Grigori question

[xanaqui42]

we've played the grigori in multiplayer many times, and even times when theyve rushed people. i had the experience of eerr declaring war on me in turn 5, yes turn5!! i never lost a single city to him because i made well defended cities and had a fair amount of units in them. single hero is fairly easy to deal with, and when you kill it (or just bypass it and take out their cities while their heroes are off somewhere) they're screwed. units attacking at 99% odds still get hurt, sometimes viciously so, and all you need to do is counter attack. if they have an entourage all you need to do is go raze all their cities, because theyre not going to be too well defended if theyre sparing all that for an attack.

So it sounds like your opinion is that what I'm noticing is largely a weakness in the AI. For example, yes, my cities were horribly defended - my capitol had a single Warrior (with few or no promotions) as defense, and other cities were so horribly defended that I used the Pact of Nilhorn units for quite a while as defensive units, largely because that was the only way to protect my cities from (Barbarian) Orc Warriors. Simuarly, there were a number of times where an effective couter-attack on my attacking forces could have seriously weakened or even destroyed my attacking forces, but it virtually never came (partly because I plan around how the AI makes counter-attack decisions).

I think I agree. It sounds like weak AI against this strategy. Since this strategy is "new" to me (the last time I recall using this sort of strategy was while playing Civ II), I misinterpreted the strength of this strategy vs the AI players as a strength of the Grigori.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Yes, the Grigori can attack very early, the Runes when they get Bambur, the Order when they get Sphener... it's all a matter of timing, really. If you're doing well, and if the AI doesn't come up with any brilliant plans, then you're pretty set to win at those points.

 

[xanaqui42]

I'll note that in the game in question, my Civilization founded most of the religions, so the other civs didn't get much advantage out of them.

Correction; I founded 2 of 4 of the religions; The Order and the Ashen Veil were never founded; The Cult of the Dragon was. One of the earlier cities I took via conquest was the founding city for the third mainline religion; I don't recall if I kept it or razed it.

well youd already won if youve found all the religions, sounds like you had a multiple win going so having some units to help you win quicker is a good thing

I tend to think that as an Aetheist leader, founding religions mostly just blocks opponents from gaining them, thus evening out the disadvantage. But in any case, I didn't have founding religions as a high priority, so this may just be pointing to another AI weakness (pooor tech tree choices, or insufficient focus on research).

 

[Sureshot]

well, i tend to play on immortal and deity, because for the most part i just dont think the ai can beat me unless they are given ridiculous advantages.. but for multiplayer i find its fairly easy to stop a grigori rush

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

We can hope that hunters will get moved back a tech to fix that problem, Sureshot. Really, it would solve so many problems at once...

Or shifted to the Agriculture line?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Hunters on the agriculture line? I'd love to see it extended and all, but hunters don't really fit.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Hunters on the agriculture line? I'd love to see it extended and all, but hunters don't really fit.

I admit the entire branch probaly couldn' just be picked up and dropped down in the Agriculture trunk. Not without blowing away some other aspect of play balance. But it might fit well if moved partially, or as one move in a general tech tree reorganization. I admit I haven't sweated out the retails.

But on a conceptual basis I think it fits well. Hunting has as much to do with Agriculture as does Horse Archery, if one gets fixated upon the name of the first tech in the trunk. That's why I don't think of that trunk as a group of farming technologies. I think of them (as grouped now) as an 'Animal Mastery' trunk. Domesticating animals, hunting animals, it all stems from familiarity with animals. Or you could call it an 'Outdoor Living' trunk. From that mindset Hunting is a good thematic fit for the current Agriculture branch. So is the Leaves religion.

This should all just be taken as thinking out loud rather than die-hard advocacy.

 

[Sureshot]

The tech for rangers already requires Animal Husbandry.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Agriculture-Calendar
..............\
................Festivals
............................>Hunting
................Tracking
.............../
Exploration-Cartography

 

[Gamestation]

Whew that would take a while to get hunters.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Not really. I imagine Agriculture and Exploration would cost 125 each, Festivals and Tracking would be 175, and hunting would cost... however many beakers a tier-3 tech costs right now. It certainly would be longer than it takes to get Bronze Working, but I suppose I'm just letting my desire for a unified tech tree seep through. Ideally, Bronze Working, Archery, and Horseback Riding would all have similar tech costs to this, if I had my way.

Kael has a very different vision for the tech tree than I do. I favor weaving the branches together, while he seems to prefer keeping them mostly apart.

 

[Sureshot]

i like chands proposal, hunting atm is currently super easy with the worth of a religion, and carnivals allow things that need hunting to make full use (captured animals)

warfare has an even worse setup, as it requires a third and second tier techs, where as chands idea has hunting only requiring 2 second tier techs. using hunting and festivals one can get more happiness than a religion, and equally powerful versatile units.

the other nice thing is that then normal hunters would require festivals to get, so the balseraphs aren't getting a bad deal by needing hunting and carnivals (so festivals) too.


under that system id make archery require tracking, so it could have some competition with hunting.. since i dont see anyone ever building archers in our multiplayer games, since theres no point when you already have hunters.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

the other nice thing is that then normal hunters would require festivals to get, so the balseraphs aren't getting a bad deal by needing hunting and carnivals (so festivals) too.

