"Fire" Developer Diary

[R0GERSHRUBBER]

A maceman has a base strength of 5 with the change. He used to be 7. So he gets 2 points taken off because its assumed he has iron (which would return him to his balanced strength of 7). Or 6 if the civ only had copper (but they could still build macemen), or 9 if they had mithril.

I don't think it plays with balance that much. If they had the required materials from the "Light" version" they will be exactly as they were before. But they do have other options now.

I enjoyed this mechanic when I first played the Doviello in Light, and I considered the application of it to all Civs at the time. Although it was acceptable for the Doviello, who lacked any other real strengths, I concluded it would cause balance issues when applied to all Civs (even in the manner Kael has suggested).

The real issue is that this upsets the balance between Melee units and non-Melee units (particularly the Disciple and Recon units which function like Melee units).

For example, a Warrior with Mithril (25 H) is as strong as a Crusader/Paramander (120 H), Longbow (120 H), Crossbowman (120 H), Ranger (150 H), Chariot (120 H), and Monk (120 H) at 17-21% of the cost. It's hard to imagine building an Arquebus (180 H) for 50% more than a Maceman with Mithril (120 H) who even gets a bonus versus other Melee units.

Also, what will you do for Luchuirp golems that don't require metals (Wood, Nullstone, Gargoyle, Arcane, etc.) and Vampires? What about Soldier of Kilmorphs or Drowns with Mithril that upgrade into Paladins and Eidolons respectively (with either 15 or 17 Str depending on how the promotions are coded)? How about units that get magical weapons (like Orthus' Axe)?

There are a number of ways to resolve this:

1. Allow non-Melee units to benefit from improved weapon materials, either fully or in a reduced capacity.
2. Limit the extent of weapon materials upgrades to 1 or 2 categories more than the unit would normally have (ie. no Mithril for Axemen or Warriors.)
3. Make older units (Warriors, Axemen, etc.) obsolete with newer units.
4. Adjust the build costs of units to reflect the new balance.
5. Do away with the weapon materials mechanic entirely.

My preference is either the first or the last. Many of the Archery, Mounted, and Disciple units already have material requirements, and most use weapons that could conceivably be improved in this manner. I see no real reason to exclude Recon units, and a case could be made for some Arcane, Siege, and Naval units as well.

Of course, until we actually play Fire, we won't know with certainty how this balances out. Still, I expect that this mechanic will be under serious review after we've had some quality time with Fire.

 

[Kael]

Thats cool, that review and feedback is exactly what I am hoping for.

Incidently Warriors can never upgrade to Mithril weapons.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I think it would make sense for warriors to be limited to bronze weapons, axemen to be limited to iron, and for higher tier units to have no limit. (Edit: Whoops, crosspost)

For example, a Warrior with Mithril (25 H) is as strong as a Crusader/Paramander (120 H), Longbow (120 H), Crossbowman (120 H), Ranger (150 H), Chariot (120 H), and Monk (120 H) at 17-21% of the cost. It's hard to imagine building an Arquebus (180 H) for 50% more than a Maceman with Mithril (120 H) who even gets a bonus versus other Melee units.

Keep in mind that mithril is very rare and tough to obtain. I envision big wars being fought upon the invention of Metal Casting (that is when mithril will be revealed with the new tech tree, right?), as Civs try to secure a mithril resource.

 

[Bad Player]

In multiplayer when the Armageddon counter rises are there any in-built mechanics that would encourage good civs to team up and evil civs to team up? I realise in solo against AI there are diplomatic bonuses and penalties as the Armageddon counter rises to cause this to happen but human players won't necessarily follow that obviously without mechanics to encourage them.

 

[Kael]

In multiplayer when the Armageddon counter rises are there any in-built mechanics that would encourage good civs to team up and evil civs to team up? I realise in solo against AI there are diplomatic bonuses and penalties as the Armageddon counter rises to cause this to happen but human players won't necessarily follow that obviously without mechanics to encourage them.

