(It pains me to write this because I am biased toward them but...) any suggestion on nerfing Elohim a bit?
Taking away quick learner should work, but it would be a shame, since that's one of the things, that makes monks fun and unique. Maybe a different solution is possible, like reducing their strength by 1, but I'm not sure whether this will be enough.(It pains me to write this because I am biased toward them but...) any suggestion on nerfing Elohim a bit?
Taking away quick learner should work, but it would be a shame, since that's one of the things, that makes monks fun and unique. Maybe a different solution is possible, like reducing their strength by 1, but I'm not sure whether this will be enough.
I personally think as well, that the Dovevo are too powerful and that there strength should be reduced by 1.
(It pains me to write this because I am biased toward them but...) any suggestion on nerfing Elohim a bit?
I think cottages on plains is fine, as long as it's only for Kuriotates. But I don't think enclaves need a buff.kurio special improvement - enclave has +1 food. At FFH2 it is sufficient 1pop=2 food. Here 1pop = 3 food, therefore enclave needs +2 food. And for kuiros I'd allow cottages at plains too ( now only grassland)
how do you even play Taranis civ? capital city has not usual resource bonuses, therefore difficult to build .... ??Is it possible to change the Taranis unit from a normal Hero to a capital city rebirth (like the Seraph)? Since it is an immobile unit, retreating from defeat like an ordinary Hero makes the poor fellow a beggar outside of the city walls.
I kinda disagree. Counting staff is strange.. whereas counting all the other is also strange. or even justicar. A recon unit with same xp can have 50 % with combat V, +2str with Aeron chosen (+heals upon combat), and then have 2 more promotions to reinforce that (for example +2x poison + 40%chances to get poison bomb).Hello again everyone.
I'd like to offer my perspective on the discussion of Elohim monks. They seem to be too good in offense, while they are supposed to defend the holy lands. A well developed monk could have (1) 40% attack bonus (staff 10% + ki strike 20% + offense 10%) and 3 first strikes (staff 2 + quick 1), (2) +33% against melee units and immune to posion at purity of body, making them great against orc and goblin barbarians for exp farming, (3) +2 holy strength from justicar class, (4) magic and element resistence, +30% healing rate and healing while moving (purity of body 10% + wholeness of body 20%), and immunity to mutated, weak, crippled, diseased, plagued, charmed, enraged and crazed, and (5) they have quick learner pormotion. I think (4) and (5) are the exact reasons which make them a great unit, and should not be changed as this is what makes monks special, even though they contribute to monks' offensive capacity. However, I think a reduction in their attack capacity would nerf them enough without losing any flavor. So maybe give them (1) 5 instead of 7 as attack strength (which can be later compensated by justicar or the 40% increase), (2) reduce their bonus against melee units, and/or (3) reduce the percentage attack bonus and/or the number of first strikes. By the way, monks get immunity to poison at purity of body and then wholness of body again, does that need a fix?
Normally as many units can bombard a stack as you want as long as there is 1 unit that has more health than cap (or 100-cap ?)And here are some other random comments:
e. This is more like a question: how does bombard work? It seems that only one unit can bombard one stack every turn, and what does "bombard damage is capped at 100" mean?
thanks
my 0.2I kinda disagree. Counting staff is strange.. whereas counting all the other is also strange. or even justicar. A recon unit with same xp can have 50 % with combat V, +2str with Aeron chosen (+heals upon combat), and then have 2 more promotions to reinforce that (for example +2x poison + 40%chances to get poison bomb).
For me it was frustrating that in the line of monk-only things, so few were really relevant for attack. However, they make great explorers... (due to high survability) high movement, immunities, healing...etc and thus they can get into many fights withs barbs, and get much xp (quick learner free from start) and thus you can get them to level 15 ie all the monk line + combat V + heroic attack/defense II others, in the time a melee unit reaches only lvl 8... but that is not the greatness of Monks, its only that they are a bit easier to grow... if you focus first thourgh a low-return quest of fulfilling the monk-only lne
Personally, I don't mind the monk's lack of attack promotion, either. If I had to choose, whether monks should be offensive or defensive, I would choose defensive. On the other hand, an offensive monk makes some sense in my mind as well.PS. This might be a cultural thing, but I am sorry to say I can't share your frustration in monks' lack of attack promotion... I really thought monks appreciate defence more...
I like suggestion (1). It would make invading an enemy civ with a monk based army a bit slower while still keeping monks useful in the beginning of the game. I think that's quite important, since they are the starting units of the Elohim.So maybe give them (1) 5 instead of 7 as attack strength (which can be later compensated by justicar or the 40% increase), (2) reduce their bonus against melee units, and/or (3) reduce the percentage attack bonus and/or the number of first strikes.