Kael
Deity
You are probably right, I tested with an earth elemental to look for this condition but I forgot that it doesnt have a unit combat.
The balancing of puppets
- Thread starter Imuratep
- Start date
You are probably right, I tested with an earth elemental to look for this condition but I forgot that it doesnt have a unit combat.
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,048
Contridictory.
Even more contridictory.
If you do consider the summoner trait overpowered, just say so. As game designer you clearly have better judgement than us. Right now you sound like you have an opinion but you are too scared of saying it directly. Which doesn't come out right.
*****
1) Puppets are awesome in the beginning... if you can pay for the army costs. All those puppets and skeletons cost enough for you to be making a loss at 0% science, and by the time you get necromacy you will likely be facing archers and axeman. And how many puppets and skeletons do you need to throw towards the city? Hmm let's see, try throwing warriors and archers against axeman in regular civ4. See how many you need. Don't tell me to get my own axeman either. I can't tech both the arcane and the metals path. If I wait until that point, I will be facing champions.
2) By the time the Sheaim get 4 wraiths and 4 eater of dreams, the kinds of stacks that the enemies have are also truly enormous. 24 wraiths sound scary, until you see the ridiculous numbers of aquebasers sitting in the city. If you don't have enough summons to break through the critical point, it's just free experience. Add a high priest into the mix and next turn they will be unscratched.
Kael
Deity
Im sorry you feel like this. This is how I feel: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3706945&postcount=1
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,048
Yikes, I guess my words didn't come out right either!!!!
I wasn't bitter or anything. I'm just saying I feel game designers know better. But then you obviously value community output much more highly.
Personally, I don't really care too much about summoning, because there are stronger strategies out there to begin with. Ok, maybe I should save my breath for another aspect of the game that I do care about. Meh.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
From my experience, the best decisions are made when the goals are clearly stated. Do we think Summoning (sheaim and Belseraph) in general is too strong, or just puppets? How 'too strong' are puppets? Is it more a breaking of immersion problem than a balance one? etc etc.
Sheaims earlygame is strenghtened, their midgame and their lategame is weakened. Concerning midgame that's really a big loss as the count of spectres you can attack with is much lower (after you collected them for three turns). Perhaps some tests would show that the additional promotion equals the pure number but right now I think it is a loss.
The lategame is also weakened but not as much as the midgame as the majority of summons derives from drinking souls not from summoning itself. After one or two attack wraiths usually are weakened anyway and you can't give them promotions so the won't regenerate so the last turn was not that important. That said Sheaim are still among the strongest civs in this phase just because of Eater of Dreams.
So it rests that the midgame is weakened. Perhaps summons with combat3 could get the possibility to become permanent therewith the combat1 promotion would be synergistic with them too. The capacity of the summoners would be reduced but you had a wellpromoted summon that can be very effective in this phase.
The lategame is also weakened but not as much as the midgame as the majority of summons derives from drinking souls not from summoning itself. After one or two attack wraiths usually are weakened anyway and you can't give them promotions so the won't regenerate so the last turn was not that important. That said Sheaim are still among the strongest civs in this phase just because of Eater of Dreams.
So it rests that the midgame is weakened. Perhaps summons with combat3 could get the possibility to become permanent therewith the combat1 promotion would be synergistic with them too. The capacity of the summoners would be reduced but you had a wellpromoted summon that can be very effective in this phase.
So just cause their mid game got weakened you want to buff it again? What kinda logic is that? You say they are among the strongest of civs, and just because they have a weak era they need a buff?
Maybe we should give vampirism to moroi, because clearly the Calabim early game isnt as strong as their late game?
I don't see your logic here.
Maybe we should give vampirism to moroi, because clearly the Calabim early game isnt as strong as their late game?
I don't see your logic here.
I said they are still among the strongest civs in the lategame, not among the strongest civs (Overall they IMHO have a middle position). And my thought was that the original intention was not to weaken Sheaim, but puppets and without puppets the change wouldn't have been made at all.
