FfH2 0.23 Balance Feedback

[KingOfLands]

If you were to combine Magic Resistance and Arcane I would be forced to enable the Illians in my main copy of FFH and play nothing but Auric. That'd be a heck of a combination with Philosophical: science galore. The main benefit would still be in multiplayer, of course, but it might serve to make some civs popular that weren't before.

Free Mobility or Combat I and doubled effect from Mana nodes would seem like a more interesting change to me. Arcane would still be a long run trait but it'd be much more impressive, and turning the mana nodes into a desirable resource instead of something I want just outside my fat cross would be nice.

As far as Assassins go, the best defense against them at the moment is to have your own, so far as I've been able to tell the couple of times they've cropped up in single player. This would be a lot more fun if they defended against one another, too; some sort of promotion or unit trait might help in that area.

Oh, and Jenaelha: The only AI magic use I've seen is the Balseraphs repeat-casting Dance of Blades on city defenders (which I didn't even notice until last weekend) and of course Acheron's fire breath. The AI's lack of use of magic definitely makes the traits less useful - Valledia and Tebryn are the only ones that Arcane works that well for and that because of the Cave of Ancestors and the Arcane / Summoning combo, respectively. Speaking as a guy who plays almost entirely sp, magic's useful mostly for support.

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

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.

The clan doesn't build it because they don't build mage guilds. On the other hand, barbarians can. Taking away the wonder is unfair! FIGHT FOR BARBARIAN RIGHTS! (and give Orthus a orc summoning spell)

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The clan can build the catacomb, doing so it just kinda pointless. Civs that can't build mage guilds have no prerequisite buildings for the wonder, so could possibly built it faster. I built it before when playing as them just to keep it from the Amurites and Sheaim, and for the research boost.

 

[Jono]

I'd just like to say that I think that the Mutation spell should be removed and completely replaced by the Chaos mana effect. I makes mutations way too common, while the Chaos mana keeps it to bear minimum (which should also be changed). Basically, you can't achieve anything with Chaos mana and if you do decide to go for OO, it'll wipe all of your progress with mutations away.

—Written in a hurry

 

[Micky Onimusha]

It's a minor change, but it may as well be made. Parrots still require the Carnival instead of the Hunting Lodge. I think that should be changed (especially from the Lanun's point of view but for both Parrot civs in general).

I'd also like to see an "anti-recon" line of promotions.

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?

I've noticed this to, I could swear one of my heroes lost a battle marked "100%" (and I hope I simply just misread that, I'd much rather think it was a flaw on my part than one on the part of the game). Ever since I've been paying much closer attention to combat odds and seen myself lose several combats with insane odds (and also win a few with insane odds).

[by insane odds I mean in the "0.#" range]

Not that it should be impossible mechanics wise, but sometimes it seems ridiculously unfair. Admittedly, it brings a smile to my face when my crappy half-dead Warrior destroys a suped up invading Horseman and so forth, but it also brings a "No #@%&ing way" reaction when it happens back to me. I think I support that "Make units have 1000 HP" idea posted previously, to make combat odds a bit less eccentric.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Well, any time it says 100%, that is rounding. Nothing is garunteed... though a 1 in 1000 win should not happen much, for all that it is possible.

 

[Jono]

Nonsense! I've lost battles on 99.9% odds plenty.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, 99.9% is the new 50%

 

[Sureshot]

would be nice if warriors could be made into Diseased Corpses and maybe Pyre Zombies the way Drown are made.

 

[brainpan]

Well, Aggressive is pretty useless if you don't build Melee or Mounted units.

But I sorta agree with you, and at the same time not.

I also agree/not agree. While the usefulness of Aggressive wanes slightly in middle to late game play, it is amazing in the early game. Kandros Fir can pump out units with two promotions before the orc barbarians even show up, and these can be used to great advantage.

While other leaders are encouraged to farm exerience from various AI units, Kandros--with his early potential for massive production--can largely bypass that step and directly attack human players with units fresh from the mold.

