Grigori question

[xanaqui42]

I played the Grigori for a few times (Monarch, Pangea, Standard size), and when I changed my strategy slightly (accumulate enough gold to make Adventurers useful), I got a double-win around turn 100, when I turned my oldest Adventurer into a Warrior, and used it to kill Orthus, Barbarian King. That unit proceeded to be the hammer I crushed the next 3 civilizations with, until, during the 4th one, when I had enough other strong units to bother to upgrade the Warrior to a Dragon Slayer (who promptly killed Acheron the Red Dragon and assisted in demolishing the rest).

That's right, I crushed three civilizations primarily using an (Adventurer) Warrior. The unit was strong enough that even when I had the ability to build an Axeman, I didn't bother upgrading it - typical combat percentages were in the 99%+ in the Warrior's favor. When I finally promoted it to Dragon Slayer, the only combat it didn't have a 100% combat odds was against Acheron (which was still a 98%+ combat).

My question is if this experience (a very early double-win via Adventurers) is common with the Grigori, or if this was an unusual experience; if it's the former case, Adventurers may need weakening. I've looked at the promotion (Orthus's Axe), although it certaintely sped thing up, it dosen't look like this is essential for such a win.

Other possible explanations I can think of (other than Adventurers are too strong):
1) I was playing at too easy of a difficulty level (Monarch).
2) AI problems hindered my opponents' unit creation. Note that this was at least partly the case; although a number of opponents had Archery, only one ever built any Archers.
3) The AI's decision-making for how to use military units is weak, thus enabling my warrior to, for example, never be dog-piled by more than 2-3 units.
4) The AI's spellcasting was poor (this was true- the AIs that had Fire Mana and Adepts seemed to Scorch their central city tiles where possible, resulting in weaker than needed city defenses).

 

[Endovior]

Hasn't happened to me, yet... heroes with Orcus's Axe are buff, yeah, but they aren't god.

That being said, version 0.16 should have the AI fight better, as it uses a better combat odds calculator. As such, I suspect that it'll be more inclined to dogpile.

 

[Sureshot]

i think on immortal i was able to dominated using plain warriors that were highly promoted on Marathon, since its a long time before anyone gets anything better tahn them... what gamespeed were you playin on?

 

[DREWid]

i agree the early adventures are far to hard, as i have previously noted me and a friend play mostly multiplayer games, and the grigori are one of hios favorite civs.

the conclusion we have come to is that the first hero turns up WAY to early. the fact that the guy gains exp when he is basically a settler means that by the time you actuallyu need/want to use the hero, and have the gold to upgrade (an easy task - research to zero) he comes out with combat5 plus heroic str1 or maybe 2. at this point in the game only basium has anything capable of fighting him off.

solutions.
first adventurer doesnt auto spawn until later say turn 100 or something, gives nothers time to have some kind of responce, plus also makes the early game more interesting /challanging for the grigori due to the fact that they would no longer have a str 6 unit in early game (combat5 heroic str2). to acheive this simply have the auto adventure points kick in later, or even though the bar fills dont let it spawn till later.

oh and for the record if othius (sp) spawns ANYWHERE near the grigori it has become the norm to get combat5, heroic str2, mobility and if you need to declear war to get at him, do so.

any player here can see that this isnt just a double win : combat5, heroic str2, mobility, +25%str and blitz + the exp bonus from killig orthius which will normally get you march... its basically game over unless oponents are over seas and need boats to get to.

so in sumation... i agree!

 

[Maniac]

It's only one unit. Unless you bring support troops, it will take a LOOOOOONG time to conquer several civs. Also consider you can gain better troops by building the Pact of the Nilhorn. Consider it takes quite a while before 100 XP are reached. Plenty of time for opponents to research towards a military tech themselves. Adventurers are nice, but not overpowered.

 

[Kael]

We don't micro-balance (balance like types), we balance on the whole. So yes, adventurers are extremly powerful. But does that mean that the Grigori are overpowered?

Are they more powerful than the Ljosalfar in their tree empire? Are they more powerful than the Khazad with a lot of gold? Are they more powerful than the Calabim with their Vampires? The Sheaim with their 3 turn summons? The Hippus with their incredible mounted units? The Luchurip with a combat 5 Barnaxus?

Keep in mind that the Grigori get an early adventurer but they could never build Saverous or Bambur, who most would agree are overpowered themselves.

So my feeling is that the Grigori are definitly cool, but they are in the right ballpark and aren't really in need of nerfing at this point. You may want to change the Grigori palace to only give 1 adventurer GPP instead of 2 if you want to slow it down for your own game, but I like it where it is.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Kael, this is going to be even 'worse' in .16 when they get pacifism from the get go. But there is a big difference between one and two adventurer points. I thought of a good way to balance them though--tie heroic strength to a tech, like I on military strategy, and II on maybe something a little later (don't have tech tree right here). Doesn't nerf them long term, but prevents wariors from owning a continent single handedly.

 

[Kael]

Kael, this is going to be even 'worse' in .16 when they get pacifism from the get go. But there is a big difference between one and two adventurer points. I thought of a good way to balance them though--tie heroic strength to a tech, like I on military strategy, and II on maybe something a little later (don't have tech tree right here). Doesn't nerf them long term, but prevents wariors from owning a continent single handedly.

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".

 

[Hypnotoad]

I agree that the Grigori definitely have the strongest early game of any civ I have played (about 6 of them now). And I agree with Kael that in the long term they are powerful but perhaps not overpowered given the powers the other civs have.