But you're probably right, there are so many other civilizations that need a buff much more than them.
But you're probably right, there are so many other civilizations that need a buff much more than them.
I'm sorry if my post sounded a bit harsh, I just wanted to strengthen my view of what you said. 
In my opinion Sheaim is one of the strongest civs in MP. Their Pyre Zombies are very good, a bit too good in my opinion (that their collateral can kill is way too good). And Spectre spam is hard to defend against. They don't need Eater of Dreams to shine.
In my opinion Sheaim is one of the strongest civs in MP. Their Pyre Zombies are very good, a bit too good in my opinion (that their collateral can kill is way too good). And Spectre spam is hard to defend against. They don't need Eater of Dreams to shine.
No problem I didn't feel offended. You said only something that occurred to me after reading my post again. My suggestion wasn't meant as a necessary inclusion but a suggestion to rebuild the power they had before the change but after a second thought they don't really need it.
You're right they are very strong in MP, but every civilization can be devastating in MP in the hand of a smart player. What I like about the Sheaim is that it's one of the civilizations the AI can play quite good as a Pyre Zombie rush is a real challenge if you don't have Life II yet.
You're right they are very strong in MP, but every civilization can be devastating in MP in the hand of a smart player. What I like about the Sheaim is that it's one of the civilizations the AI can play quite good as a Pyre Zombie rush is a real challenge if you don't have Life II yet.
Dear dev team:
It's that relative newcomer again. Thusfar, I've only played 3 full games, 2 as Amurite and one as Sheaim. Despite my inexperience, I hope we can at least talk about the following:
Summoner is more than just overpowered. It is massively, amazingly super overpowered. +2 turns, as you pointed out, could result in that theoretical massive stack of 24 powerful summons from just 8 guys. That's already more than overpowered. Every AI city is ruins by the 14th summon, at most.
To then act like making it a stack of 16 units (+2 turns to +1 turns) WHILE giving them all a substantial 20% boost makes it all better sounds like grounding your kid for cursing but sending to his room with his TV and computer (with FFH2 on it).
I recommend the following be considered:
Summoner does the following:
All summoned units last for +2 turns.
BUT
Each Caster can only summon ONE of those units at a time. Just like skeletons. Except they're skeletons which die after 3 turns.
To me, this seem like the very definition of "reasonable." Still a very nice trait, but no where near a 2 million pound gorilla anymore.
The fact is, in my experience, having 24 maintenance-free powerful units is beyond unreasonable, and 16 is still ridiculous. With the above change, 4 archmages = 4 Fire Elementals, end of story. These semi-persistent nuits are ALREADY sufficiently buffed by virtue of the fact that they're semi-persistent. 3 turns is plenty of time for manuveuring, buffing, a few promotions, and multiple attacks.
Alternatively, if rent-a-hordes are absolutely unremovable features of this mod, I recommend crippling these units in a manner directly proportional to the number of extra turns you want, ie:
Summoner:
All summoned units last for +2 turns
All summoned units have -20% power.
Summmon spells can be stacked.
Or
All Summoned units last for +1 turns
All summoned units have -10% power.
etc
I'm not a modder, but as a writer or even back when playing with legos as a kid, I know the sharp pain of forcing my self to reduce and chop down my creations, but some things are just so overpowered they can't be fixed without tough crackdowns. This "ok, they only last TWO turns now, but they get extra power! And you can still have a indomitable, maintenance-free horder within two turns!" is just... nothing. If it's still a indefatigable horde, nothing's changed.
I'm sorry if that came off as harsh or amateurish. I just want to steer the discussion towards more radical yet simple solutions. At the very least, tell me I'm very, very wrong and why. I want to know. Because my game as the Sheaim was a cakewalk.
I never even MADE it to teir three spells. A stack of 16-20 Wraiths for the maintenance cost of a few mages was so ridiculous I was able to eventually split my army into 4 stacks (which would become megastacks at the drop of a dime), something I've never been able to do before. And this was with practically nothing of my economy devoted to my war machine!
