FfH2 0.23 Balance Feedback

[jonottawa]

The biggest change looks to be Agriculture going from +2 food to +1 food per farm. I like the change (I always switch to Agriculture early and stay there because it was so overpowered.) Maybe it could give +2 Health instead of just +1, though, to keep it from being underpowered.

 

[Jono]

What about the +1 strength to all units?

Also, agriculture should be underpowered, it's an early civic.

 

[Chip56]

What about the +1 strength to all units?

i like it.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, I'm liking it too, but Orthus needs some buffing.

 

[Grey Fox]

Agriculture isn't underpowered. It feels just about right, and now, switching to conquest actually works.

And pastures are worth the effort again.


And I also like the +1 STR to all units, I feel it makes heroic str, and some unique units strength difference less of a jump. Which is a good thing imo. I also like that it makes the Warrior versus Hunters issue less of a difference for example. The same comparison can be made on other units.


I also think that Orthus can need some buffing. Maybe give him march will be enough.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Defensive is a neat little promotion; could it be accessed from the drill line as well?

 

[Uberness]

I'd like to see horsemen pushed back a slight bit, Horseback riding is a cheap tech and you get a 3-4 movement unit while everyone is using warriors, feels abit overpowered with kurio or hippus.

Maybe lower them by a movement point or have horseback require a second tech besides animal husbandry, such as hunting or exploration to slow down the rush.

 

[Pocus]

I like the +1 change too, it introduces less of a quantic leap between each unit.

 

[marioflag]

Orthus needs some love.Before the +1 strenght change it was already weak now it's too easy to kill him.Orthus should have another +1 bonus to strrenght or the Orthus Axe should be a weapon (prize) more powerful.
About the general +1 strenght bonus to all units, it's definitely a great addon as planned it makes games a lot more balanced.

 

[Grey Fox]

I think Scouts (and Hunters) should really have a negative City Defense bonus, like -50% or something.

 

[Sureshot]

adepts were annoying shock troops before the strength increases, but now they are exceptionally annoying as such.

would be nice if they got some combat weakenings, like No-Pillaging for one, No-Terrain-Defense like mounted units, and switch them to empower promotions instead of combat.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I'll mention this, even though I know it will get fixed with BtS's decimal commerce values:
-5% maitenance for law mana is huge. It basically means -1 per city, which initially is actually more like -100% or -50%.

 

[Barlevin]

An observation (but not a criticism)

The change in agriculture would seem to have the unintended effect of encouraging the Leaves religion because the +1 food (in addition to +1 hammer) appears to be an attractive method to make up the balance.

 

[EugeneStyles]

Even with the change to Agriculture, I'm disappointed that the other Econ civics weren't changed at all. Conquest still doesn't help you very much with waging war (a -war weariness would be nice), and Mercantilism and Foreign Trade still don't help your trade very much and often actually hurt you financially.

Ag still seems like the best choice most of the time, although at least it's no longer the ONLY reasonable choice 90% of the time.

 

[Chip56]

I'll mention this, even though I know it will get fixed with BtS's decimal commerce values:
-5% maitenance for law mana is huge. It basically means -1 per city, which initially is actually more like -100% or -50%.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to multiply every commerce value with 10.
So you would gain 10 commerce from a river tile but you would also need ten times more research points, more money for upgrading, etc.
This would solve the problems with +3% doing nothing or -5% being to strong.

I also thought that it might be interesting to give all units 1000 hitpoints(if thats possible at all).
Warning! MATHEMATICS!

Spoiler :

for example a strength 5 vs strength 8:
38,5% against 61,5% hit chance
15,9 damage against 25,2 damage:
should the strength 5 unit get a lucky streak and hit you 7 times without you hiting it 4 times it would win, this would happen with a 4,4% chance.
With 1000 hits it would need 64 hits against 40.
This would happen with a 2,22*10^-5% chance

This would result in following (unless i have overseen something):
longer combat calculations -> thats bad (but i dont know how much longer it could take forever or only a second for 1000 combats)

A stronger healthy unit would win with a much higher percantage against a single enemy

However it would be much more likly to get at least some damage:
0 hits before 4 hits: 14,3% chance in this scenario.
0 hits before 40 hits: 3,6*10^-7% chance in this scenario. ->very unlikly

If you dont heal your strong units its more likly to die after more battles since you would remain with less Hp (in %) after each battle
Average HP left if wins: 66.32 /100 66,32%
Average HP left if wins: 625 / 1000 62,5%

short summary for lazy readers:
Should units have 1000 it would resulting in following:
Attacking a single strong unit with one weak one has less changes to suceed
Attacking a single strong unit with a swarm of weak one has higher changes to suceed

 

[MisterBenn]

I am also liking the +1 strength to all units. It works as advertised (less 100% odds battles) and smooths out the leap between units with particular improvement to the earliest tiers.

I'd be in favour of "Empower Spell 1-5" promotions rather than combat 1-5 for arcane units as Sureshot mentioned. So adepts don't double up as fighters as they learn to cast.

And as barely related suggestions, I'd like Forest Stealth for guardian vines and maybe treants, and perhaps City Stealth for Gargoyles!

 

[jwin]

Stealth makes units unable to efend, they just get bumpedfrom the tile. So, your gargoyles would not defend the city and your vines would be useless (since they can't attack)until they got bumped off of forest.

 

[kenken244]

for example a strength 5 vs strength 8:
38,5% against 61,5% hit chance
15,9 damage against 25,2 damage:
should the strength 5 unit get a lucky streak and hit you 7 times without you hiting it 4 times it would win, this would happen with a 4,4% chance.
With 1000 hits it would need 64 hits against 40.
This would happen with a 2,22*10^-5% chance

This would result in following (unless i have overseen something):
longer combat calculations -> thats bad (but i dont know how much longer it could take forever or only a second for 1000 combats)

A stronger healthy unit would win with a much higher percantage against a single enemy

However it would be much more likly to get at least some damage:
0 hits before 4 hits: 14,3% chance in this scenario.
0 hits before 40 hits: 3,6*10^-7% chance in this scenario. ->very unlikly

If you dont heal your strong units its more likly to die after more battles since you would remain with less Hp (in %) after each battle
Average HP left if wins: 66.32 /100 66,32%
Average HP left if wins: 625 / 1000 62,5%[/SPOILER]

short summary for lazy readers:
Should units have 1000 it would resulting in following:
Attacking a single strong unit with one weak one has less changes to suceed
Attacking a single strong unit with a swarm of weak one has higher changes to suceed

that would kill the ai since they dont wait to heal and their heroes will die even faster before they even get to use them well

 

[Chip56]

that would kill the ai since they dont wait to heal and their heroes will die even faster before they even get to use them well

They also try to swarm you...

 

[TheJopa]

I like +1 str., it's a nice change, except that I think adepts should be returned to 2 str. to solve their shock-troop usage. Amurites could get a Battlemage unit with 3 strength and 25% vs. melee.