Ahriman
Tyrant
I probably won't get a chance to look today; maybe tonight.
Warhammer Heart of Chaos: Design Discussion
- Thread starter Psychic_Llamas
- Start date
Ahriman
Tyrant
Ogres:
It think they should eat Gnoblars for healing, and city pop for experience, like FFH vamps.
I suspect that tier2 core melee will need to remain uncapped. Otherwise we could have big problems, particularly on large maps.
Why don't we just have a slave-capture chance, and a buildnig that lets you sacrifice slaves for food?
I don't really like the -3 food penalty. That would make it not worth building, and woudl go against the entire faction design of having very high food income, used to rapidly repopulate cities or to build the ogre units.
I think each faction should onyl have one slave-sacrifice ability, to avoid duplication. This should probably be food for ogres.
To incorporate the idea of sacrificing people for knowledge, how about the maw temple has -1 food but +3 beakers? And a military production bonus?
I know we agreed on the halfling kitchen before, but I wonder if it has too many effects? They do all seem flavorful, but...
I still really love the gargantuan larder, I am excited to see that in play. Hopefully the Dunewars people will get the SDK changes working without too much hassle.
Could be ok. We can playtest.
Otherwise, looks good, I think these will be fun to play.
)
It think they should eat Gnoblars for healing, and city pop for experience, like FFH vamps.
Interesting, will require playtest. Should be ok.
I suspect that tier2 core melee will need to remain uncapped. Otherwise we could have big problems, particularly on large maps.
This sounds like annoying micromagement that the AI won't understand.
Why don't we just have a slave-capture chance, and a buildnig that lets you sacrifice slaves for food?
I don't really like the -3 food penalty. That would make it not worth building, and woudl go against the entire faction design of having very high food income, used to rapidly repopulate cities or to build the ogre units.
I think each faction should onyl have one slave-sacrifice ability, to avoid duplication. This should probably be food for ogres.
To incorporate the idea of sacrificing people for knowledge, how about the maw temple has -1 food but +3 beakers? And a military production bonus?
I know we agreed on the halfling kitchen before, but I wonder if it has too many effects? They do all seem flavorful, but...
I still really love the gargantuan larder, I am excited to see that in play. Hopefully the Dunewars people will get the SDK changes working without too much hassle.
These kind of effects are tricky/messy now with all the races. There are 3 types of elves, 2 types of dwarve, and humans don't even have a promotion. I don't object to the idea, but its probably hard to implement.
Bombing city defenses? Can hand weapons really knock down castle walls? That feels a bit much. Maybe just a higher ranged strength (remember we have the FF unit bombardment system now)?
National limit 3.
Just forests. There is no hills terrain penalty, nor should trampling help remove one.
I think the ??? tech is called something like Insatiable Hunger.
Hmm... sounds complicated. Maybe it just has some sacrifice spells that destroy the weakest unit in the stack when cast?
Re the crosseed out heal 15%: we can make the Ogre promotion an OR requirement for Cannibalize promotion. So ogre units can select cannibalize when they gain levels.
I thought "gut magic" was canon? Whatever you prefer though.
This is a selectable promotion from levelups?
Could be ok. We can playtest.
Otherwise, looks good, I think these will be fun to play.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
oh yeh, i forgot that was the way we planned it
i wasnt 100% on that. fixed.sweet
good point. i didnt write in unit caps because i figured we would discuss it here. what sort of caps do you think should bw used, if any?
i suppose we could do. It seems to work ok in LENA, though im not 100% sure if the AI uses it. slaves would be a good solution though
i was trying to balance the building
it seemed OP without it. the reasoning for it is that the Ogres would sacrifice food into the pit for the Great Maw.both very good points. i agree on the -1 food but +3 beakers
we can always cut effects
suggest away me too!
Humans should have a promotion for coding reasons. there are a few python calls we might want to make for all human units.
i wasnt 100% sure of this effect either, but it is fitting for the unit. if i can get it working like that would you still agree to it? or should we reconsider it to just +30% vs Humans?
these 'hand weapons' are effectively small cannons
i think they should do some damage to walls. but if you want the extra range strength would work instead.ok.
much better idea
i believe gut magic is the slang term for gastromancy. i like the sound of gastromancy though
yeh. i was trying to think of additional promotions for the ogres to buy once they exceed the normal ones. that was always a problem with the Vampires.
awesome
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
@ everyone, dont forget to take a look at the hobgoblins too
Ahriman
Tyrant
Hobgoblins.
