Suggestion: Hawks can be shot down by archers

[JonathanStrange]

As an aid to playing the game, hawks are invaluable and I can't resist using them.

The game is eerier (eyrier?) when I don't use them though - having adequate garrisons and reserves become more important. I think it's more fun to have to play that way but I inevitably use hawks anyway: I can't help it, I've a duty to the citizens...

I wouldn't have a problem with the AI being able to shoot hawks though. To be fair, give up the AI ability to see what I've got hidden in the woods and I'll stop using hawks too.

 

[Zobo]

It would make more sense to have hawks available at Feral Bond technology as then theri ability to communicate the information would be explained.

That kind of scouting advantage does seem too strong for hunting, which already gives a tier 2 unit, terrain improvement and resulting happiness/health/food as well as the health/happy building.

Feral bond with hawks would also give units even if Duin and Kithra have already been built.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

I don't see why there's any need to 'salvage' or 'rationalise' them - this is a fantasy game after all!
They're not (with the FF Chislev exception, and that's nominal only) offensive weapons, their value is utility only, so even without a counter, they're hardly unbalancing - and in mod-mods like RifE where the wilderness is full of things that will one-shot you, they're needed for survival.
I do think the re-bases are a bit ridiculous, though - and hardly needed, since a hawk can 'Load' onto a hunter.

Because hawks provide too much of a tactical advantage, too early. Why not nerf them in a way that makes sense lorewise, in addition to pushing them to a time when their line of sight isn't quite so powerful due to more mobile troops?

 

[Emptiness]

Because the Amurites can get access to the more powerful Floating Eye nearly as quickly as another civ (well, one that doesn't start with Exploration, anyway) can get access to Hawks. If Hawks are to be nerfed then what is to be done about Floating Eye?

 

[2Hydroclopse]

If I can recall, the floating eye requires metamagic mana and a caster, if a civ gets both of these early then that civ uniqueness would need to be judged, if as a whole it makes their civ overpowered compared to the uniqueness of other civs then it may need to be nerfed; the eye however is not the thing that needs to be considered for nerfing in your example, merely the early access of the eye by the Amurites.

 

[Emptiness]

I didn't mean to imply that only a direct nerf of the Floating Eye was possible. Just as there have been suggestions in this thread for nerfing Hawks directly and suggestions for nerfing Hawks indirectly (by making them harder to get), so too would direct and indirect nerfs of Floating Eye be up for consideration.

I think you're missing my point, though, or else deliberately pretending to miss it. I'm saying that Hawks don't need to be nerfed because they are not the only unit capable of providing an early tactical advantage by providing aerial reconnaissance, particularly because of fact the other unit that can do it does it better.

 

[2Hydroclopse]

Aside from the Amurites, I would not consider Floating Eyes to be early units.

I suppose I am missing your point; I don't see how having something more overpowered--floating eyes-- makes a similar thing--hawks-- not overpowered at all.

Perhaps you are making the argument that, if all civilizations have access to hawks then they are balanced. That might not be what you are implying; but if it were, then a similar situation could be thought of, for example an idea of starting every civ off with a dragon, while balanced, the unit would still be overpowered based on work required to obtain the unit--a dragon in this example-- versus its utility.

It could be that "overpowered-ness" is being discussed here. I would say that anything that is overpowered is something that easily obtainable and yet extremely useful for a successful, to be, empire.

--I apologize if I come off as a tad cold, it is an unintended side-effect of my thinking.--

 

[FireBlaze]

The Amurites don't really need to be nerfed.

 

[Emptiness]

There are some things Hawks can do that they probably should not be able to do, such as spreading CoE, or flying across the planet in one turn, or carrying an entire Dragon Hoard. I agree that those aspects of Hawks need to be looked at, and probably blocked. If that's what you mean by overpowered, then I can accept that. However, it seems to me that you (and others) are saying that even without these factors Hawks have problems.

(Other than as just stated) I contend that Hawks are neither overpowered nor unbalanced because the reconnaissance ability offered by Hawks is similar to that offered by the other unit of its type (pure aerial reconnaissance), and available to everyone.

Hawks are balanced because of the fact that they are available to everyone. That's the most fundamental type of balance possible. As you pointed out, that doesn't guarantee an appropriate power level. I feel that it is still an important fact, to refute the notion that the reconnaissance ability of Hawks is unbalanced. If battlefield awareness is so powerful (I agree that it is), but everyone can get it, then I see no unbalance.

That hasn't been the primary focus of this thread, however. Since the original post, the claim has been that Hawk reconnaissance is overpowered - and I'm asking "Overpowered compared to what?". The closest thing to a Hawk in the game is a Floating Eye, which has superior reconnaissance potential. It is true that only the Amurites can get it early enough to compete with other civs Hawks, but it should be just as valid to compare them as it is to compare a unit available to everyone with a civ's unique version of that unit.

If the conclusion that Hawks are overpowered isn't being made by comparison to Floating Eyes, then how is it being determined? A unit can't be overpowered in a vacuum, it has to be more powerful than something else. Before you answer, consider that a Hawk is almost as expensive to build as a Warrior, but can't attack or defend, and still requires unit support. [sarcasm]Sounds underpowered to me, better buff Hawks.[/sarcasm] Comparing Hawks to units with vastly different functions is unlikely to yield meaningful resuts. So against what inferior-yet-comparable thing are Hawks being measured, that demonstrates that they are overpowered?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Hawks are balanced because of the fact that they are available to everyone. That's the most fundamental type of balance possible.

