The Mounted Niche (not a gripe)

[Bad Player]

Maybe the anti-mounted unit promotion should only apply when defending, not attacking, mounted units.

Flavour-wise this would be more realistic since ground troops don't have an advantage charging mounted troops (have any ground troops charged mounted units in rl?) and gameplay-wise it makes mounted units slightly more powerful.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

I agree that early game it should be hard to take cities. But a difficult to take city means fighting in stacks and seiges. It should also, occasinally be easy to take cities, dangerously easy, so battles would be fought out in "the fields" before cities get involved. It should eb and flow back and forth throughout history as the technology and tactics change.

...

Some sort of ebb and flow would encourage and discourage army sizes over time. A "turtle" would have to adjust accordingly, and an "agressor" would have to plan ahead. Or use unique tactics (seige during hard phases), to capture citys. The Important thing is that during "Easy" phases, numbers and sizes of compariable armies are what save the day, where as during "hard" phases, the types of units and level of those units would matter more.

...

This is exactly the sort of dynamic I love to see in a game. I'd go so far that is one of the reasons Civ has been to successful. As time goes by, different military aspects predominate in war. So I think it's pretty safe to say everyone playing FfH enjoys this sort of ebb and flow over the course of a game. (Just so long as it leands itself to more interesting game play and not just extra mouseclicking. )

My thoughts don't got to quite the same level of detail as yours but we certainly agree on the basic idea. I would not mind a lot of ebb and flow WRT ease of city capture. OTOH, designing in 'ebb and flow' is more ambitious than designing in 'ebb'. 'Ebb' is the meal, 'ebb and flow' is the desert. If we can afford desert, great!

The idea here is to encourage AI civilization survival into the midgame. Generally speaking, that will tend to create midgame maps divided up into many smallish realms. This is a more interesting midgame situation than one where the player is already one of the largest civilizations. Think of designed scenarios ... very rarely do you see scenarios where the player starts twice as big as the nearest rival. A possible way to get there might be:

Opening game: Cities have a very high +defense% bonus. The idea is to make Warriors and Archers powerful defenders against tier-2 units. (Note that very high city defenses would greatly enhance desireablility for the Drill promotion on dedicated garrison units.)

Midgame: The appearance of Macemen and theil ilk rougly marks the transition to the midgame. Simple assault of city walls by Macemen against Archers should be plausible, but very bloody for the Macemen. This is the midgame because of the "their ilk" part. This is when things like siege gear and spells and summoned critters are available to accompany the grunts. But this is also when defenders should see upgrades to Longbowmen, and Rings of Warding, and Castles appear.

Here is the ebb and flow portion, expressed in the race up the tech tree. Chand's idea to make mounted units kings of hidden nationality units fits right in here in the ebb and flow portion. So too does their expected counter: stealthy recon units. Ebb and flow comes from powerful city-cracking spells ... and their counter, the new assassin unit. More ebb and flow can be introduced by making, say, Rings of Warding more accessable. Perhaps other city defenses could appear, like moats. "Oh no, the enenmy has built a moat! Oh boy! We have units with the amphibious promotion!"

Engame: At some point the ebb and flow oscillation swings too far in one direction and one civilization obtains the strategic initative. Sometimes quality units are able to crush any number of lesser foes. Other times quanity shows it has a quality all its own. Neighboring civs topple, lands are gobbled up; Ragnarok calls. Sometimes a nation can make itself an unassailable citadel. Their borderlands grow lush and green as they hew down the 'lesser races' that desparately pile on to derail the upcoming cultural victory.

If you can flip on your PC, boot up FfH, create a random map, and get that sort of dynamic in your gameplay, then FfH must be judged one of the best PC games of all time.

It is extremely ambitious to think FfH can deliver scenario-quality gameplay from random map starts, I have to acknowledge that, but I honestly think FfH has that lofty goal in sight. 95% of existing computer games (Source: International Compendium of Fictional Statistics) fail to meet this standard. So it is asking a lot of the Design Team to produce a mod that performs so well. But hell ... we all know what 0.15 already does. Therefore we players are merciless in our expectations of the Team.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

the breakdown i have seen on the units is as follows

-- infantry -- foot unit , primary offensive
-- archery -- foot unit , spec city defense
-- siege engines -- busting cities
-- casters -- city busting , army leveling , destructive
-- land management
-- recon -- terrain based defense
-- calvary -- anti caster / anti siege

as far as a calvary solution, fixing the tech cost is one of the most obvious issues that has been talkedd about being fixed. honestly though if someone comes at you with casters (arcane and divine) calvary is really your only choice. inside your own territory this is easy , however outside its a bit rough. to this i have a few semi-simple solutions

1- allow the commando promotion available with combat 2 to mounted units (this forces them to be blooded before going offensive)

2- allow the sentry promotions to certain civs like the malakim (having a range of 4+ is only useful if you can see that far)

3- allow certain civs like the elves to carry hawks (see #2)

4- allow certain civs various spells to aid specifically in thier job
-- floating eye
-- haste
-- burning blood

another thing about calvary that i have found difficult is that horses are much harder to get then any of the metals or insence or reagents. this is caused by both low frequency and starting hidden. One solution to this i think would be to offer multiple grades of elephants also (easy in a fantasy setting).

