FfH2 0.23 Balance Feedback

[onedreamer]

I would change the Dexterous promotion to +1 defense strength, because archers are defensive units and because it would differentiate it from the Sinister one.

 

[Grey Fox]

I would change the Dexterous promotion to +1 defense strength, because archers are defensive units and because it would differentiate it from the Sinister one.

No way! This way you can actually field an army of archers on the offense!

Archers of leaves are 5/4 this way, while archers are 4/5.


You should try building an army of archers + Gilden, take the Drill line till it's finished for your first 17 XP. Now that's 4-8 First strikes with Commando (which you get as Amelanchier).

I love fighting with archers offensively. (Just wish I could enchant their weapons with poison )

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

Orthus seriously needs buffing. I think he should be able to summon an orc or goblin.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I still like my way-borrowing the Hyborem/Basium death code to remove the barbarians traits, after giving them such traits as raiders, aggressive, defensive, and magic resistant.

 

[Nefelia]

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.

I disagree. Horsemen/Centaurs are now only 33% stronger than Warriors, and are more expensive to produce (more than double the cost). Also, rushing to Horseback Riding would require one to pass up other techs that are much more useful at the start of the game.

I tend to put Horseback Riding off until I have the techs that will allow me to establish a decent early-game economy (Mysticism, Festivals) and improve my land/happiness (Mining with Gold/Gems, Crafting, Calander). Centaurs only affwct my game-play by allowing me to ignore Hunting, using Centaurs as explorers instead of the traditional Hunters.

 

[Nefelia]

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

Hunters are the only early units that can stop (or at least slow) my Shock II Warriors from decimating any and all cities I wish to take.

I've never understood the general complaint about Hunters and their role as city defenders. Early conquest is very easy already, maybe even too easy.

 

[Grey Fox]

I can agree that Shock II is nicely countered by Hunters, but then I also think that Shock II is a bit too easy to get, at least with Raging barbarians and an aggressive or raiders leader (Tasunke omg! ).

But the thing is, Hunters are mobile, they can get the Warriors in the field, they can defend against them in the field.

In some way I hate how they stop the warrior era so early.

 

[xanaqui42]

My main comment is that Scouts are far stronger due to the +1 Str change. Now with Combat III, they have good chances against a Warrior with no promotions (they used to need roughly Combat V for worse odds).

 

[Frozen-Vomit]

The barbarioans build catacomb librarus in my current game. If I remember correctly the clan can't build it so i guess this resriction should be applied to the barbarians too.

 

[Sureshot]

might be wise to remove the ability for warriors to get Shock2, archers are unable to get cover2, and mounted units are unable to get Formation2

personally i always thought hunters should be in tracking, but they don't annoy me as much as adepts now.

im hoping with bts that some of the promotions from warlords will be used along with new ones to counter things. like the anti-siege one. id like to see atleast the anti-arcane readded to Magic Resistant, and maybe add like +20% versus recon on Formation2 or some such.

 

[Nefelia]

I can agree that Shock II is nicely countered by Hunters, but then I also think that Shock II is a bit too easy to get, at least with Raging barbarians and an aggressive or raiders leader (Tasunke omg! ).

But the thing is, Hunters are mobile, they can get the Warriors in the field, they can defend against them in the field.

In some way I hate how they stop the warrior era so early.

I believe that dynamic has changed due to the +1 Strength to all units. The Hunter's strength advantage is no longer as significant, and Hunters are no longer so clearly superior to Warriors as city defenders as they were before:

Warrior: 3 * 1.25 (City Defence) * 1.25 (Fortified) = 4.5 Strength
Hunter: 4 * 1.25 (Fortified) = 5 Srength

Not much of a difference for a unit that costs twice as much to build.


Edit:

"In some way I hate how they stop the warrior era so early."

I believe the Warrior's ability to use Bronze/Iron/Mithryl weapons already extends the Warrior era quite nicely. Veteran Warriors with Bronze weapons may not have the movement that Horsemen and Hunters do, but those that survived a few dozen turns will have a combat advantage over fresher Tier II units.

