FfH2 0.23 Balance Feedback

[Grey Fox]

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.

I have to disagree. They may be an unconventional city attacker, but just cause they don't get the city raider promotion line doesn't make them an impossible choice when attacking a city.

They are the only class that can get the drill line, which is just excellent.

I would actually rather use them as the killers while using melee as the softeners. Or preferably Horsemen as the softeners with flanking II or III (so 15-25% would retreat).

And it could be argued that +1 defense on archery units could make them a wee bit too good on the defense. I like that they can use archery units more offensively. (And as I've said before, archer of leaves becomes 5/4 and archer 4/5 - making archer of leaves actually useful)

 

[Sarisin]

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?

I didn't, but with all the other promotions (Orcish, woodsmen, Hills defense, etc.), you still have to wonder how the plain ole Lizardman could kill a fortified Hunter.

Here's another one and promotions have nothing to do with it:

I had a Treant pop up in my Ancient Forest to defend. I killed a Goblin with it. The next turn a barb Lizardman kills the Treant! I'm sure the Treant didn't take that much damage killing the Goblin, yet gets killed by the Lizardman???

 

[Uberness]

Just try playing kurio or hippus on a land map of any size at noble/monarch/emperor quick or normal speed and see how the early horseback does, then imagine how it works in multiplayer, just asking for exploration so they need roads to start making centaurs/horsemen like any other civ that needs to hook up a pasture (chariots needed wheel back in vanillia) so they might be put back enough that you won't be able to get them quick enough without sacrificing your economy.

I recently played a Ljosalfar game and here is my experience with archers.

For the elven archer's it's a decent boost for 4/5, but a bronze warrior is 4 strength so it does the same if not better job attacking better promotion options and cheaper) and a swordsman which costs the exact same as a archer does pretty much the same job defending and better on the attack, and much cheaper and stronger on the defense then a archer of leaves.

And when smelting comes around, the archers are obsolete if you got iron, very close to obsolete if you got bronze, being able to make warriors which are just as good on the defense or offense.

Just feels like there should be a way to improve the early archers besides a mage with flaming arrows, like a tech between archery and bowyers that boosts archers or make them cheaper.

 

[it-ogo]

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.

No problem to capture a city with a promoted Giant Spider but to defend... Horrible! I believe any invisability should be switchable. Variant: stealth units may both fortify and sleep. Fortify means it will keep the ground, sleep means runaway from enemy if not seen.

 

[Nefelia]

Just try playing kurio or hippus on a land map of any size at noble/monarch/emperor quick or normal speed and see how the early horseback does, then imagine how it works in multiplayer, just asking for exploration so they need roads to start making centaurs/horsemen like any other civ that needs to hook up a pasture (chariots needed wheel back in vanillia) so they might be put back enough that you won't be able to get them quick enough without sacrificing your economy.

I recently played a Ljosalfar game and here is my experience with archers.

For the elven archer's it's a decent boost for 4/5, but a bronze warrior is 4 strength so it does the same if not better job attacking better promotion options and cheaper) and a swordsman which costs the exact same as a archer does pretty much the same job defending and better on the attack, and much cheaper and stronger on the defense then a archer of leaves.

And when smelting comes around, the archers are obsolete if you got iron, very close to obsolete if you got bronze, being able to make warriors which are just as good on the defense or offense.

Just feels like there should be a way to improve the early archers besides a mage with flaming arrows, like a tech between archery and bowyers that boosts archers or make them cheaper.

Currently playing Kuriotates on Huge map, Epic speed, Emperor difficulty.

I am at War with Capria, who has a score roughtly 40% higher than mine, and a much higher power rating. Capria has Warriors, Axemen, and Hunters while I have Centaurs and Warriors.

My Centaurs do not yet have the XP to be as effective as my older Warriors, and serve largely as escorts for my attack groups. The one city I have taken so far was the result of Shock II Warriors. Capria has more Hunter defenders now, so I am currently rushing Warfare (which got me Bronze Working as well) to pump out City Raider I Warriors as city softeners in my capital city. It takes one or two turns to pump out each Warrior, in contrast to three or four for each Centaur.

My captured Goblin worker will finish mining my Copper in 3 Turns. My Capital City will build a Forge in 6 Turns. Warfare will be researched in 8 turns. So in 8 turns I will be producing Stength 4 Warriors with City Raider I promotion. Looks like my my Centaurs will be shifted to domestic defence.