It's that relative newcomer again. Thusfar, I've only played 3 full games, 2 as Amurite and one as Sheaim. Despite my inexperience, I hope we can at least talk about the following:
Summoner is more than just overpowered. It is massively, amazingly super overpowered. +2 turns, as you pointed out, could result in that theoretical massive stack of 24 powerful summons from just 8 guys. That's already more than overpowered. Every AI city is ruins by the 14th summon, at most.
To then act like making it a stack of 16 units (+2 turns to +1 turns) WHILE giving them all a substantial 20% boost makes it all better sounds like grounding your kid for cursing but sending to his room with his TV and computer (with FFH2 on it).
I recommend the following be considered:
Summoner does the following:
All summoned units last for +2 turns.
BUT
Each Caster can only summon ONE of those units at a time. Just like skeletons. Except they're skeletons which die after 3 turns.
To me, this seem like the very definition of "reasonable." Still a very nice trait, but no where near a 2 million pound gorilla anymore.
The fact is, in my experience, having 24 maintenance-free powerful units is beyond unreasonable, and 16 is still ridiculous. With the above change, 4 archmages = 4 Fire Elementals, end of story. These semi-persistent nuits are ALREADY sufficiently buffed by virtue of the fact that they're semi-persistent. 3 turns is plenty of time for manuveuring, buffing, a few promotions, and multiple attacks.
Alternatively, if rent-a-hordes are absolutely unremovable features of this mod, I recommend crippling these units in a manner directly proportional to the number of extra turns you want, ie:
Summoner:
All summoned units last for +2 turns
All summoned units have -20% power.
Summmon spells can be stacked.
Or
All Summoned units last for +1 turns
All summoned units have -10% power.
etc
I'm not a modder, but as a writer or even back when playing with legos as a kid, I know the sharp pain of forcing my self to reduce and chop down my creations, but some things are just so overpowered they can't be fixed without tough crackdowns. This "ok, they only last TWO turns now, but they get extra power! And you can still have a indomitable, maintenance-free horder within two turns!" is just... nothing. If it's still a indefatigable horde, nothing's changed.
I'm sorry if that came off as harsh or amateurish. I just want to steer the discussion towards more radical yet simple solutions. At the very least, tell me I'm very, very wrong and why. I want to know. Because my game as the Sheaim was a cakewalk.
I never even MADE it to teir three spells. A stack of 16-20 Wraiths for the maintenance cost of a few mages was so ridiculous I was able to eventually split my army into 4 stacks (which would become megastacks at the drop of a dime), something I've never been able to do before. And this was with practically nothing of my economy devoted to my war machine!
renardargent
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2008
- Messages
- 39
I agree that summoner trait is quite overpowered in that context; however, I also believe that most of the traits are quite well balanced when compared to each others, including summoner.
Although there is no doubt that summoner trait is the strongest war-helping trait, it is also true that it offers nothing until mages and maybe Gibbon or Hemah, and as you have described, to really exploit the summoner trait, a player would need a lot of mages or/and archmages, a requirement which should be hard enough and/or time consuming to meet.
On the other hand, other war-mongering trait, namely aggressive and raider, offer benefit to a player all the time, and they are quite powerful enough, when used in a right manner. (I mean raider+Hipppus or aggresive+Doviello is a nightmare for neighbors)
And of course, all other traits benefit a player in many other ways, and I am pretty sure that saying summoner trait is broken without comparing it with financial (much more research!) or aggressive (free combat I for most of the units all time, always helpful) does not make a sense.
Back to the topic, I think puppets still looks powerful, when considering it as limited "consuming soul" without population loss, but I do not know whether it is overpowered or not.
But then, I am just putting my 2 cents...
