Iceciro
Special Ability: Decimate
In a bit of a "but they have it, I want it" comment to this thread, Austrin Recurve Archers already start with Woodsman I, so there's kinda precedent for archers in the game to have Woodsman. 
Ljosalfar Archers
- Thread starter WarKirby
- Start date
WarKirby
Arty person
In a bit of a "but they have it, I want it" comment to this thread, Austrin Recurve Archers already start with Woodsman I, so there's kinda precedent for archers in the game to have Woodsman.
ok, that is not fair.
WarKirby
Arty person
I've thought about this some more. There are a few other things to consider here, game balance wise.
Lizardmen get a natural 25% strength bonus in their home terrain, Deep Jungle. Where elves only get a 10% bonus.
Farther to that, most lizardmen are capable of learning woodsman, which oddly gives jungle bonuses too. Allowing the average lizardman to have a 55% strength bonus in jungles, which more than negates a defender's 25% bonus, and if you're on the defensive, stacks with 25% to make 80% extra jungle strength.
Perhaps the lizardmen are overpowered, I don't know, but I would say not. I think elves are underpowered in a certain regard, although the ljosalfar's focus on units which are unable to learn woodsman, makes them worse off than svarts.
Elves have a natural incentive to have forest everywhere, as much as the illians do snow, the mazatl jungle, etc.
But forests give a 25% defence bonus. The 10% forest strength is not enough to negate that, and elves are worse off attacking in the forest than they are in open fields. This doesn't seem right to me.
Farther to that though, there's Ancient forest. Which gives a 50% defence bonus. This dwarfs even the bonus from woodsman.
I'd say non elves should only get the normal 25% bonus from ancient forests, personally. What would they know about it ?
But aside from that, my point is. When playing elves, you're filling your territory with hundreds of little forts that the enemy can use against you. And you're actually better off fighting them outside of your homeland. This doesn't seem right.
perhaps the elven natural forest bonus could be increeased to 25% ?then the ladck of woodsman for archers wouldn't be so much of an issue (although I really would still like itm and it makes no sense ffor austrin longbowmen to get it, but not elven ones.)
Lizardmen get a natural 25% strength bonus in their home terrain, Deep Jungle. Where elves only get a 10% bonus.
Farther to that, most lizardmen are capable of learning woodsman, which oddly gives jungle bonuses too. Allowing the average lizardman to have a 55% strength bonus in jungles, which more than negates a defender's 25% bonus, and if you're on the defensive, stacks with 25% to make 80% extra jungle strength.
Perhaps the lizardmen are overpowered, I don't know, but I would say not. I think elves are underpowered in a certain regard, although the ljosalfar's focus on units which are unable to learn woodsman, makes them worse off than svarts.
Elves have a natural incentive to have forest everywhere, as much as the illians do snow, the mazatl jungle, etc.
But forests give a 25% defence bonus. The 10% forest strength is not enough to negate that, and elves are worse off attacking in the forest than they are in open fields. This doesn't seem right to me.
Farther to that though, there's Ancient forest. Which gives a 50% defence bonus. This dwarfs even the bonus from woodsman.
I'd say non elves should only get the normal 25% bonus from ancient forests, personally. What would they know about it ?
But aside from that, my point is. When playing elves, you're filling your territory with hundreds of little forts that the enemy can use against you. And you're actually better off fighting them outside of your homeland. This doesn't seem right.
perhaps the elven natural forest bonus could be increeased to 25% ?then the ladck of woodsman for archers wouldn't be so much of an issue (although I really would still like itm and it makes no sense ffor austrin longbowmen to get it, but not elven ones.)
HadesScorn
Warlord
Thank G-D. The ability to spam cottages and ancient forests isn't enough?
Assuming you don't invest in melee unit at all, yes. However, despite the flavor aspect, archers as truly *offensive* units are still limited to the Flurry. For defensive purposes, plopping an archer down in a city or in a forest still results in all the usual bonuses plus the 10% added racial defense still makes them a tough nut to crack, even against an army which has extensively prepared to fight elves by using two promotions that will be virtually useless against standard enemies.
I can see your reasoning via flavor, but for balance purposes I'd prefer that Elves remain as is. They already are capable of large, healthy cities with significant bonuses to both production and food via their terrain. As you pointed out in the Matzl thread, Lizard terrain offers less in terms of both potential commerce, food and production. This offsets their ability to stack woodsmen on units. [FMI, does "most" units include their archer line as well, or is this keeping in norm with other races? If the former, I would rather nerf the Matzl in this regard than pump the Elves even more.]
