The Huns

[CppMaster]

Another thing we played with at one point was giving Attila some sort of bonus for afraid civs, or a bonus when successfully demanding something from another civ. Maybe trigger a golden age if you manage to make a demand. This would be a reference to his bullying of eastern and western Rome, and the treaty of Margus

Currently it's way too easy to demand, because civs become Afraid too easily.

Alright, what about this.

+100% Flanking Damage. 50% Chance to Capture defeated Enemy Units, and 50% Chance to inflict Surrounded Status Effect on enemy Land Units through melee, reducing their Healing by 10 and Vision by 1.

So either you capture them, or you 'poison' them. We keep the UA as I had it above, so there's no double-dipping versus barb camps.

Seems fair?

G

I don't like this gamble. I don't think this game need any more randomness.

Both capturing units and reducing their movement are interesting, but I like the former better as it feels more unique.

How about:
-Keep capturing units
-No war weariness from loosing captured units
-No maintenance cost and supply needed for captured units

Would that be OP? UP? Balanced?

 

[CrazyG]

I think the issue with the current capture system is how it interacts with supply and war wariness. If you are going to capture units just by killing them, you need extra supply and some protection from war wariness.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I generally like CppMaster's proposal. To stop the Huns from being OP, however, I'd only introduce "no supply needed" and "no weariness" from captured units, and if necessary to balance things out, I'd also lose the extra flanking bonus. Captured units should still cost maintenance, in my opinion.

 

[Rekk]

In the "No war weariness" version, what pushes AI Atilla to accept a peace treaty? So far, most of my neutral treaties (seem to) have come about due to war weariness (affecting happiness?). Will Attila not generally accept neutral treaties? What is required for Attila's Negotiate Peace option to move from "Impossible"?

 

[pineappledan]

In the "No war weariness" version, what pushes AI Atilla to accept a peace treaty? So far, most of my neutral treaties (seem to) have come about due to war weariness (affecting happiness?). Will Attila not generally accept neutral treaties? What is required for Attila's Negotiate Peace option to move from "Impossible"?

Your sister, the princess, and half the empire as dowry

I do wonder, though, if it wouldn't be better to give Huns Half war weariness instead of complete immunity. There's a -25% war weariness policy which they wouldn't get any value out of otherwise, and it's possible that complete immunity might actually cause incentives to just never make peace with someone. ever.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

Good point. Maybe half WW and no supply-cap reduction from WW? Would compensate it somewhat.

 

[amateurgamer88]

I was wondering if it's possible to add this to the Hun's UA:

• x units are maintenance free

The maintenance free units will help the Huns early on as they can field a larger army. It becomes less relevant later on since they will have a much larger army and will require policies to keep the unit maintenance down.

In addition, can captured units have 40 hp instead of 25? Having it slightly higher means your enemies have to invest a bit more to kill them so, if they want to inflict WW, they have to risk more/use more movements.

 

[pineappledan]

Yeah, I think -50% WW is a better idea... there’s a world of difference between a penny and free.
If it’s possible to inflict double WW, the Huns will be giving 4x as much WW as they get. With Authority, that would be 8x.

I’m not keen on making captured units maintenance/supply free. You could sell all your base units and have an army almost entirely composed of free units relatively easily. Reducing WW already means Huns are operating with a higher effective supply pool than everyone else.

@amateurgamer88, that’s pretty similar to zulu’s UA. Zulu get -50% maintenance, and double supply from their barracks. All this free supply/maintenance talk just sounds like stepping on zulu’s toes.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Yeah, I think -50% WW is a better idea... there’s a world of difference between a penny and free.
If it’s possible to inflict double WW, the Huns will be giving 4x as much WW as they get. With Authority, that would be 8x.

I’m not keen on making captured units maintenance/supply free. You could sell all your base units and have an army almost entirely composed of free units relatively easily. Reducing WW already means Huns are operating with a higher effective supply pool than everyone else.

@amateurgamer88, that’s pretty similar to zulu’s UA.

Do captured units keep their promotions? I only had one game so I don't remember.

 

[pineappledan]

I do not think they do. That’s to make sure captured barbarians don’t retain their unique mobility promotions, but I could be mistaken. Free promotions are definitely retained, but I don’t think earned promotions are...

someone confirm?

 

[Stalker0]

I feel like people are underestimating captured units. Once you address the WW issue, captured units give you a tremendous boost in military power, especially early in the game. I don't see the need to decrease maintenance and decrease their supply needs and all of that.

 

[Minh Le]

Captured units do not keep their promotions.

 

[amateurgamer88]

I feel like people are underestimating captured units. Once you address the WW issue, captured units give you a tremendous boost in military power, especially early in the game. I don't see the need to decrease maintenance and decrease their supply needs and all of that.

Maybe I played them wrong but it's so easy for me to hunt barbarian camps and just go over the supply cap limit very quickly. And I lost a lot of GPT due to those extra units. I guess it can be situational because, if you don't have a close neighbor, all that spike in military units don't help you as much.

 

[chicorbeef]

I think the only change made should be -50 percent War Weariness. I don't see a reason to redesign the whole system.

Maybe I played them wrong but it's so easy for me to hunt barbarian camps and just go over the supply cap limit very quickly. And I lost a lot of GPT due to those extra units. I guess it can be situational because, if you don't have a close neighbor, all that spike in military units don't help you as much.