 

[TeraHammer]

Last night i had a doviello game, and had iron connected.
Now I had the choice, do I go for beastmen (3+2 strenght, 25 ), or do I go for axemen (4+2 strenght, 60 ) ? The choice is obvious and I dont like it.

What I would like to see to solve it is that bronze and iron weapons give percentage bonusses, not strenght power. For example, bronze weapons give a +25% bonus, iron weapons give 50% bonus, mythril 100%. This will better keep the balance between macemen / axemen / warriors in my opinion. In my example, beastmen would get 4,5 and axemen 6.

If I had mythril, this balance would even more wrong. Beastmen (7 str) would be nearly as equal as axes (8 str), and this for half the hammers.

An other option would be to decrease the costs for axemen.


(btw, Mahala (Rai/Ing) owns, build beastmen, plunder enemies, upgrade beastmen to axemen, plunder some more, upgrade more beastmen = a big war machine)

 

[Grey Fox]

(btw, Mahala (Rai/Ing) owns, build beastmen, plunder enemies, upgrade beastmen to axemen, plunder some more, upgrade more beastmen = a big war machine)

Yeah I know! My quickest win ever was with Mahala. I just declared war the first moment I saw my fellow civs, on ALL of them! I put my beastmen in locations to block them out from my part of my continent, and moved others to pillage their cities. And limit their city expansion.

Once I had Axemen the fight was over for the enemy. I think I won before it turned to year 200.

I think Charadon might work well too as he can work together with the barbarians. But then he won't have the XP farm that the Raider/Ing Mahala does, nor the cheap upgrades.

 

[TeraHammer]

Charadon isnt as good, because the upgrades costs more money, and you'll get less money from plunder. Besides, barbs give good exp.

I do like the fact that doviello hasnt got a starting tech. That's fair.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Last night i had a doviello game, and had iron connected.
Now I had the choice, do I go for beastmen (3+2 strenght, 25 ), or do I go for axemen (4+2 strenght, 60 ) ? The choice is obvious and I dont like it.

What I would like to see to solve it is that bronze and iron weapons give percentage bonusses, not strenght power. For example, bronze weapons give a +25% bonus, iron weapons give 50% bonus, mythril 100%. This will better keep the balance between macemen / axemen / warriors in my opinion. In my example, beastmen would get 4,5 and axemen 6.

If I had mythril, this balance would even more wrong. Beastmen (7 str) would be nearly as equal as axes (8 str), and this for half the hammers.

An other option would be to decrease the costs for axemen.


(btw, Mahala (Rai/Ing) owns, build beastmen, plunder enemies, upgrade beastmen to axemen, plunder some more, upgrade more beastmen = a big war machine)

I believe warriors aren't allowed to get mithril weapons as things stand. Still, I am of the opinion that they shouldn't be able to get iron weapons either, and that swordsmen as well should be forbidden from getting mithril weapons.

 

[Sarisin]

Charadon isnt as good, because the upgrades costs more money, and you'll get less money from plunder. Besides, barbs give good exp.

I do like the fact that doviello hasnt got a starting tech. That's fair.

I played a game with Charadon, and I was able to rack up the XP (but not exceed 100) by killing the plentiful animals, but not declaring war on the barbs. Then, when I had a chance to declare war on an AI civ, I did...more XP, this time exceeding the 100 XP threshold.

I was having a grand ole time with the barbs as my allies and loved it when the Four Horsemen appeared. However, it all came crashing down when the Avatar of Wrath showed up with his army and I was declared 'too civilized.'

 

[TeraHammer]

In most of my games barbarians arent very common (small maps), allthough I do play on raging barbs, so I'd pick the unique combo of Rai/Ing anytime over Agg/bar. Besides, I like the get the axe and barbs give good exp overall!
Really, I would wish that there were more barbs sometimes (except lyzardmen) to get me some more exp.

I believe warriors aren't allowed to get mithril weapons as things stand. Still, I am of the opinion that they shouldn't be able to get iron weapons either, and that swordsmen as well should be forbidden from getting mithril weapons.

Ah that would be more fair, but not more realistic.
Give me a mythril sword and I'll deliver you more damage than I would do with a bronze sword, allthough I am not skilled in the arts of fighting at all.

 

[Ringtailed]

I think that melee units should be limited to the weapon promotion that brings them up to their old strength from before the metal system. Ie: warriors get no weapon promotions, axemen get bronze, macemen get the ability to use bronze or iron, and the t4's can use bronze or iron or mithril.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Ah that would be more fair, but not more realistic.
Give me a mythril sword and I'll deliver you more damage than I would do with a bronze sword, allthough I am not skilled in the arts of fighting at all.