Although there is no doubt that summoner trait is the strongest war-helping trait, it is also true that it offers nothing until mages and maybe Gibbon or Hemah, and as you have described, to really exploit the summoner trait, a player would need a lot of mages or/and archmages, a requirement which should be hard enough and/or time consuming to meet.
On the other hand, other war-mongering trait, namely aggressive and raider, offer benefit to a player all the time, and they are quite powerful enough, when used in a right manner. (I mean raider+Hipppus or aggresive+Doviello is a nightmare for neighbors)
And of course, all other traits benefit a player in many other ways, and I am pretty sure that saying summoner trait is broken without comparing it with financial (much more research!) or aggressive (free combat I for most of the units all time, always helpful) does not make a sense.
Back to the topic, I think puppets still looks powerful, when considering it as limited "consuming soul" without population loss, but I do not know whether it is overpowered or not.
But then, I am just putting my 2 cents...
Blackmantle
King
When playing more games you will realize that in FFH2 Summoner is in fact not overpowered in comparison to other civs (neither has it been before the change. It was only Keelyn which was really over the top. Also the summons are in fact not maintenance free. Or at least not all of them. This is very easily seen when summoning many units and)
What has distorted your evaluation here is that
a) you still seem heavily influenced by vanilla civ / bts or other games that value balance over gameplay and / or are balanced primary for competitive multiplayer (where utmost possible balance is mandatory to guarantee at least the possibility of a solid experience.).
b) In FFH 2 most civs are "overpowered" by vanilla civ/bts standards and the civs are balanced by making all civs so overpowered that it evens out.
And one of the most powerful units in the game are arguably plain simple warriors massed for a rush right at the start of the game. If the sheaim (player or AI) will be targeted by that one chances are they won't reach even Knowledge of the Aether, let alone the point where they can reasonably leverage their trait.
Archmages / Eaters of Dreams might seem! very overpowered but they fill an important role: A tool to wrap up game instead of it turning into a stalemate. So that extreme power is actually intended to close the long game with a bang not a long tiresome and boring grind (most high-tier4 Units act like that one).
c) also the balance is done mostly at macro-level so you can't compare the power of Sheaim summons purely to the power of summoners from other civs without the summoning trait since its the Sheaim strong point.
If anything you would have to compare the Sheaim as a whole for example to the Svartalfar (which strongly favor recon and an extremely strong economy) or the Hippus (which strongly favor the mounted line and warfare overall) as a whole and you'll see that the Sheaim are not all over the stratosphere (and the way you spoke here very much indicates that you think the sheaim are beyond anything that is reasonable) in comparison to them or in fact most other civs (since the majority of civs here is strong to very strong. The common or weak ones are actually the minority.).
Some might argue, that those 2 are in fact quite a bit stronger than the Sheaim despite their extreme summoning powers..
That still doesn't work out perfectly in all cases (like Amurites vs. Sheaim). But it simply needn't be. Since the focus of design for this game (as per the team's comments are replayability, diversity and to a much lesser degree a good singleplayer experience. So balance isn't even the main focus.
You can't please everyone's taste equally and some things that cater to some players diminish the fun for others. There is sometimes no way around it (here in singleplayer experience vs. multiplayer experience.).
If you are looking for perfect balance as a primary decider if you have fun with a game (Whatever reason there might be for it. Since there are many sensible ones...
) you better look elsewhere or at least don't let yourselves be deceived by the illusion that it would be a primary goal and will ever be aceived.d) especially in your case, since the Amurites are one of the rather weak civs and the Sheaim are arguably one of the most powerful late-game civs and surely a powerful one overall also in Multiplayer. (also you seem to have missed that while the Sheaim can field 8-9 Archmage-power casters which can summon 24+ Tier 3 Summons the Amurites can actually field 17-18 Archmage-power casters which can summon 17-18 Tier 3 Summons each turn or other spells or 25-27 Tier 3 Summons in an emergency thanks to their Archmages and Liches having Spellstaff for free (all Units Mage and up in fact.). All with more powerfull damage-spells and other arcane advantages, Have far easier acess to a much larger number or Adept-Level and especially Mage-Level summoners.