I don't really like this. Are the Orks *really* less likely to have diplomacy with the Hobgobs than they are with dark elves or high elves or the Empire or Lizardmen or Khemri?
Surely orks still prefer hobgoblins to vampires, chaos demons or high elves?
I would implement this with a permanent -2 diplomacy modifier, in the same way that we were talking about adding penalties between natural enemies like high and dark elves, high elves and dwarves, araby and estalia, etc.
Sounds fine. I imagine Hobgoblins as being a bit like the Hippus in FFH; mercenary raiders.
With some AI leader parameters, I think I have done a good job of making the Ordos feel very Mercenary in DuneWars; it is very easy to buy them into a war on your side.
Well, Brettonnia already has incredibly mobile cavalry because the horselord gives +1 movement to cavalry. Maybe it should not give +1 movement; maybe it should give an attack strength bonus instead? I quite like this actually.
Also, Brettonnia is more about knights, whereas I guess hobgobs are probably more about light cav and horsearchers.
The larger challenge I think is to distinguish them from Hung.
I will make some comments on the list, but I think we should still consider this "under construction" and try to brainstorm some more.
I think these are different enough from goblins to justify their own Hobgoblin racial promotion (or lack there of), which should probably have no effect - or maybe a flat +5% bonus on plains?
(If we go with the plains bonus in the race, reduce 5% from any plains bonuses below.)
Hobgobs are a lot tougher (and bigger) than normal goblins.
More to the point, these sound like espionage units, not skirmishers.
A lot of these names are weak; maybe we should use more explicitly Mongol names?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization
Some good words:
Tumen, instead of warband.
Hordu, instead of regiment.
Noyan, an officer
Khan, a general.
Kharash: basically slaves, forcibly conscripted into fighting to serve as cannon fodder and soak up ranged fire.
Keshik, horse-archers.
For one thing, I think we should probably drop "Hobgoblin" from all the names. Every elven unit isn't called "Elven", every Ogre unit isn't called "Ogre", etc.
For pike slot, maybe just standard pikemen.
Mongol bows are both recurved and composite, I don't think it makes sense to use both names.
And they should be longbows replacements, not crossbows.
they could have standard militia archers, and then Recurve Bowmen as Longbow UU.
I don't really like giving withdraw chances to archers; I'd just leave them with extra first strikes or something.
Are they really all riding wolves and not horses? Just checking.
I think their cavalry should be open plains fighters, not good in forests. They should practice a very open-ground kind of warfare that is very weak in forests. They want clear sightlines and lines of fire for ranged weapons and high mobility.
I'd replace this with a standard ancient cav with a +10% withdraw chance, or a +10% on plains.
A thought; how about we add a horsearcher unit requiring horseback riding and archery? That would be a nice contrast to other factions.
Strength 4, 3 moves, ranged bombardment strength 3, missile cavalry class, no metal weapons (but can get quality bows, wartats), 15% withdraw chance.
Chariots don't feel very mongolly. And chariots are already bonuses vs melee.
Maybe:
Warg Lancers (replaces lancers) same stats, starts with Hobgoblin Racial Promo, +10% vs melee, +10% vs ranged, +10% plains strength.
Instead:
Warg Keshiks (replaces knight)
Same as knight, but +1 first strike.
How about instead, a mobile catapult with 2 moves, but no unit bombardment? Mongols were fantastic at mobile siege warfare.
I could see them with a cannon, or with sappers, who would be an infantry unit with a city wall bombardment.
I imagine them as using siege units only for knocking down walls, and using archers and horse archers
How about no militia swordsmen replacement? only spearmen. So they don't have city assault troops.
Werewolves? Is that in flavor? I guess it could be. Seems interesting anyway.
I think they should have all of these.
How about we block warchariot, militia swordsmen and crossbows instead?
I have never ever heard of caltrops being used against cavalry. It doesn't really make sense; horses normally wear horseshoes, caltrops are normally used against people where they can stick through the boot.
What will they get magicwise, and priestwise?
I don't really like this. Are the Orks *really* less likely to have diplomacy with the Hobgobs than they are with dark elves or high elves or the Empire or Lizardmen or Khemri?
Surely orks still prefer hobgoblins to vampires, chaos demons or high elves?
I would implement this with a permanent -2 diplomacy modifier, in the same way that we were talking about adding penalties between natural enemies like high and dark elves, high elves and dwarves, araby and estalia, etc.