I'm not so sure. An iron club may be only slightly better than a bronze one, and a mithril sword may be only slightly better than an iron one. Once a weapon has all the functionality it's likely to get, making it of better metals might not make its wielder any more effective.

I think that melee units should be limited to the weapon promotion that brings them up to their old strength from before the metal system. Ie: warriors get no weapon promotions, axemen get bronze, macemen get the ability to use bronze or iron, and the t4's can use bronze or iron or mithril.

That's going too far, in my opinion. It also introduces the lategame situation where you may have mithril but not iron, and thus your national units are quite strong while your mass-produced tier-3 ones are useless. Bronze warriors, iron axemen, and mithril macemen aren't a balance issue at all, in my opinion, especially with the increased strength values post-patch.

 

[Nefelia]

I'm not so sure. An iron club may be only slightly better than a bronze one, and a mithril sword may be only slightly better than an iron one. Once a weapon has all the functionality it's likely to get, making it of better metals might not make its wielder any more effective.
That's going too far, in my opinion. It also introduces the lategame situation where you may have mithril but not iron, and thus your national units are quite strong while your mass-produced tier-3 ones are useless. Bronze warriors, iron axemen, and mithril macemen aren't a balance issue at all, in my opinion, especially with the increased strength values post-patch.

History shows that factions with Iron weapons had a significant advantage over those with Bronze, or no metal working at all. It is easier to peirce bronze armour with an iron weapon than vice versa.

2 Warriors can be built for every 1 Axemen. I've used that to my advantage in my current game: I manager to get Form of the Titans built, so for a while I was pumping a warrior with Bronze Waepons and City Raider I & II every turn from my capital city. Even cities with Archers easily fell to my Horde. Of course, I couldn't defend the cities I had taken, since my rush to Warfare delayed my access to Archers for an intolerably long time. Besides, my economy has suffered greatly as a result.

Maybe Axemen can be given something else in addition to their +10% City Attack to make them more attractive? I would be tempted to slap on +25% vrs Recon just to mollify those complaining about defending Hunters messing up their conquests. That would make Axemen a niche solution to the 'problem' of Hunters defending cities, without having to nerf Hunters directly. Failing that, I'm sure others can think of suitable ways to beef Axemen in a balanced way. Other Tier 2 Units come at a similar price but with better starting properties (be it movement points, bonus attributes, or both).

 

[Grey Fox]

History shows that factions with Iron weapons had a significant advantage over those with Bronze, or no metal working at all. It is easier to peirce bronze armour with an iron weapon than vice versa.

Actually, no.

Bronze is stronger (harder)[1] than wrought iron, but the Bronze Age gave way to the Iron Age. That may have been because the shipping of tin around the Mediterranean (or from Great Britain) became more limited during the major population migrations around 1200 – 1100 BC, which dramatically limited supplies and raised prices [2]. Bronze was still used during the Iron Age, but for many purposes the weaker wrought iron was found to be sufficiently strong. As ironworking improved, iron became cheaper, and people figured out how to make steel, which is stronger than bronze, holding a sharper edge longer.[3]

With the exception of steel, bronze is superior to iron in nearly every application. Although bronze develops a patina, it does not oxidize beyond the surface. It is considerably less brittle than iron and has a lower casting temperature.

Only time iron is stronger is when you make steel out of it. That iron is stronger in the game (and why it replaced copper in real life) is cause Iron is more readily available and cause Bronze is a combination of two materials both more expensive (at the time) than iron. Egypt for instance, could afford to use copper weapons with most of their army.

 

[Uberness]

Might be a decent idea to adjust the production costs of the early unit's most likely.

Now, am only familar with quick speed, and mainly play online, but you had 10 production warriors, 16 production chariots and archers, and 23 production axes/spears and 26 production swords/cata with 33 production for longbowmen and 40 for elephants.

There was variety, and options for diffient situations, like building a archer in place on a axeman because it would come out just fast enough to defend, or because you could send two to kill off one chariot.

Basicly what am trying to say, is some of the early unit's could do to be alittle cheaper, like instead of a archer being 60 production on normal, it turns into 30 or 40... for a axeman 48ish a hunter 56ish and a horseman stays around 60 (got to feed the horse -and- the man)

Sound any good?

 

[Nefelia]

Actually, no.


