon Wonders from coming into being.

 

[Kael]

Meanwhile I lost yet another game on Noble today playing as the Luchuirp. I was doing so good to, got Barnaxus to combat 5, Got Valin out and I was leveling him nicely. Got 3 mages who could cast fireball and a few confessors that were using defensive ring of flames.

But I just got overwhlemed by the Illians (who tried to kill Acheron with a unit with Orthus's axe and lost it to him, then came back to kill Acheron and take the axe back). Since the Illians don't really have anything special about them I know I wasn't beaten by a balance issue, but just because Im really not that good.

But it always confused when people talk about beating the AI without challenge on much higher ai settings.

I do think TGA's find on the AI attack odds is definitly helping, the ai seems to do a much better job picking its battles. The only thing I would like to see and Im not is much offensive casting. If I could get the ai to do a better job of grouping with casters and sending in lots of summons and fireballs if it has them available I would be in nirvana.

 

[Maniac]

But even so this does not mean the best approach is to aler the summoning system. If the AI was able to garrison it's cities with Longbowmen/Macemen and such, instead of Archers and Warriors and Adepts, that would make it much harder to KO the AI opponents early on.

If you want a bigger military challenge, try playing on a higher difficulty level, on a smaller map and with more AIs. Eg currently I'm playing a small map with 18 civs plus a new world setting, so one continent barb-only. My most interesting game so far.

 

[TheJopa]

Will religion civic be balanced in 0,16, it is weakest of all starting cultural civics in 0,16. And pagan temples and prophets should come earlier, I have never built them (at least prophets) Prophets should come with ancient chants or misticism.

 

[Maniac]

And pagan temples and prophets should come earlier, I have never built them (at least prophets)

Same suggestion: play on smaller maps with more AIs => earlier wars, more use for an early medic unit.

 

[Gamestation]

There is no way the ai would understand this. The ai would cast himself to death.

Why not just let the AI cheat around it then? That's how the AI lacking any real strategy gains an advantage after all. I don't think this would become an issue that the player can not overcome since the AI is pretty slow at prioritizing summoning when compared to the player who is determined to take advantage of the ability to produce units without cost.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Meanwhile I lost yet another game on Noble today playing as the Luchuirp. I was doing so good to, got Barnaxus to combat 5, Got Valin out and I was leveling him nicely. Got 3 mages who could cast fireball and a few confessors that were using defensive ring of flames.

But I just got overwhlemed by the Illians (who tried to kill Acheron with a unit with Orthus's axe and lost it to him, then came back to kill Acheron and take the axe back). Since the Illians don't really have anything special about them I know I wasn't beaten by a balance issue, but just because Im really not that good.

But it always confused when people talk about beating the AI without challenge on much higher ai settings.

I do think TGA's find on the AI attack odds is definitly helping, the ai seems to do a much better job picking its battles. The only thing I would like to see and Im not is much offensive casting. If I could get the ai to do a better job of grouping with casters and sending in lots of summons and fireballs if it has them available I would be in nirvana.

You may have fell due to the Luchuirp 'glass jaw' which I suspect exists because of their over-reliance on golems. They need some cheap units they can build rapidly just to garrison their cities. Golems are expensive to build and require a production building. Can Dwarven Slingers be made now without an Archery Range? Was that an announced change or just someone's (Woodelf's?) idea? If Dwarven Slingers could be made without an archery range, then the poor Luchuirp could raise garrison units for thier cities, and build hasty stop-gap troops during crisis.

I don't know what to say about the higher AI settings. I'm playing FfH at least three notches higher than I played CivIV. There's only one more notch left to go. Maybe it's because I play most of my games on the Fractal generator? I will fiddle with the settings more, in the spirit of M@ani@c up there. (A fitting handle, considering his game settings )

But I think a lot of it is also due to there being a large number of turns where tier-3 units overlap with tier-1 and weak tier-2 units. Archers cannot hold against Priests, Macemen, and casters. Throw in a hero or two and its time to whittle down the competition. Even the largest enemy garrison usually has only a few tough units leading the defense. Attacking towards the AI's main force accomplished two things. The AI generally stays home to defend, so it is not attacking you. And it kills off the bulk of the enemy army in the opening offensive, thus breaking the back of active resistance.