 

[Nefelia]

ya, 99.9% is the new 50%

Best odds I've managed to lose with is 98.5%. But thats been balanced with quite a few lucky battles at 50%-66%, and regular victories at 80%-95%.

Besides that one defeat with 98.5% odds, I have yet to experience a loss at anything above 98%.

 

[Jono]

I once lost a battle at 103%. But to be fair, the odds calculator was pretty messed up back then.

 

[Sureshot]

Best odds I've managed to lose with is 98.5%. But thats been balanced with quite a few lucky battles at 50%-66%, and regular victories at 80%-95%.

Besides that one defeat with 98.5% odds, I have yet to experience a loss at anything above 98%.

ive lost 4 battles at 90% in a row recently lol

 

[Jono]

Best odds I've managed to lose with is 98.5%. But thats been balanced with quite a few lucky battles at 50%-66%, and regular victories at 80%-95%.

Besides that one defeat with 98.5% odds, I have yet to experience a loss at anything above 98%.

Also, winning battles at 50% should be considered lucky.

 

[Nefelia]

Of the 5 battles I had with 50% odds in my last game, I won three. Great way to get good XP for newbie units, assuming you have the production to shrug off the inevitable losses.

 

[brainpan]

ive lost 4 battles at 90% in a row recently lol

And I have rolled seven sixes in a row on a six-sided die. I have also produced straight flushes in poker games, more than once, though I rarely play the game. I think unlikely occurrences are a normal part of life, and we tend to give them more credit than they deserve. What are the odds that I would observe a particular pebble alongside a train track in a foreign country thousands of miles from my home? It happened!

Anyway, I wouldn't presume to know more than you about the mechanics of the mod, I'm just fascinated by probability and can't resist an opportunity to talk about it.

So what is the probability of losing four 90% battles in a row? I came up with a one in ten thousand chance, but I suspect my math is off (which is highly probable ).

 

[Calavente]

losing 4 battles out of 4 (at 90%) is 1 in 10000 .. true..
but losing 4 90% battles in a row once in the middle of 100 battle is ... far more frequent : 1/100 at least or even more. but you will still pinpoint it ! (EDIT : I studied statistic a long time ago so I'm not good at it...)

 

[Sarisin]

I've lost at least a dozen battles when the combat odds in my favor were 100%. Just too many to mention at 99.9%. Sureshot is right with her comment - I honestly believe you have a 50% chance of winning battles where the odds in your favor are 90% or greater.

Please comment on the following, if you can:

I managed to get a Thai registered (English game, Thai manual) version of Beyond the Sword. It has been a long time since I tried to play a vanilla game of CIV, but I tried to play a couple using basically the same variables I use when I play FFH2 .23c.

Two things surprised me:

1. The time in between turns was A LOT faster in BtS games. Yes, I do play huge map games at Epic, but, again, the variables were the same.

2. More on-topic: I didn't lose a single battle where the combat odds in my favor were 90% or greater. Not a single battle! Compare that with FFH2 where losses under the same conditions are more frequent.

I didn't do any CSI work on the two items above, but both of these stood out. Please understand, I am in no way saying vanilla is better - far from it. But, I just wonder if anyone else has played both recently and seen anything like it.

PS. Started Age of Ice, and just lost interest quickly. Sorry, not my thing. I don't like the scenarios.

 

[jonottawa]

As far as combat odds go, they worked fine before 0.23. They're broken now. Most notably with recon units. I much preferred the old ways (scouts were too weak to survive for long in the wilderness) to the new ways (scouts are theoretically strong enough to survive most games in the wilderness (if you're careful and don't come across any giants or run into a bear before you have any upgrades) but inevitably end up dying anyway under sketchy circumstances.) And to add insult to injury, the unit that killed your scout gets the same fat XP bonus as if they actually had won an extreme longshot battle.

The odds of losing 4 90%ers in a row is indeed 1 in 10,000 but if you lose a 90%er (as we all do sometimes) the odds of losing the next 3 are 1 in a 1000, so not overwhelmingly unlikely.

 

[Jono]

Did you just say that losing on the odds of 1:999 isn't extremely unlucky? It's not like you fight over 100 battles in multiplayer games.