I think the Adventurers are definitely stronger than Saverous or Bambur. The ability to upgrade is huge. Once you have an experienced unit, he upgrades with all of his experience. As soon as I got Dragon Slayers, I had a Strength 9 hero with Combat 5, march, mobility, etc.

I think that something like Nikis-Knight's suggestion makes sense. Or even a unique building the Grigori build to generate additional adventurer points along with removing the palace's initial points. This would have the added advantage that your adventurers wouldn't have to be built in your capital (right now the best place since you can have a palace and an adventurer's guild there).

 

[Hypnotoad]

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".

What about limiting heroic strength to units with over 100 experience? That way heros really have to earn heroic strength. And they need to have diversified promotions before getting heroic strength.

I would also like to see some appealing alternative to heroic strength that players had to choose between (you could get heroic strength or heroic leadership).

I would actually consider opening heroic strength to any units over 100 experience, whether hero or not. But that might remove too much uniqueness from heros.

 

[Kael]

What about limiting heroic strength to units with over 100 experience? That way heros really have to earn heroic strength. And they need to have diversified promotions before getting heroic strength.

I would also like to see some appealing alternative to heroic strength that players had to choose between (you could get heroic strength or heroic leadership).

I would actually consider opening heroic strength to any units over 100 experience, whether hero or not. But that might remove too much uniqueness from heros.

Yeah, either tied to level or experience its the same dilema, I would need to code that ability into the game (vanilla civ has no ability to limit promotions based on level or experience). Not that that cant be done, I coded promotions to require resources in 0.15 and that was a much harder deal, it will just take time. But it probably the right answer.

 

[retro V]

I would actually consider opening heroic strength to any units over 100 experience, whether hero or not. But that might remove too much uniqueness from heros.

I like the sound of that. We don't get that many 100+xp units. Perhaps only heroes themselves can attain heroic strength 2, while standard units are limited to heroic strength 1.

As to OP, Grigori have a huge downside to their one-man armies: agnosticism. This affects a lot of other elements ingame, like diplomacy, happycaps, unit diversity, even victory conditions. If you've found a easy-win strategy for a particular civ, then maybe you should try playing that civ at higher difficulty levels. I'm not saying Monarch is easy, only that you're too good with the Grigori at that level


EDIT:

Yeah, either tied to level or experience its the same dilema...

If combat5 requires combat4, etc, could you assign requirements to more than one promotion, i.e. heroic strength requires combat1-5 and melee 1 and cover 1 and shock 1 (or whatever they're called), in other words enough promotions to have obviously reached 100+xp?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Hm... having heroic strength require 101+ xp, and being available for all units, not just adventurers, would be nice. It would make the Grigori less powerful and everyone else a bit more powerful. Further, as you can only get 100 xp against barbs, it would make it so that the Grigori could just start a war already having a 4 str combat V unit so early.

You know, basing heroic xp gain on game speed might also help this problem be resolved. In faster (EDIT- slower!) the game speed, the greater the early advantage of the Grigori.

 

[Silverkiss]

You mean the slower, right ? They are much more powerfull in Marathon than in Quick

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Erm... yes, that's what I meant.

 

[Hypnotoad]

I like the sound of that. We don't get that many 100+xp units. Perhaps only heroes themselves can attain heroic strength 2, while standard units are limited to heroic strength 1.

EDIT:
If combat5 requires combat4, etc, could you assign requirements to more than one promotion, i.e. heroic strength requires combat1-5 and melee 1 and cover 1 and shock 1 (or whatever they're called), in other words enough promotions to have obviously reached 100+xp?

The heroic strength 1 thing makes sense. The problem with just stacking on enough promotions to reach 101 XP is that this really limits how you develop your heros. If anything, I would want the opposite: you can get heroic strength at 101 XP and you don't need any pre-req promotions. So if you want to go for mobility/forest/withdraw, that's a fine way to develop your hero and you can still get the heroic strength.

The main problem I can see to giving heroic strength to units with 100+ XP is Vampires. Would they become too powerful? You would just need to think about this -- I don't think we can't find a solution.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Ah, good point. We'd either have to restrict vampires from getting heroic strength, or decrease their base strength so that they can't get any better with heroic strength 2 than they could the way things are now...

 

[Sureshot]

maybe make it so only living units can get heroic strength (sort of like how mutation only works on living units)

but about grigori being too powerful, with constant war and raging barbs using a Agg/Rai leader and melee units (which means Tasunke, and NOT the mounted line which is weak) i usually end up with tons of 100xp+ melee units with promotions saved up for healing that can have their way with any other civ in the game, grigori having 1 unit that have 100xp isnt too scary, because those heroics strength just make the unit equal to 2 of my units.. and ive got tons of them (who can all also be upgraded over time).

 

[retro V]

This is why I think heroic 1 is enough for garden variety units. Vampires with 7 strength, as opposed to the 6 strength they begin with, wouldn't dramatically change things.

 

[daladinn]

the simplest and safest "fix" i have found for grigori is to change the traits and remove philosophical. as far as i know with adaptive its supposed to be the 2nd trait the changes so i tend to go with (phi / fin) . however due to a "bug" in one of our games the expansive trait stuck instead , this hindered teh grigori a bit by slowing down the adventurer birthrate in the early game. personally given the way the grigory play (not based on RP) i feel that (fin/exp) would be a bit more fitting trait set and still allow you to replace (exp) with (phi) later down the road.