In a game with all human players there isnt any hard limit. Some civs do better with a high armageddon count. Any civ that follows the ashen veil will do better on hell terrain than anyone else.

So in general evil human players will try to raise the counter and good human players will try to lower it. Humans arent forced into these roles, but it should be a decent incentive.

 

[Bad Player]

Here's a crazy idea for the Doviello which might be a little too complex, but anyway: since they're supposed to be Barbarians, it makes sense to make their pillaging more meaningful. So how about if they pillage a mine on some resource, they have access to that resource for x rounds? Meaning a doviello player with enough money in the bank can raid enemy territory, pillage an iron mine, and quickly upgrade a bunch of units.

I like that idea it fits in well with their "viking raider" theme.

 

[Bad Player]

In a game with all human players there isnt any hard limit. Some civs do better with a high armageddon count. Any civ that follows the ashen veil will do better on hell terrain than anyone else.

So in general evil human players will try to raise the counter and good human players will try to lower it. Humans arent forced into these roles, but it should be a decent incentive.

I meant is there any incentive for the good human players to band together as the counter rises and conversely any incentive for evil human players to band together as the counter rises.

EDIT: Sort of see what you're saying

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I meant is there any incentive for the good human players to band together as the counter rises and conversely any incentive for evil human players to band together as the counter rises.

I don't know that there needs to be; human players can be focused on winning and see the big picture strategy, so there are meta-incentives to team up or not; to gang up on the leader, make bargains, etc.

The AI can't see the big picture, so they need hard coded advantages to form coalitions.

However, something I think would be interesting is team bonues, like in AoE 2, where each faction gives a bonus to others on it's team. Might be fun to import that here.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

However, something I think would be interesting is team bonues, like in AoE 2, where each faction gives a bonus to others on it's team. Might be fun to import that here.

Ah, that sounds nice. Might not have to go into a Civ-by-Civ type of thing here, but Good leaders might get a bonus for warring on the side of other Good leaders, Neutrals might get the same bonus for helping Neutrals, etc.

 

[MrUnderhill]

1. Allow non-Melee units to benefit from improved weapon materials, either fully or in a reduced capacity.
2. Limit the extent of weapon materials upgrades to 1 or 2 categories more than the unit would normally have (ie. no Mithril for Axemen or Warriors.)
3. Make older units (Warriors, Axemen, etc.) obsolete with newer units.
4. Adjust the build costs of units to reflect the new balance.
5. Do away with the weapon materials mechanic entirely.

There is another option. Instead of giving the material promotions out for free, we could have them set up as abilities that cost money, like a combination between Drown and the Ship Crews.

Unlike the crews, there's a definite line of progression from Bronze->Iron->Mithril, so there's no risk of the AI looping itself into bankruptcy (and still they can be "taught" to use the promotions wisely via the requirement script), and it would keep the Doviello unique because they would still get the promotions for free while everyone else pays for them.

Perhaps a self-balance could be implemented so that more units that cost more would get a discount on the promotions, while cheaper units would have to pay full price. That way, while you COULD have an army of mithril-armed warriors, your economy would be a train wreck, to the point where it might be more cost-effective to just build/upgrade to the more advanced units and buy the promotions later.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

There is another option. Instead of giving the material promotions out for free, we could have them set up as abilities that cost money, like a combination between Drown and the Ship Crews.

Unlike the crews, there's a definite line of progression from Bronze->Iron->Mithril, so there's no risk of the AI looping itself into bankruptcy (and still they can be "taught" to use the promotions wisely via the requirement script), and it would keep the Doviello unique because they would still get the promotions for free while everyone else pays for them.

Perhaps a self-balance could be implemented so that more units that cost more would get a discount on the promotions, while cheaper units would have to pay full price. That way, while you COULD have an army of mithril-armed warriors, your economy would be a train wreck, to the point where it might be more cost-effective to just build/upgrade to the more advanced units and buy the promotions later.