Exactly my experience but I think it's intended to prevent it being OP. With -50 percent WW you'd be more inclined to grind them away.

I actually really like the surrounded mechanism idea though I think it should go on some other UU. Panzer, maybe Comanche Riders or something, one of the later less unique UUs.

 

[amateurgamer88]

I think the only change made should be -50 percent War Weariness. I don't see a reason to redesign the whole system.

Exactly my experience but I think it's intended to prevent it being OP. With -50 percent WW you'd be more inclined to grind them away.

What's your experience with AI Huns in your games? I feel like they aren't as dangerous early on since I don't think the AI disbands units and, at least in my games, I see them struggling early game when they should be thriving more.

 

[chicorbeef]

What's your experience with AI Huns in your games? I feel like they aren't as dangerous early on since I don't think the AI disbands units and, at least in my games, I see them struggling early game when they should be thriving more.

Well, I meant human experience (only played one game with them but still) though Huns do just fine in my games. Huge army, solid infrastructure and tech. They don't fall off either.

 

[pineappledan]

Maybe I played them wrong but it's so easy for me to hunt barbarian camps and just go over the supply cap limit very quickly. And I lost a lot of GPT due to those extra units. I guess it can be situational because, if you don't have a close neighbor, all that spike in military units don't help you as much.

Liquidate your extra units, you silly guy. If you have too many units there's a button to make less units; just keep the ones you want. Ya'll want everything forever, without any downsides. I'm sorry, but not having to build units should be a good enough reward without them also being maintenance-free, able to fly, grant wishes, and read you a bedtime story.

I actually really like the surrounded mechanism idea though I think it should go on some other UU. Panzer, maybe Comanche Riders or something, one of the later less unique UUs.

I agree, I think this new plague-placer mechanic is a great excuse to look at some of the more drab unique units, rather than overhaul an entire UA.

I think the only change made should be -50 percent War Weariness. I don't see a reason to redesign the whole system.

Gazebo has stated a desire to shift Huns towards being more unique in comparison to other warmongers. If you think about it, +100% flank is similar to Sweden's +20% on attack and Zulu's Buffalo promotions

If manipulating WW is on the table, then that seems like a good excuse to take away any unique combat promotion, and focus a little harder on making Huns the warmonger that manipulates happiness as his core mechanic. That would be a unique niche that only Huns can exploit, and the market's flooded with civs with unique promotions already.

Huns are the "barbarian civ", after all:

• Barbs don't get unique combat bonuses
• Unit conversion is a good fit, so you can recruit more barbs to your army of barbs
• Barbs are perpetually at war with other civs
• Making civs really unhappy decreases their CS, and spawns more barbs for your army of barbs

 

[Gazebo]

Glad I started this discussion, some good ideas bouncing around here.

G

 

[Rekk]

Gazebo has stated a desire to shift Huns towards being more unique in comparison to other warmongers. If you think about it, +100% flank is similar to Sweden's +20% on attack and Zulu's Buffalo promotions

If manipulating WW is on the table, then that seems like a good excuse to take away any unique combat promotion, and focus a little harder on making Huns the warmonger that manipulates happiness as his core mechanic. That would be a unique niche that only Huns can exploit, and the market's flooded with civs with unique promotions already.

Huns are the "barbarian civ", after all:

• Barbs don't get unique combat bonuses
• Unit conversion is a good fit, so you can recruit more barbs to your army of barbs
• Barbs are perpetually at war with other civs
• Making civs really unhappy decreases their CS, and spawns more barbs for your army of barbs

Would this include inflicting additional war weariness on their enemies? Otherwise the Huns will do fine with protracted wars, but how long does it take for war weariness to become an issue in the ancient/classical era? Is there any other way to force unhappiness on the civ the Huns are at war with?

 

[pineappledan]

Would this include inflicting additional war weariness on their enemies? Otherwise the Huns will do fine with protracted wars, but how long does it take for war weariness to become an issue in the ancient/classical era? Is there any other way to force unhappiness on the civ the Huns are at war with?

Here is the version of the Hun's UA I am now advocating for.

Scourge of God
-50% War Weariness and inflicts double War Weariness against other Civilizations. Melee Units have 50% Chance to Capture defeated Enemy Units. Claims adjacent unowned Land tiles when Cities earn a Land tile of the same type.

• I'm not sure how much coding having increased war weariness would require, but it seems doable.
• Since war weariness has been changed to being incurred by both damage taken and damage given, Huns converted units, even if they are killed the same turn, still serve a purpose of inflicting unhappiness on the enemy.
• I think it also offers a chance for Huns to serve as a decent "tech demo" for the new war weariness mechanic (like Arabia and the Historic Events system).
• I would expand the unit capture to all melee units. This seems more AI-friendly, and G has stated a preference to differentiate Huns away from the Mongols a bit more.
• G posted a UA proposal that just said "all defeated units", but I'm not sure if he meant all melee units, since I think it would require new code to have unit conversion occur if a unit was killed with a ranged attack. I don't think it's a great idea even if that is possible, because you could convert land units using naval ranged units and vice-versa, or convert units via air strikes. That sounds pretty silly to me.