Still the Sheaim are stronger in their niche thanks to some aspects. But shouldn't they be? Its their point of power after all.)
Summoner actually is an average trait overall (because it comes into play rather late, many a player has finished a game prior to even the time most get to research sorcery at...) when coupled with their civs/Leaders (Sheaim and Keelyn only).
Which are inseparable since it can't even be chosen by adaptive or gained by insane i believe so here the civ-balance term is fully acurate.
The problem here really has only been puppets and Keelyn of the Balseraphs (which could get a whopping 72! summons from those 8 mages you mentioned or just needed 3 to field an impressive 27 Summons. Hence some of the participants in this thread said that the nerf should target only puppets of Keelyn. Not everyone who has summoner... Since Keelyn is still ahead by far. Still having the potential to summon a whopping 20 Summons with 5 Mages / Archmages).
Your suggestions whould make summoner downright awful, and the reduce the Sheaim only to pyre Zombies, which are their only real perk in terms of raw power when compared to other civs.
Thunder_Gr
Emperor
OK, I accept the challenge. Give me the Amurites, and I will defeat any civ with Summoner!!
Blackmantle
King
I usually don't play multiplayer (and surely not competitive when i have a choice) so i confess that is a weak point from my part and only secondhand (accounts of which seen in this thread and elsewhere).
But removing that point would make my overall argument that summoner isn't a problem even stronger, wouldn't it (and put Cliftors view even more into question)?
And from a Singleplayer viewpoint the Sheaim seem quite a bit stronger... (Unless the most recent changes have really so hugely improved the Amurites since i haven't played them since late Shadow. But i have my serious doubts about that given what the changes contain.)
So if you are up for such kind of challenge it sounds fine but you'll have to find someone else to compete and who is very adept at playing either the Balseraphs under Keelyn or the Sheaim under whatever leader... But since you uttered it so forcefully perhaps someone will come along and aceppt such a contest alright. So good luck to finding somesuch...
(Doesn't mean the Amurites can't defeat an AI Balseraph or Sheaim but i have my doubts that such a thing would prove much. Would it?)
That said this nerf here in patch t might well have been a huge blow to the sheaim displacing them into upper middle tier of civs (at least in singleplayer). I can't say this for sure. Not horrible overall but not necessary imo.
But removing that point would make my overall argument that summoner isn't a problem even stronger, wouldn't it (and put Cliftors view even more into question)?
And from a Singleplayer viewpoint the Sheaim seem quite a bit stronger... (Unless the most recent changes have really so hugely improved the Amurites since i haven't played them since late Shadow. But i have my serious doubts about that given what the changes contain.)
So if you are up for such kind of challenge it sounds fine but you'll have to find someone else to compete and who is very adept at playing either the Balseraphs under Keelyn or the Sheaim under whatever leader... But since you uttered it so forcefully perhaps someone will come along and aceppt such a contest alright. So good luck to finding somesuch...
(Doesn't mean the Amurites can't defeat an AI Balseraph or Sheaim but i have my doubts that such a thing would prove much. Would it?)
That said this nerf here in patch t might well have been a huge blow to the sheaim displacing them into upper middle tier of civs (at least in singleplayer). I can't say this for sure. Not horrible overall but not necessary imo.
Thunder_Gr
Emperor
I was just making a point.
I have played the Amurites and the Shaeim, and, although Summoner is(was?) cool, by no means made them overpowered.I still prefer the Amurites, and, if someone plays them as they are supposed to be played, they are powerful.
Many players have been complaining about them being weak, but, IMO, they just haven't found the correct way to play them, yet.
Yes, I agree with your points, and I was one of the first to mention that this is an uneeded nerf, and the puppets could be balanced without it.
Blackmantle
King
Yea, perception is always a big deal.