I was going to suggest this myself, but the last paragraph is where it runs into trouble. It seems like it would be tough to scale the costs based on the unit you're giving the weapons to.

 

[MrUnderhill]

Spoiler :

Not really. Here's a formula that could work:
End Price = Base Cost (say 100 for Bronze, 200 for Iron, and 400 for Mithril) - Unit Cost, to a minimum of 0.
Promotions with 0 cost would be auto-gained like how the Doviello get them.

That way a Warrior (25 ) would pay 75 gold for Bronze Weapons, 175 for Iron, and 375 for Mithril.
A Maceman (120 ) would get Bronze Weapons for free, pay 80 for Iron, and 280 for Mithril. That seems fair, I think.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, paid weapons promotions wouldn't be much better than unit upgrades. The reason they worked so well for the Doviello was because they were free. There's very little to distinguish a Warrior with Iron Weapons from an Axeman, and if they both cost the same amount of gold, the Axeman would be the better option because it would be less expensive to upgrade to a Maceman than to upgrade an iron-equipped Warrior (though the resulting unit would be stronger). And as Roger said above, such a system would mess with balance quite a bit.

I like how it is in Light, actually, with the weapons promotions being a Doviello-and-Mercs thing, but only time will tell how it works in Fire. I'll keep an open mind.

 

[Jono]

Isn't a warrior with a bronze weapon just an axeman at that point?

 

[MrUnderhill]

That's what I just said in my edit. Aside from the pretty graphics and the "cheaper upgrades vs. stronger when upgraded" deal, they're mostly the same.

 

[vyapti]

For example, a Warrior with Mithril (25 H) is as strong as a Crusader/Paramander (120 H), Longbow (120 H), Crossbowman (120 H), Ranger (150 H), Chariot (120 H), and Monk (120 H) at 17-21% of the cost. It's hard to imagine building an Arquebus (180 H) for 50% more than a Maceman with Mithril (120 H) who even gets a bonus versus other Melee units.

Maybe it would be useful to eliminate Melee's access to the Mobility I promotion. That way, they'd be more powerful, especially attacking cities, but there would be incentive to build other units.

 

[Bringa]

I meant is there any incentive for the good human players to band together as the counter rises and conversely any incentive for evil human players to band together as the counter rises.

EDIT: Sort of see what you're saying

I had a couple of ideas on how you could bring the roleplaying aspect into multiplayer, but it's not quite sure whether they will be needed. I'll be around to constantly remind the team of them anyway

 

[TheJopa]

Warriors should be unable to get any weapon promotion, not just mithril. It is because:
a) They upgrade to horseman and other mounted troops.
b) Their low strenght gets doubled by iron weapons while they cost not. Unlike maceman etc., where it is less drastic
c) They carry wooden clubs, for god's sake!

 

[Bringa]

Maybe they should get a bonus if you build a lumbermill in an elven ancient forest Ancient wooden clubs of orcslaying +5!

 

[Frozen-Vomit]

Warriors should be unable to get any weapon promotion, not just mithril. It is because:
a) They upgrade to horseman and other mounted troops.
b) Their low strenght gets doubled by iron weapons while they cost not. Unlike maceman etc., where it is less drastic
c) They carry wooden clubs, for god's sake!

I second (or third, or whatever) that!

 

[QES]

Thats cool, that review and feedback is exactly what I am hoping for.

Incidently Warriors can never upgrade to Mithril weapons.

Clearly you've never seen my great mithril club.
I call it "the ugly stick" for when my warrior beats people down with it, they get ugly.

It's a classic wooden plank design, coated with the finest mithril in three leagues, four mithril nails are plunged through one end, to come out the other, forming that "threatening look" that every warrior needs. With a pattent leather carrying strap, and a loincloth from 3rd avenues " le loincloths" no warrior can be complete without his Mithril Club.
-Qes