That's a rather bad argument - if you give a 100 warrior to all civs at the start of the game, that warrior would still be unbalanced.

 

[Neomega]

The ability to see invisible units sneaking into your territory isn't "nothing". There are alternatives (Perfect Sight and the Floating Eye), but those alternatives require a much greater investment, may be harder to achieve (most civs will need to build a Wonder or promote an archery or recon unit to level 7 in order to get Perfect Sight), and in the case of Floating Eye involve even more micromanagement (Hawks don't have the added step of being summoned). The Hawks is a very important and useful unit. I could see advocating the redesign of Hawks to remove the need for micromanagement. The call to remove them entirely seems misguided at best.

they shouldn't be able to see invisibility. They make the Sidar worldspell useless, unless you use it in the first 80 turns.

and sentry should only require 1 star.... that would allow perfect sight units fairly early, if one were concerned about invisible units.

The game is eerier (eyrier?) when I don't use them though - having adequate garrisons and reserves become more important. I think it's more fun to have to play that way but I inevitably use hawks anyway: I can't help it, I've a duty to the citizens...

Agreed, I don't think they are overpowered, but I think they should come a tad later... perhaps with sorcery or divination (for the telepathic link), to make the exploration phase a bit longer. It is truly more fun/dangerous to explore the map with a walking unit, then just flying a hawk around.

And amurites, IMHO, should be able to see invisibility earlier, regarding the nerf balance issue. I don't see it as an issue. If amurites can get floating eye with KoTE, then so be it.

 

[Emptiness]

That's a rather bad argument - if you give a 100 warrior to all civs at the start of the game, that warrior would still be unbalanced.

No, that Warrior would be overpowered. Game balance and unit power level are two different problems. I addressed each of those aspects individually in my previous post. If you give every civ a Dragon (or 100 Warrior) at the start then balance is maintained even while power level goes out the window.

Since everyone has access to Hawks there should be no question whether they are balanced, and the only question should be whether they are overpowered. I stated my position on that in my previous post.

Agreed, I don't think they are overpowered, but I think they should come a tad later... perhaps with sorcery or divination (for the telepathic link), to make the exploration phase a bit longer. It is truly more fun/dangerous to explore the map with a walking unit, then just flying a hawk around.

And amurites, IMHO, should be able to see invisibility earlier, regarding the nerf balance issue. I don't see it as an issue. If amurites can get floating eye with KoTE, then so be it.

If Hawks need to be moved to a later tech, to make the exploration phase longer, then how could Floating Eye not need to be moved later as well? The Amurites can use it, in the same way, and potentially just as early in the game. If aerial reconnaissance is a problem, and needs to be weaker or harder to achieve, then that means all aerial reconnaissance units will need to be affected. How can using Hawks to explore the map "early" in the game be a problem, but using Floating Eyes to do the same thing at the same stage be fine?

 

[Neomega]

. How can using Hawks to explore the map "early" in the game be a problem, but using Floating Eyes to do the same thing at the same stage be fine?

Because they are the amurites. Like I said, I don't think hawks are incredibly overpowered or imbalanced.

 

[FireBlaze]

How can using Hawks to explore the map "early" in the game be a problem, but using Floating Eyes to do the same thing at the same stage be fine?

If you want to rush for KotE, and use an Adept to explore, then by all means go ahead, but I don't think It'll do you any good

 

[Humakty]

The main problem is not rushing KotE, it's having metamagic mana, which for most civs implies reaching sorcery, or vassalising the amurites (feudalism). Apart from that, the eye is far better, as it can see everything the hawk cannot (shadows..etc).( not so sure about this one )

 

[moshi]

i always felt like hawks were waaay overpowered to the point of being a exploit. took away any need for doing actual exploration. i never used them because they made the game less fun for me. YMMV


hawks were axed in a recent patch of Orbis and imo it was the right move from a gameplay standpoint. i wouldn't mind seeing them return if they were 1) bound to a specific hunter, so no flying across the globe and exploring in a single turn; and 2) there was a significant risk (say 30%) of them not returning from each recon mission they undertake, you know being birds and all, sometimes they get confused or fly into a thunderstorm or something. this would increase their cost and make it harder to take them for granted.

 

[Emptiness]

hawks were axed in a recent patch of Orbis and

... and now I understand where this is coming from.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I think that Hawks should be moved to Feral Bond(No, I don't play Orbis, just normal FFH). As I mentioned before, the knowledge you obtain from them is invaluable, as no other unit can rpovide as much information. Period. There is a reason airplanes come at Flight in BTS... In FFH it is made even worse by the Hawk's ability to see invisible units, because it's easier to get hawks than it is to get invisible units.

So, what if Hawks were moved to Feral Bond? Well, I don't think the Amurites need any nerfing; they are rather weak until Sorcery or Firebows. However, Floating Eyes could have either a reduced range, or act as a sentry/perfect sight promotion for the caster.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Who has need for exploration anymore that late in the game?

 

[moshi]

i think that's the point. if they came much later, you'd have to send vulnerable units out into the wilds in order to discover the world and feed the giant spiders, but would have the hawk's scouting abilities around the same time invisible marksmen become a real threat to your forces.



i still say get rid of those crazy birds though, they add nothing, from a gameplay standpoint.