I often see people verbaly tear the Sidar apart as an unimpressive middle tier civ here in the forums. I always have to chuckle when i see this. And most civs can do rather well when played by someone really competent with them (Doviello likely excluded. At least in Singleplayer in maps above small mapsize. Which is standart for me...).
I believe even the Bannor have a bit more going for them than visible on first sight...
But one has to say that the Shaim have a very interesting background / mechanics which set them apart from most others.
Which might lead many players to like them (they should still carry a big warning tag though. Its not exactly an easy or simple civ. No wonder someone like Cliftor who played not so many games of FFH2 but still has found a good grip on them finds them nuts... Thats what most of the advanced civs of FFH2 are. Another good demonstration why new players should rather start with the simple civs and rather play the complex ones later on...).
The Amurites at least are one of the not very special civs in terms of FFH2. (That has been improved quite a bit with the new Ganovan and the most recent changes to the tech-tree. I give you so much)
So that at least isn't very surprising imo...
If the magic-system itself wouldn't be that confusing it would be an excellent civ to start FFH2 with. But its still a good tutorial-civ for magics if the basics have been grasped.
I often see people verbaly tear the Sidar apart as an unimpressive middle tier civ here in the forums. I always have to chuckle when i see this. And most civs can do rather well when played by someone really competent with them (Doviello likely excluded. At least in Singleplayer in maps above small mapsize. Which is standart for me...).
I believe even the Bannor have a bit more going for them than visible on first sight...
But one has to say that the Shaim have a very interesting background / mechanics which set them apart from most others.
Which might lead many players to like them (they should still carry a big warning tag though. Its not exactly an easy or simple civ. No wonder someone like Cliftor who played not so many games of FFH2 but still has found a good grip on them finds them nuts... Thats what most of the advanced civs of FFH2 are. Another good demonstration why new players should rather start with the simple civs and rather play the complex ones later on...).
The Amurites at least are one of the not very special civs in terms of FFH2. (That has been improved quite a bit with the new Ganovan and the most recent changes to the tech-tree. I give you so much)
So that at least isn't very surprising imo...
If the magic-system itself wouldn't be that confusing it would be an excellent civ to start FFH2 with. But its still a good tutorial-civ for magics if the basics have been grasped.
I play the Doviello with mapsize large and on immortal very often and it's not a problem to win this at turn 250-280 on normal speed on pangea. On continents it's an additional 50 turns, because you have to prepare a little fleet to cross the ocean, but for them the lack of support ways isn't so much a problem so they are even quite good at doing it (just adopt slavery and your attacking forces grow and grow). That's why I absolutely support your point, but I don't want to see my favorites excluded. It's a cliché that the Doviello can't have an economy that's equal with builders. After consolidating my conquered economy I often have the best research rate of all remaining civs.
Blackmantle
King
Comparable perhaps (if only with Mahla and alot of Raiding conducted).
But equal is hard to picture for me. With a whopping -25/-35% beakers and less option to run specialists for early and later greath people.
I won't deny that a competent player can win with them (most experienced players should be able to beat immortal and up or at least emperor and up with the civ they are really competent at playing). But i have real problems of understanding how they can regularly actually even get equal in exactly equal circumstances (especially if compared with simmilar civs like the Hippus or even to a lesser degree the clan.).
That said they completely don't fit my playstyle (i'm a diehard builder when i do have the option.) and i feel they could need a little beef-up to make them more capable then they are already. And to make them a bit more popular. So i tend to picture them quite strongly. To raise awareness of the issue.
(and that the issue persists can be seen in both polls about the popularity of the civs...
If really few people favor the doviello even Kael mentioned he might have a problem with it. If i remember correctly according to him its not really improtant how many people actually dislike them. So its sensible to focus on how many people really like them (most or among the most favorite). Perhaps it would be sensible to do a new poll (with 3 or so legal choices per player and all civs included.). But i have my doubts the outcome would be much different and think the Doviello would still come out clearly on bottom. As long as that is done we have to take the standing polls where the results are clear on both least liked and most disliked.).