Sephi
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,319
Perhaps your comparision is very one-sided
. Elves can turn their whole land into forests, lizardmen can't do that. So they get the bonus less often. Also lizardmen use archer units as much as elves, after all they get lots of archer UU like blowpipes. And lizardmen can never get woodsmen II since they are agnostic.
WarKirby
Arty person
dwarves are still better at production. Infernals and scions are still better at having vast cities. Amurites and kahdi are stillbetter at magic.
oh, elven workers are a bit slower, too
oh, elven workers are a bit slower, too
Iceciro
Special Ability: Decimate
Sounds like somebody plays Warhammer Fantasy or Warhammer: Age of Reckoning as a Dark Elf. I'm a pretty snobby guy - I've got nothing on Dark Elves there.
Anyways, I think we already have a volley-fire like you'd do out in the field represented by ranged attacks that aren't countered. But when the attack is standard it's clearly the archers hunting down the other group, occasionally with stabbin' implements rather than bows, and I still think that elves should be able to pick up Woodsman to represent training in doing that in a forest, just like warriors can pick up Cover to represent knowing how to avoid/clear out a normally ambush situation.
Anyways, I think we already have a volley-fire like you'd do out in the field represented by ranged attacks that aren't countered. But when the attack is standard it's clearly the archers hunting down the other group, occasionally with stabbin' implements rather than bows, and I still think that elves should be able to pick up Woodsman to represent training in doing that in a forest, just like warriors can pick up Cover to represent knowing how to avoid/clear out a normally ambush situation.
JonathanStrange
PrinceWithA1000Enemies
That is a good point: I've often envisioned the archers more as fighting in lethal hunting groups using the terrain and switching between bows and short swords as tactics dictate - and almost never do I see them as massed lines of archer volley firing (except in, say, city defense). Obviously the Elf archer graphics encourage that sort of view since they'll often show 'em in melee at some point - and Elf melee troops do earn the Woodman I promotion.
Heh, though I hardly would expect to persuade anyone that Woodsman I promotion should be available because of a coincidence in the battle animation.
Heh, though I hardly would expect to persuade anyone that Woodsman I promotion should be available because of a coincidence in the battle animation.
Thunder_Gr
Emperor
I think Elves are masters of Woodland warfare. Elven Archers may not get formation advantages in woods, but they get tactical advandages, i.e. they can easily ambush an enemy in the forest. So, I think woodsman promotions would reflect this ability for Elven archers, and Elven units in general. I do not think this would be overpowered, since they would have to give up another promotion for it, Drill, combat, city defender or guerilla, usually.
As for the proposition to give woodsman promotion to all archery units, I think it is not fit for this type of unit to get woodsman generarly, since, except Elves, the other races are not specialized in woodland warfare, so there is no justification why an archer would be more effective in woods. On the contrary, I would say archers, except Elven, should get a -20% attack or defense in forests, since they lack the open space needed to be accurate in their aiming, and for spotting a potencial target.
As for the proposition to give woodsman promotion to all archery units, I think it is not fit for this type of unit to get woodsman generarly, since, except Elves, the other races are not specialized in woodland warfare, so there is no justification why an archer would be more effective in woods. On the contrary, I would say archers, except Elven, should get a -20% attack or defense in forests, since they lack the open space needed to be accurate in their aiming, and for spotting a potencial target.
Iceciro
Special Ability: Decimate
I think the debuff to non-elves is too much as they essentially get two buffs then, one from non-penalized archers and one from Woodsman I/II.
Leave things as they are and give Ljoso archers access to Woodsman I as a promo... that's the best solution IMHO.
Leave things as they are and give Ljoso archers access to Woodsman I as a promo... that's the best solution IMHO.
Randomness
...
The elven archers wouldn't hit the branches if they were shooting from the tops of the trees down...
...I'm not convinced offering woodsman will make much of a difference. Often, you'll be better off picking combat I for your archers, as its only 10% less and will apply in defending cities, which is often where you'll defend against a strong attack. Especially because every additional unhindered step the enemy takes into your territory comes with a chance for a treant to arise.