I find myself agreeing with most everything in this post, except #3. Hawks are what recon units will be using to spot mounted units.

I definitely like #4, at least the Haste and Burning Blood parts. I mean for some civs, not for evey mounted unit. The Eye spell, though, I think is a bit too much.

I'm not sure about Commando alavilable so early, but OTOH it might be a stroke of genius. Even one unit with Commando and a Visibility promotion would be able to scout out vast chunks of an enemy realm.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Maybe the anti-mounted unit promotion should only apply when defending, not attacking, mounted units.

Flavour-wise this would be more realistic since ground troops don't have an advantage charging mounted troops (have any ground troops charged mounted units in rl?) and gameplay-wise it makes mounted units slightly more powerful.

If you did this, then the anti-mounted promotion should give a greater bonus -- like 50%. If horse units were then more powerful, it would mean that they cut through armies that aren't prepared for them, but have a harder time attacking those that have been trained to withstand a charge.

 

[Grey Fox]

If you did this, then the anti-mounted promotion should give a greater bonus -- like 50%. If horse units were then more powerful, it would mean that they cut through armies that aren't prepared for them, but have a harder time attacking those that have been trained to withstand a charge.

You can get a total of 120% vs mounted, isnt that enough?
(+the units inherent bonus)

 

[Hypnotoad]

Well, the idea would be to make horse units a fair amount stronger than they are now but provide a defense against them.

 

[QES]

A Source Concept for game/time control, balance, and the ebb and flow of expansion:


My idea is realatively simply, but not entirely easy.

Basically I want to see a LOT more terrain options. Right now, we Have Grasslands, Plains and Desert, Tundra and Ice. With Possible Additional Features including forests, jungle and Hills. Peaks are their own "impassible" sort of terrain.

What I want is a diversification and a increase in all of these aspects. And unique terrain. Also, I think that different levels of terrain should have different difficulties crossing into, and out of. As technolgoy progresses, access to crossing more space becomes possible. This isolates more groups early on (preventing early death - except by barbarians) and extends the exploration phase of the game. Let me explain.

In the begining, I think that all the standard terrains should be as they are. Everything as is, we are only adding, not subtracting.

I think that we should add the following terrains and features, and then allow for different technolgoies to make them passable - otherwise they are barriers to expansion.

Base Terrain Additions:
Wasteland: A wasteland is similar to a desert with the following exceptions - nothing, not even roads, can ever be built on it. It is also impassable until a technology comes along to make it passable (midgame?). In map creation, it should appear in the same places that desert would appear, but more rarely.

Feature Additions:
Chasm - This feature is the opposite of a hill. Its a dent in the ground. It should be able to function similarly to a hill, have a mine, etc. Perhaps even the same types of resources - however, it is impassable until X technology (Midgame?)

Rift - This would be similar to a river, except that it'd prevent passage from one side to the other, until complex (not normal) bridges were developed (late game?)

Darkwood Forest - THis type of forest would be impassable and provide no production bonus until the appropriate technology came along (Mid game?). And perhaps it always has a chance to spawn barbarians. Also, because its almost a magical kind of forest, (not sentiant but mystically wild), those with woodsy promotions would not benefit from those promotions in darkwoods. Also, Darkwoods would never grow, or spawn forests. They would be permanent features on the land - Also impossible to chop down. Elves and the like would be equaly foriegn to this kind of terrain.

Peaks (Adjustment) - Peaks would become passable at a certain point in the game (Late game?) to some specific "Mountainy" civilizations.

Ridgeline Mountains - A cross between a Mountain and a Hill, these terrain features would be impassable until X technology (Mid game). They would provide better mineing, but far inferior farming. Also their strategic value and possibility of resources would be higher.

Swamp - This would be similar to jungle, except that it'd be impassible until X Tech (VERY late game). It also, would never be able to be built in.

Fissure - This would be a feature on tundra and ice terrain. It'd be similar to Chasms, except that they would provide production bonuses above normal Chasms. They would also be impassable until X Technology.

Resources:
Volcano (Rare) This is a special resource that would only ever be found in "peak" terrains. It prevents any improvement from being built there, or being worked as a tile.

Adamantine (Rare) This strategic resource can only be found in Ridgeline Mountains. It doubles the production speed of all melee and calvary units.

Yronwood (Rare) This Strategic Resource can only be found in Darkwood Forests, it Doubles the prodcution Speed of Recon and Archery Units

Sage Pine (Very Rare) This strategic resource can only be found in Darkwood Forests, and doubles the productions speed of ships

Jadesnake Oil (Very Rare/Moderate) This Strategic/Luxury Resource can only be found in Desert and Wastelands. Allows construction of "Jade Temple" - which provides all Diciple units in that city with the Fear promotion.