 

[TheBoatman]

My main comment is that Scouts are far stronger due to the +1 Str change. Now with Combat III, they have good chances against a Warrior with no promotions (they used to need roughly Combat V for worse odds).

True. I've seen the AI conquer freshly built barb cities (with orc warriors inside) with C5 scouts.

 

[Uberness]

I love fighting with archers offensively. (Just wish I could enchant their weapons with poison )

I had an idea of first strike promotions allowing a promotion for archers to be able to poison there own weapons for a combat round.
(Promotion unlocked at... get ready for this... the poison tech.)

I disagree. Horsemen/Centaurs are now only 33% stronger than Warriors, and are more expensive to produce (more than double the cost). Also, rushing to Horseback Riding would require one to pass up other techs that are much more useful at the start of the game.

It's really only a problem with Kurio and Hippus since they can get aggressive or aggressive/raider and who have agriculture as a starting tech, having animal husbandry available to research right away, and farms to be able to improve there land right away, it really doesn't hurt your early economy much since horseback riding is pretty cheap and being able to build farms.

And aggressive horsemen or aggressive centaurs which can hide in forests with defense bonuses are a major early powerhouse, with little counter, since they can just run away and promote if they take any damage.

 

[Nefelia]

I had an idea of first strike promotions allowing a promotion for archers to be able to poison there own weapons for a combat round.
(Promotion unlocked at... get ready for this... the poison tech.)




It's really only a problem with Kurio and Hippus since they can get aggressive or aggressive/raider and who have agriculture as a starting tech, having animal husbandry available to research right away, and farms to be able to improve there land right away, it really doesn't hurt your early economy much since horseback riding is pretty cheap and being able to build farms.

And aggressive horsemen or aggressive centaurs which can hide in forests with defense bonuses are a major early powerhouse, with little counter, since they can just run away and promote if they take any damage.

How does Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Horseback Riding help your economy? While you focus on those techs, you will be neglecting those that allow you to increase your /. Rushing Horseback Riding may give you a minor military advantage on dual (and maybe small) maps, but on the larger maps you will be shooting yourself in the foot by giving the other civs an early tech advantage.

In my mind rushing Horseback Riding is a trade-off: fleeting military advantage in exchange for slower research/development. Its a trade-off I consider when playing Kuriotates but ultimately reject. Still, theres no reason to deny others the choice.

 

[KingOfLands]

How does Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Horseback Riding help your economy?

Agriculture lets you support your population using fewer tiles for food production, which means you can work more -heavy tiles if you happen to have them. So does Animal Husbandry if you happen to have cows/pigs/sheep around. That you'll be growing the city faster, and thus working more tiles sooner in general, doesn't hurt either.

Of course, you still need or around to see much effect in those areas, and may need improvements from other sources to get them, but faster growth is a big help.

Horseback Riding does not, so far as I can tell, help your economy except indirectly via pillaging things. I tend to ignore it but I haven't played Kuriotates or Hippus yet and that'll no doubt change if I do.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The civilizations who can't build mage guilds can build the Catacomb without requiring this prerequisite building, but, since they don't need the free building tat it grants, it isn't always the best idea. (I'm assume it is still the same as in earlier versions, I don't have .23 yet, since I'm stuck with dial-up for about another month)

 

[Sarisin]

Has anyone else found themselves losing strong defenders to comparatively weak attackers in .23? I certainly have in my first game. Consider the following 4 examples:

In the first three, my defender was taken out by a plain old barbarian Lizardman with no promotions.

1. Fortified Hunter (with 2 workers) building a farm on a grasslands tile. The Hunter had over 120 XP (I'm playing Hannah the Irin with the Raiders trait), and many promotions.

2. Curley, one of the Hill Giants. He was on an Ancient Forest 50% defensive tile. He had Combat V, Orcish, and Woodsman. Not fortified.