I think the main problem lies with forests and jungles offering a defensive bonus at all. I've never really understood why this is - Sure, if you dig in and fortify in a forest or jungle, you are better off than in an open field. But at the same time, if you're just marching through the jungle or forest on your way to an enemy city, you really are more vulnerable to an attack. You'll often be marching in some form of columns, and will find it difficult to respond to an attack. Especially since its easier for the enemy to sneak up on you and achieve some measure of surprise. Its very odd to think 'hey, I'm marching through a jungle, I'm as safe as in a fort.'
Thus, I think a better solution to the concerns of this thread would be to eliminate the defensive bonus that a forest and jungle provides, and instead cause forest and jungles to double the unit fortification bonus. So 10 after one turn, 20% after the second, etc. Yes, this would also weaken Elves in some ways, but it would give a proper role for treetop defense spell, which they can get really early anyhow.
I think the main problem lies with forests and jungles offering a defensive bonus at all. I've never really understood why this is - Sure, if you dig in and fortify in a forest or jungle, you are better off than in an open field. But at the same time, if you're just marching through the jungle or forest on your way to an enemy city, you really are more vulnerable to an attack. You'll often be marching in some form of columns, and will find it difficult to respond to an attack. Especially since its easier for the enemy to sneak up on you and achieve some measure of surprise. Its very odd to think 'hey, I'm marching through a jungle, I'm as safe as in a fort.'
Thus, I think a better solution to the concerns of this thread would be to eliminate the defensive bonus that a forest and jungle provides, and instead cause forest and jungles to double the unit fortification bonus. So 10 after one turn, 20% after the second, etc. Yes, this would also weaken Elves in some ways, but it would give a proper role for treetop defense spell, which they can get really early anyhow.
HadesScorn
Warlord
Of course, you normally don't taken YEARS to advance through forests on your way to attack a city. Civ really doesn't try to combine RTS logic with builder logic, for that check out Total War. Even if every turn represented a week [meaning marathon games go from barbarism to Omniscience in 5 years] you can easily assume that ending the turn in a forest represents entrenching for the night with a simple Roman style palisade.
'Entranching the night' doesn't really address the point - in marching through the forest, you'll have to be in columns some of the time, moving, and thats when the attackers can choose to strike. If you don't intend to be moving, you fortify (with the current mechanic rather than an assumed 'turns are so long so everyone always fortifies anyway'), and they don't get the chance to hit you while in columns.
You could argue that the method for simulating hitting them while moving is having defenders in the terrain they intend to move into, but the way civ combat works this isn't handled well (you'd have to divide your forces too much to cover all possible squares they could move into).
This isn't improperly inserting TW type tactic level elements into a strategic level game like civ - and throwing up one's hands and saying civ isn't well suited to modeling warfare doesn't really counsel for or against any particular point about how it should handle warfare as best it can (provided we avoid trying to micromanage tactics, rather than simulate it in broad strokes). Similar to the turns as years point - we should try to find some way to model the kind of warfare that would be expected, even if imperfectly. And just assuming that everyone is going at snails pace most defensive march possible (going beyond your nightly pallisades point) is an odd way. Why can't you rush defenders across your borders at 3x movement when needed then? Probably its best handled by imagining the world as very, very large, in combination with movement being hampered by logistical issues. Which doesn't counsel for imagining movement through forests in enemy territory as allowing for plenty of extra defensive time.
You could argue that the method for simulating hitting them while moving is having defenders in the terrain they intend to move into, but the way civ combat works this isn't handled well (you'd have to divide your forces too much to cover all possible squares they could move into).
This isn't improperly inserting TW type tactic level elements into a strategic level game like civ - and throwing up one's hands and saying civ isn't well suited to modeling warfare doesn't really counsel for or against any particular point about how it should handle warfare as best it can (provided we avoid trying to micromanage tactics, rather than simulate it in broad strokes). Similar to the turns as years point - we should try to find some way to model the kind of warfare that would be expected, even if imperfectly. And just assuming that everyone is going at snails pace most defensive march possible (going beyond your nightly pallisades point) is an odd way. Why can't you rush defenders across your borders at 3x movement when needed then? Probably its best handled by imagining the world as very, very large, in combination with movement being hampered by logistical issues. Which doesn't counsel for imagining movement through forests in enemy territory as allowing for plenty of extra defensive time.
You can never make the scales work out accross the board.
Like you, TimSLS, I like to think of the world as very large, at least ten miles accross per square but probably much more. But in that case, how can archers fire into the adjacent square, and how can fire balls, Maelstroms, and rings of fire effect hundreds of square miles?
I think we have to use our suspension of disbelief alot to make the game enjoyable. Otherwise, there would be a whole lot of "But, that doesn't make any sense."