In essence, I think that we can extend the exploration phase, in two messures. First, if Recon units are allowed to wander these impassible terrains freely, their other abilities can be adjusted so their not as useful weapons. Calvary could take that role in the "known" territories. But for terrain that is completely inaccesable, recon units would be king. If we have MANY and far reaching "inaccessable" swaths of land, then recons will still have a very large purpose. Barbarian activity would skyrocket. New boarders would be forged, and the importance of sea lanes would increase.
The second messure, is to have certain technologies grant access to these terrains and provide potential improvemnts and the like on top of them. THis would result simply in a second expansion. Actually several expansions, as each terrain would require its own technology to open up.

The wilds would be far more wild. And the safe lands would be far less safe. Recon units would have a very integral and important niche, therefore be reduced in power over all, and calvary would become almost istantly important, becuase it would replace what recon's role is currently.

I hope you like these ideas.
-Qes

EDIT: (Darkwood)

 

[Chandrasekhar]

The biggest problem that I see with your ideas is the limits on the area of Civ IV maps. If we're going to have sprawling dark forests and ridgelines crossing the terrain, then we have less space for the standard terrains. We only have so many squares per map, and the less grasslands and hills we have, the tougher it becomes to get anything done.

Perhaps if there was a default of fewer Civs in the game per map size, and if these terrains were regulated to appear only in the vast wildernesses between starting locations, they could have some use. The only problem there is that this would prevent the Civs from interacting in a meaningful way until these wildernesses were tamed. In my opinion, contact and trade between Civs already comes far too late (generally it waits until the borders are actually touching).

P.S. Don't think I don't know that this is a threadjack.

 

[QES]

The biggest problem that I see with your ideas is the limits on the area of Civ IV maps. If we're going to have sprawling dark forests and ridgelines crossing the terrain, then we have less space for the standard terrains. We only have so many squares per map, and the less grasslands and hills we have, the tougher it becomes to get anything done.

Perhaps if there was a default of fewer Civs in the game per map size, and if these terrains were regulated to appear only in the vast wildernesses between starting locations, they could have some use. The only problem there is that this would prevent the Civs from interacting in a meaningful way until these wildernesses were tamed. In my opinion, contact and trade between Civs already comes far too late (generally it waits until the borders are actually touching).

P.S. Don't think I don't know that this is a threadjack.

I dont think that the creation of these types of terrains would actually hinder civilization contact much anyway (though i do agree they should be in the sparwling sections between civ-starting locations. Because A) recon units would still be able to get through it and make contacts. And B) Knowing how the map usually looks, there would most likely be chokepoints and the like, so once a technology was discovered (or 2), access would become nominal, and war between civs would become much more common. Also, let us not forget the influence on Sea lanes. Sea power would become much more meaningful and important. As it would be a method of bypassing large swaths of unpassable land.

-Qes

P.S. The problem with being labeled as a threadjacker, is that everything you do, becomes a threadjack - even if germaine.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Actually, when you put it that way, it doesn't sound so bad. However, I'm worried that if these areas are meant to slow expansion until the appropriate tech, then there will be wilderness areas in between Civs. This may sound contradictory to what I normally say about wildernesses, but if two Civs don't have touching borders, then they're much less likely to go to war. Now, if we could somehow promote war between Civs that don't have landgrab as an objective, we might have something here.

 

[QES]

Actually, when you put it that way, it doesn't sound so bad. However, I'm worried that if these areas are meant to slow expansion until the appropriate tech, then there will be wilderness areas in between Civs. This may sound contradictory to what I normally say about wildernesses, but if two Civs don't have touching borders, then they're much less likely to go to war. Now, if we could somehow promote war between Civs that don't have landgrab as an objective, we might have something here.

I think that this would happen anyway with all the other modifiers that are starting to be implemented into diplomacy. Remember that score is often the largest reason for war, and that the modifiers of close boarders and such are usually negated through half a dozen other means. I usually wind up at war with civilizations (in vanilla, and FfH) that are NOT boardering me. Usually i take great care to keep my boarder neighbors, friends. It is those I give nothing to, those I dont regularly see, that often declare war on me. So, if there is vast wilderness, it would increase conflict GLOBALLY. For one, barbarians would be far far more prevelant. (I see a need to boost barbies anyway). Two, since people dont touch boarders, they're less likely to aquiesse to demands (lowering potential diplomacy modifiers). Three, a lot of wars are being fought over religion and alignment more than actual land-grab purposes. And four, in multiplayer, its not honestly going to affect people, because they think in logical- power grab terms anyway. I like the idea of large amounts of wilderness. But that's just me.
-Qes

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Oh, I like it too. The AI really ought to be more warlike, though. I'm pretty sure I haven't had war declared on me since .015 came out. If they already hardly war at all, then removing the close borders penalties will make war almost non-existent... at least in SP.

 

[QES]

Oh, I like it too. The AI really ought to be more warlike, though. I'm pretty sure I haven't had war declared on me since .015 came out. If they already hardly war at all, then removing the close borders penalties will make war almost non-existent... at least in SP.

One could easily add a more aggressive AI to compensate. Less negative modifiers to produce nastier effects. That'd be easy.
-Qes