But equal is hard to picture for me. With a whopping -25/-35% beakers and less option to run specialists for early and later greath people.
I won't deny that a competent player can win with them (most experienced players should be able to beat immortal and up or at least emperor and up with the civ they are really competent at playing). But i have real problems of understanding how they can regularly actually even get equal in exactly equal circumstances (especially if compared with simmilar civs like the Hippus or even to a lesser degree the clan.).
That said they completely don't fit my playstyle (i'm a diehard builder when i do have the option.) and i feel they could need a little beef-up to make them more capable then they are already. And to make them a bit more popular. So i tend to picture them quite strongly. To raise awareness of the issue.
(and that the issue persists can be seen in both polls about the popularity of the civs...
If really few people favor the doviello even Kael mentioned he might have a problem with it. If i remember correctly according to him its not really improtant how many people actually dislike them. So its sensible to focus on how many people really like them (most or among the most favorite). Perhaps it would be sensible to do a new poll (with 3 or so legal choices per player and all civs included.). But i have my doubts the outcome would be much different and think the Doviello would still come out clearly on bottom. As long as that is done we have to take the standing polls where the results are clear on both least liked and most disliked.).
Not that it's really necessary to have a good economy if you are playing the Doviello as you can steamroll anyone quite easily and as you don't need about 70% of the techs for a win, but you can compensate that loss very good by having a large empire with many cottages and eldercouncils, that pays its maintenance by city states, courthouses and markets.
At some point a small empire with about 8 cities will be overwhelmed economywise by an empire of 20 cities if the bigger empire can research at 80% even if the bigger empire has -35% research (Of course I'm ruling out wonders like great library or crown of akharien that can put a small empire on the top singlehanded).
The other possibility to boost your research is of course conquering itself. With the money you gain from it you can easily research at 100% even with losses of 50 per turn during the whole war.
Concerning the playstyle discussion: Yes, they aren't your playstyle, but buildercivs aren't mine. Every civ is made for certain player types. Doviello, Clan and Hippus for people who love warmongering and Kurios and Sidar for "diehard builders". So why are Doviello interesting for me as an aggroplayer? They offer a real new concept of aggressive playstyle: Being able to lead war at turn 8 and never stopping at all with Charadon (I had constant war till my victory at turn 270) OR steamrolling your opponents with hordes of cheap slaveryborn sons of asena with Mahala. It's not always necessary to introduce shiny new features to open interesting new ways of play. The only thing that would really help them is that weapon promotions can be taken from enemy units or even better a unit that's able to distribute the weapontype they have as these both would really support the playstyle of both leaders (the second would of course support Mahala more as the problem of her slaveryborn sons of asena is that they lack weapon promotions)
At some point a small empire with about 8 cities will be overwhelmed economywise by an empire of 20 cities if the bigger empire can research at 80% even if the bigger empire has -35% research (Of course I'm ruling out wonders like great library or crown of akharien that can put a small empire on the top singlehanded).
The other possibility to boost your research is of course conquering itself. With the money you gain from it you can easily research at 100% even with losses of 50 per turn during the whole war.
Concerning the playstyle discussion: Yes, they aren't your playstyle, but buildercivs aren't mine. Every civ is made for certain player types. Doviello, Clan and Hippus for people who love warmongering and Kurios and Sidar for "diehard builders". So why are Doviello interesting for me as an aggroplayer? They offer a real new concept of aggressive playstyle: Being able to lead war at turn 8 and never stopping at all with Charadon (I had constant war till my victory at turn 270) OR steamrolling your opponents with hordes of cheap slaveryborn sons of asena with Mahala. It's not always necessary to introduce shiny new features to open interesting new ways of play. The only thing that would really help them is that weapon promotions can be taken from enemy units or even better a unit that's able to distribute the weapontype they have as these both would really support the playstyle of both leaders (the second would of course support Mahala more as the problem of her slaveryborn sons of asena is that they lack weapon promotions)