Only time iron is stronger is when you make steel out of it. That iron is stronger in the game (and why it replaced copper in real life) is cause Iron is more readily available and cause Bronze is a combination of two materials both more expensive (at the time) than iron. Egypt for instance, could afford to use copper weapons with most of their army.

Its not easy to find reliable information on a short lunch break.

Iron allowed some ancient civilizations to discover steel-making, at least enought to form a steel skin over the core of wrought iron weapons. That was enough to produce weapons superior to their bronze counterparts.

In the game itself, I would consider Iron Weapons to be the earlier, imperfect versions of steel weapons.

From http://www.3rd1000.com/history/ancients.htm

Spoiler :

The secret of smelting iron was finally stumbled upon in eastern Asia Minor, perhaps as early as 1500 B.C. The Hittites, a people who built a great empire in Asia Minor, were the first to use iron routinely for tools. Letters dated about 1280 B.C., from a Hittite king to his viceroy in an iron-rich mountain region, make definite references to iron production.

Iron in pure form (wrought iron) is not very hard. However, an iron implement or weapon may pick up enough carbon from charcoal to form a surface layer of the iron-carbon alloy we call steel. This skin is harder than even the best bronze, and hold a sharper edge longer. It was this discovery of "steeling" in Hittite territory that was the crucial turning point in iron metallurgy. an army clad in hard iron and armed with hard iron was reasonably sure to defeat another army clad in and armed with bronze. Thus came the Iron Age.

The Dorians, a barbaric Greek tribe equipped with some iron weapons, invaded the Greek peninsula from the north in about 1100 B.C. and gradually overcame the more civilized but only bronze-armed Mycenaean Greeks who were already on the scene. Some Greeks penetrated to Canaan and brought iron weapons with them. These were the Philistines, who play so important a role in the early books of the Bible. Against them the Israelites were helpless until they obtained iron weapons for themselves under King Saul.

The first army to be equipped with good iron weapons in quantity was the Assyrian. By 900 B.C. superior armament helped them to build a mighty empire for themselves.

From http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/reference/plambeck/chem2/p02263.htm

Spoiler :

In the ancient world, steel was generally made by a process called carburization, or cementation, which is a repeated heating and hammering of iron in contact with charcoal, thus converting at least the casing of the metal to steel. This process was known by about 1200 BC, in Egypt. At Noricum, smelting yielded steel directly because iron carbonate ore such as that found there can produce it; the ore naturally contained some manganese so an alloy steel, and a good one, was obtained. A modern alloy steel, stainless steel, contains 0.4% carbon, 18% chromium, and 1% nickel. Noricum had 3 to 6-foot shaft furnaces with forced draft and some control of the degree of carbonization. The slags there from the ancient works total about 100 Gg (100,000 metric tons) which would correspond to about 30 Gg of iron or steel actually produced.

The steel produced by this process is somewhat variable in hardness, or ability to take and hold a sharp edge. The process of quenching, which is the preservation of the high-temperature crystal structure of steel by suddenly cooling it in water or oil, gives a much harder material, though somewhat more brittle. This process was known, at least in Egypt, by 900 - 700 BC.

Steel can be improved further by the process of tempering, in which the steel is heated for some time at a moderate temperature and then cooled slowly rather than quickly. Some hardness is sacrificed but tempering gives a better toughness. Tempering did not come into use until Roman times; in Egypt, it can be dated to about 200 BC.

 

[Uberness]

Just a suggestion.

What if Sacrifice the Weak was a evil only civic, much like public healers is a good only civic, adopting the Ashen Veil if your neutral will make you evil, if you adopt it as good it will turn you neutral, to become fully evil you need to research Corruption of Spirit to become evil and able to use sacrifice the weak, would stop good civs like kurio or malakim from suddenly being evil with a big economy advantage.

 

[Grey Fox]

Is there any reason for Arate to be +20% and not +25%?

Atm the combined bonus of civics often add up to an uneven amount (+95% for instance) making the Arate bonus non-existant in many situations.

For example; if you have 3 the +95% would boost it to 5 - but so would +75% do. The same is true with 4 .

Even when you do get a difference between +95% and +75% it's not 20% difference.

So therefor I suggest Arate to change to +25% . Not a big change, just to keep it inline with the other Civic bonuses (since they are combined before multiplied).

 

[Sureshot]

change Arete too!

tho it does matter when you have a ton of specialists mixed with wonders (10 points means an extra 2 from arete, which happens a lot with wonder-specialist combos)

its too bad you can't use Arete with sacrifice the weak so theyd cancel out heh