3. The worst...A Hunter with more than 140 XP. Fortifed on a 75% defensive tile. He had Combat V, Woodsman, Hill Defense, and an Extra First Strike.

All three killed by a single barb Lizardman!

4. This was really bizarre: I had a Warrior (Combat V, Orcish, Woodsman) fortified on an Ancient Forest tile. On the same tile I had a Swordsman (Combat V, Orcish) also fortified. Two Lizardmen and a Goblin attacked. The two Lizardmen were killed by the defending Swordsman, but then the $#@! Goblin killed the Swordsman, presumably while the Warrior enjoyed watching the whole thing. Why didn't the Warrior defend against the Goblin?

The most maddening thing about this game/mod has been the whacky combat odds when attacking. However, now, based on losing these four powerful units to weak units, I have to wonder about the defending odds.

I mean in the first three examples above, wouldn't you think (especially on #3) that the attacking odds for the barb Lizardman could have been no more than 0.00%???

I realize there have been some changes to the strengths of units, but I cannot see how it would affect these defensive losses.

Am I going to have to Quick Save now after every turn to avoid something like this from happening?

 

[Nefelia]

Sarasin, add this example to your list:

Warrior with Combat V and Shock II, carrying Orthus' Axe. Killed by 1 Barbarian Warrior and 1 Barbarian Goblin. I don't think they had any promotions on them.

 

[onedreamer]

No way! This way you can actually field an army of archers on the offense!

Archers of leaves are 5/4 this way, while archers are 4/5.


You should try building an army of archers + Gilden, take the Drill line till it's finished for your first 17 XP. Now that's 4-8 First strikes with Commando (which you get as Amelanchier).

I love fighting with archers offensively. (Just wish I could enchant their weapons with poison )

You may love attacking with them but it still would make more sense to have a defensive bonus, for example they can't get the city raze promotions, which means you're unlikely to attack a city with them and need to make melee units for that, archers IMO are good as an escort to these units and as a defense in your forested elven borders. Well, except for Flurry.

 

[Gamestation]

Has anyone else found themselves losing strong defenders to comparatively weak attackers in .23? I certainly have in my first game. Consider the following 4 examples:

In the first three, my defender was taken out by a plain old barbarian Lizardman with no promotions.

1. Fortified Hunter (with 2 workers) building a farm on a grasslands tile. The Hunter had over 120 XP (I'm playing Hannah the Irin with the Raiders trait), and many promotions.

2. Curley, one of the Hill Giants. He was on an Ancient Forest 50% defensive tile. He had Combat V, Orcish, and Woodsman. Not fortified.

3. The worst...A Hunter with more than 140 XP. Fortifed on a 75% defensive tile. He had Combat V, Woodsman, Hill Defense, and an Extra First Strike.

All three killed by a single barb Lizardman!

4. This was really bizarre: I had a Warrior (Combat V, Orcish, Woodsman) fortified on an Ancient Forest tile. On the same tile I had a Swordsman (Combat V, Orcish) also fortified. Two Lizardmen and a Goblin attacked. The two Lizardmen were killed by the defending Swordsman, but then the $#@! Goblin killed the Swordsman, presumably while the Warrior enjoyed watching the whole thing. Why didn't the Warrior defend against the Goblin?

The most maddening thing about this game/mod has been the whacky combat odds when attacking. However, now, based on losing these four powerful units to weak units, I have to wonder about the defending odds.

I mean in the first three examples above, wouldn't you think (especially on #3) that the attacking odds for the barb Lizardman could have been no more than 0.00%???

I realize there have been some changes to the strengths of units, but I cannot see how it would affect these defensive losses.

Am I going to have to Quick Save now after every turn to avoid something like this from happening?

Sarasin, add this example to your list:

Warrior with Combat V and Shock II, carrying Orthus' Axe. Killed by 1 Barbarian Warrior and 1 Barbarian Goblin. I don't think they had any promotions on them.

Might be the bug that does not allow combat promotions to help while defending. Did you check the combat logs to see if your units were getting their strength doubled by combat V?