It might take a few turns to set up the death of the leading defenders. But once they are dead or sidelined it is mop-up time against the huge pile of Archers, Warriors, Adepts and whatnot. How do you do this? If you have fireballers you spam the defenders every turn, first with fireballs then with conjured critters. For especially tough cities you might devote a turn to using fireballs to reduce the defenses first. Regardless, there will come a turn where the leading defender gets bat up badly enough for your best hero or assault unit to attack and kill it. By this time collateral damage has made all the defenders weak. Generally when the most able defender or three is out of action the dam bursts. On the final assault you might even have your Adepts and other casters attacking the 0.x STR stragglers.

If you have Contagion, your job is even easier. Contagion will damage all the defenders where as fireballs often fail to damage the #1 defending unit. Plus it diseases the defenders, further weakening them. Even two such casters can bring a garrison to it's knees. Four or five of them will turn even Heavy Crossbowmen with 3 City Defense promotions into pushovers. Then the skeletons and other conjures go in to kill the diseased defenders. If you do not have Cure Disease capability, then attack from 2 tiles away, to prevent disease from preading among your non-summoned troops. If you don't have Cure Disease, it can get tricky. But isn't it worth a couple diseased units if you can crack the backs of neighboring hostile realms before they grow into real threats?

That's how most of my games go on Imperator level (or whatever it is called). But I quickly echo your comments that a more aggressive AI would change things dramatically. The only way I get away with this stuff is by leaving my own cities virtually undefended. Some cities will have just a Warrior unit, or perhaps an Adept, to meet the minimum unit requirement. If nearby non-hostile AI realms were a bit more opportunistic, they could backstab me easilly while my small army is off eating up a neighbor.

Likewise aggressive casting my the AI would likely blunt my offensives as described here. This early blitz is accomplished with a relatively small force. If the AI were better at counter-attacking my main column it would be very hard to knock out cities. While you are firebaling the city, it should be fireballing back.

Which sort of reminds me of an idea I had last night, but that's best for a new page.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Here's an idea which occured to me just last night, so my appologies in advance for any obvious flaws I've missed. Chances are it will work only under the proposed "metals" promotion system hinted at in the 0.16 changes. So at least there's plenty of time to contemplate the idea. Here it is:

1) Allow all "mundane" units to be built in any city without the need for a special building. For example, Axemen could be built in any of your cities even if it did not feature a Training Yard.

2) Keep the special building types. Cities that raise such a building will get a +% bonus when creating the cooresponding unit types. For example, a Training Yard would grant +30% production when building Axement (plus the current 1 exp).

3) Units built in cities with the correct building type would be given access to the "metals" line of promotions. Units created in cities w/o those buildings would not, as they would be presumed to be using crude gear improvised by the locals. Since the whole "metals" thing is up in the air it's hard to get more specific than that.

4) "Mundane" units are defined to be tier-1 through tier-3 without any limitations on quantity, and without any spell-casting ability at all. (Thus excluding Amurite Longbowmen and Calabim Moroi, for example.)

Rationale

First off, it sort of makes sesne that any major population center should be able to round up a bunch of ne'er-do-wells, shove some long sticks topped with pointy bits of metal into their hands, and call them Pikemen. And we've all seen enough movies to know this alone is sufficien. For if the defenders just learn to stomp down hard on the non-pointy end, and their hearts are pure, the dastardly enemy cavalry will cooperate by impaling themselves on said pointy bits. Of course The Kid who got married just this morning will bite the dust, but his death will fill the defenders' throats will cries of fury as they hack down the fleeing enemy. So of course it "makes sense" to be able to build various unit types most anywhere.

But more importantly, this will act to even the score a bit between manufactured units and summoned units. If a caster can summon a replacement unit every turn, I don't think it is unreasonable to give cities a break when it comes to building replacements for combat losses.

The easiest way to do this of course would be to simple reduce the cost for all units. And of course that is a viable option. That's why I say this more elaborate (hopefully more flavorful) option probably makes sense only if the "metals" approach is adpted n a later version. Otherwise, it's too much work compared to say a flat 25% reduction in mundane unit build costs.