As to the attacking forces on the move, I think that the defending unit may very well be attacking the attacking unit as it moves into the square, not just sitting behind the pallisades.
While I am here, I am also going to comment on ancient forest defensive bonuses. Whatever perceived defensive benefit there may be in a forest certainly wouldn't be present in an ancient forest. In general, the older a forest, the less undergrowth there is, making movement and visablity better. It is more like a plain with giant pillars in it than a normal forest. The only benefit I could see from an ancient forest would be for elves only, and that is actually sitting up in the trees and shooting from there, as someone mentiond above.
Like you, TimSLS, I like to think of the world as very large, at least ten miles accross per square but probably much more. But in that case, how can archers fire into the adjacent square, and how can fire balls, Maelstroms, and rings of fire effect hundreds of square miles?
I think we have to use our suspension of disbelief alot to make the game enjoyable. Otherwise, there would be a whole lot of "But, that doesn't make any sense."
As to the attacking forces on the move, I think that the defending unit may very well be attacking the attacking unit as it moves into the square, not just sitting behind the pallisades.
While I am here, I am also going to comment on ancient forest defensive bonuses. Whatever perceived defensive benefit there may be in a forest certainly wouldn't be present in an ancient forest. In general, the older a forest, the less undergrowth there is, making movement and visablity better. It is more like a plain with giant pillars in it than a normal forest. The only benefit I could see from an ancient forest would be for elves only, and that is actually sitting up in the trees and shooting from there, as someone mentiond above.
I definitally agree on the suspension of disbelief point
I just really like the feel of elves defending their homeland in the woods, rather than being best off fortifying off into cities (Same thing for the lizards by the way, which I ranted about in another thread a while back). Yet the defensive bonuses explicitly weigh against this, and its just not as much fun watching enemies perish against Evermoore's walls as it would be ambushing them in the field. Also, enemies should fear entering elven woods, worry about being ambushed at every turn, rather than being somewhat free to pillage and roam well defended by the forest save the occasional ent attack.
I just really like the feel of elves defending their homeland in the woods, rather than being best off fortifying off into cities (Same thing for the lizards by the way, which I ranted about in another thread a while back). Yet the defensive bonuses explicitly weigh against this, and its just not as much fun watching enemies perish against Evermoore's walls as it would be ambushing them in the field. Also, enemies should fear entering elven woods, worry about being ambushed at every turn, rather than being somewhat free to pillage and roam well defended by the forest save the occasional ent attack.
xienwolf
Deity
I like the idea of defensive bonus for a forest being a larger (not just quicker) fortification bonus. Make it so a unit moving into forest gains no bonus, but a unit fully fortified gains 100% (20% per turn normal, or 40% per turn for defensive, or 100% instant for Treetop)
WarKirby
Arty person
About timescales. It is a bit hard to define how it's done.
As far as troop movement and tactics are concerned, I see each turn as a day or two. maybe 3 at most. And a forest tile representing a large forest covering several acres, so it takes a while for a platoon of troops to get through it.
As far as city production is concerned, it would make sense for each turn to be a week or two.
where city growth is concerned, either the people in erebus have reall short lives, or each turn has to be at least a couple of years.
With technologies, I'm not sure. If based on real world tech advances, it might have to be 5-10 years between turns. But one thing to remember, is that the age of rebirth, is a rebuilding, reclaiming what once was. It makes a certain sense that tales handed down from eons past, and old relics still surviving, would make tech advances easier. Since it's obviously not discovering entirely new concepts, but rediscovering the past.
larger fortification bonuses in place of constant tile defence, sounds pretty neat, I like it.
As far as troop movement and tactics are concerned, I see each turn as a day or two. maybe 3 at most. And a forest tile representing a large forest covering several acres, so it takes a while for a platoon of troops to get through it.
As far as city production is concerned, it would make sense for each turn to be a week or two.
where city growth is concerned, either the people in erebus have reall short lives, or each turn has to be at least a couple of years.
With technologies, I'm not sure. If based on real world tech advances, it might have to be 5-10 years between turns. But one thing to remember, is that the age of rebirth, is a rebuilding, reclaiming what once was. It makes a certain sense that tales handed down from eons past, and old relics still surviving, would make tech advances easier. Since it's obviously not discovering entirely new concepts, but rediscovering the past.
larger fortification bonuses in place of constant tile defence, sounds pretty neat, I like it.