Agriculture
..............\
................Festivals
............................>Hunting
................Tracking
.............../
Exploration

Agriculture
..............\
................Anim. Husb.
................................>Horseback Riding
................Cartography
.............../
Exploration

Crafting
............\
...............Mining
........................>Bronze Working
................Festivals
............../
Agriculture

Agriculture
..............\
................Festivals
............................>Archery
................Masonry
............/
Crafting

I like seeing hunters paired with horsemen and archers paired with axmen. Also, Agriculture is necessary for each of these, as I think a civilization without knowledge of agriculture is absurd. Masonry with archers might seem strange, but keep in mind that they're both defensive adaptions. This is the kind of tech tree I'd like to see.

Edit:

.......................Education
Ancient Chants<..............>Knowledge of the Ether
.......................Mysticism

As both Education and Mysticism are going to be overcosted in comparison to other tier-2 techs, right?

 

[Sureshot]

switching warfare to requiring education and masonry would be nice too, requiring bronzeworking makes it hard.

for axemen id prolly go with mining and masonry (though i also think masonry should grant some sort of hammer using unit with stone)

archery id say would be better with tracking/masonry.. and while it may be absurd to have a civilization without agriculture, it seems pretty absurd to have one without an understanding of hunting (afterall, people hunted before they ever farmed)

 

[Sureshot]

"Stone age, a supposed prehistoric age of the world when
stone and bone were habitually used as the materials for
weapons and tools; -- called also flint age. The bronze
age succeeded to this."

a quote i found while lookin for stuff about stone hammers

sounds like bronzeworking should use masonry if you ask me

then dwarven stone slingers could be available with masonry instead of archery, and they could require stone to build, making stone resources more valuable to dwarves.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

switching warfare to requiring education and masonry would be nice too, requiring bronzeworking makes it hard.

Warefare is a tough one. I'm not sure where I'd put it. Units are so much easier.

for axemen id prolly go with mining and masonry (though i also think masonry should grant some sort of hammer using unit with stone)

But the Festivals' pedia text fits so well with militaries in general... Also, warhammers probably wouldn't show up until later, even if we need another unit.

archery id say would be better with tracking/masonry..

Maybe, but I'd like to keep it off Festivals for the same reason as Bronze Working. Festivals currently just leads to Drama, which is a dead-end tech, right? I'd like to give it a purpose.

and while it may be absurd to have a civilization without agriculture, it seems pretty absurd to have one without an understanding of hunting (afterall, people hunted before they ever farmed)

Perhaps basic hunting is taken for granted, and the Hunting tech is actually about hunting people... in any case, there's gameplay reason, too.

Edit: And the problem with having Bronze Working require Mining and Masonry is that you'd end up with this:

..............Mining
Crafting<...........>Bronze Working
............Masonry

Granted, it would make axemen show up a bit sooner, but I'm not sure if that would be a good thing.

 

[Sureshot]

people used stone weapons before they used bronze weapons, so i think a maul user of some kind early on would make sense.

for the bronzeworking using the same base tech for both its reqs.. well you did the same with knowledge of the ether heh

festivals needs more applications, i just dont think its axemen or archers... i always thought that trade and currency should require festivals

Edit: pretty sure hunting is not hunting people, since it makes you able to camp some animal resources. hunting and tracking getting some different names could make sense

 

[Chandrasekhar]

people used stone weapons before they used bronze weapons, so i think a maul user of some kind early on would make sense.

I suppose that the warrior unit represents a bunch of men with varied items that they're using as weapons. The graphic uses clubs both because it's universally recognizable and easy to portray.

for the bronzeworking using the same base tech for both its reqs.. well you did the same with knowledge of the ether heh

Well, I'm pretty sure that both Education and Mysticism are having their costs increased. If that's so, then I'd bet that the cost increases put together are equivalent to the cost of the tier-1 tech that would otherwise be required. The more I think about it, though, the more I realize that perhaps having axemen come a bit sooner might not be so bad.

festivals needs more applications, i just dont think its axemen or archers... i always thought that trade and currency should require festivals

I think that perhaps Festivals could be split up into two techs. One tech could be the commercial application of festivals, while the other would be the military aspect of festivals.

Edit: pretty sure hunting is not hunting people, since it makes you able to camp some animal resources. hunting and tracking getting some different names could make sense

Well, I did mean to be slightly sarcastic there.

I'm thinking of compiling a tech-tree wishlist. Don't be surprised if I start a thread to discuss it tonight.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Maybe, but I'd like to keep it off Festivals for the same reason as Bronze Working. Festivals currently just leads to Drama, which is a dead-end tech, right? I'd like to give it a purpose.

I like the back and forth you and Sureshot are having here. I like a lot of the comments. I'll just kibbutz to say that Drama would have an application if the Droowel heroine is adopted.

(Od did you mean "it"="Festivals"?)

 

[Mesix]

My only problem with ting them to techs is it just about forces players to go for those techs. Heroes are such a big part of the game (as they should be) but I dont want to force one tech path for effective use of them.

Any other ideas on ways to constrain them?

I thought about a minimum level for promotions (so you cant go combat 1,2,3,4,5,heroic 1, heroic 2). And I could use a minimum level on promotions in a few places. But thats going to require some code so it will probably have to wait for "Fire".

You could have the required tech for heroic strengh require one of four or five different prereqs. If player gets tech a, b, c, d, or e (any one) it will unlock the heroic strength tech. All of the prereq options could be tier three or four technologies in different parts of the tech tree. That way the heroic strength tech comes towards mid game no matter what path of research a player takes to unlock it.