Sounds fine. I imagine Hobgoblins as being a bit like the Hippus in FFH; mercenary raiders.
With some AI leader parameters, I think I have done a good job of making the Ordos feel very Mercenary in DuneWars; it is very easy to buy them into a war on your side.
Well, Brettonnia already has incredibly mobile cavalry because the horselord gives +1 movement to cavalry. Maybe it should not give +1 movement; maybe it should give an attack strength bonus instead? I quite like this actually.
Also, Brettonnia is more about knights, whereas I guess hobgobs are probably more about light cav and horsearchers.
The larger challenge I think is to distinguish them from Hung.
I will make some comments on the list, but I think we should still consider this "under construction" and try to brainstorm some more.
I think these are different enough from goblins to justify their own Hobgoblin racial promotion (or lack there of), which should probably have no effect - or maybe a flat +5% bonus on plains?
(If we go with the plains bonus in the race, reduce 5% from any plains bonuses below.)
Hobgobs are a lot tougher (and bigger) than normal goblins.
There aren't any canon names?
More to the point, these sound like espionage units, not skirmishers.
A lot of these names are weak; maybe we should use more explicitly Mongol names?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization
Some good words:
Tumen, instead of warband.
Hordu, instead of regiment.
Noyan, an officer
Khan, a general.
Kharash: basically slaves, forcibly conscripted into fighting to serve as cannon fodder and soak up ranged fire.
Keshik, horse-archers.
For one thing, I think we should probably drop "Hobgoblin" from all the names. Every elven unit isn't called "Elven", every Ogre unit isn't called "Ogre", etc.
Harriers to me associates more with harrier hawks, mobile and light. Not really associated with spearmen.
Aren't Sneaky gitz a recon unit we have for orks? This should be the same unit in both places.
For pike slot, maybe just standard pikemen.
Mongol bows are both recurved and composite, I don't think it makes sense to use both names.
And they should be longbows replacements, not crossbows.
they could have standard militia archers, and then Recurve Bowmen as Longbow UU.
I don't really like giving withdraw chances to archers; I'd just leave them with extra first strikes or something.
This just seems wrong. plains-roving horsemen shouldn't have handgunners. This slot should really just be for civilized factions. And grenadiers in a cavalry/archer faction?
Are they really all riding wolves and not horses? Just checking.
I think their cavalry should be open plains fighters, not good in forests. They should practice a very open-ground kind of warfare that is very weak in forests. They want clear sightlines and lines of fire for ranged weapons and high mobility.
I'd replace this with a standard ancient cav with a +10% withdraw chance, or a +10% on plains.
A thought; how about we add a horsearcher unit requiring horseback riding and archery? That would be a nice contrast to other factions.
Strength 4, 3 moves, ranged bombardment strength 3, missile cavalry class, no metal weapons (but can get quality bows, wartats), 15% withdraw chance.
Chariots don't feel very mongolly. And chariots are already bonuses vs melee.
Again, these shouldnt' have forest bonuses; just the opposite, they should be good on plains.
Maybe:
Warg Lancers (replaces lancers) same stats, starts with Hobgoblin Racial Promo, +10% vs melee, +10% vs ranged, +10% plains strength.
Warg mounted archers, standard horsearcher warband staves with +1 first strike, +10% withdraw. Thats still awesome.
Wargs are gunpowder troops, I vote no.
Instead:
Warg Keshiks (replaces knight)
Same as knight, but +1 first strike.
Really? That sounds like regular gobs and orks, not hobgobs.
How about instead, a mobile catapult with 2 moves, but no unit bombardment? Mongols were fantastic at mobile siege warfare.
I don't really like literally building units in the field, that doesn't work well and can get dangerous.
I could see them with a cannon, or with sappers, who would be an infantry unit with a city wall bombardment.
I imagine them as using siege units only for knocking down walls, and using archers and horse archers
How about no militia swordsmen replacement? only spearmen. So they don't have city assault troops.
Werewolves? Is that in flavor? I guess it could be. Seems interesting anyway.
I think they should have all of these.
How about we block warchariot, militia swordsmen and crossbows instead?
I have never ever heard of caltrops being used against cavalry. It doesn't really make sense; horses normally wear horseshoes, caltrops are normally used against people where they can stick through the boot.
I'd just give them the basic troll. River troll in particular doesn't work for a race in arid steppe/plains.
What will they get magicwise, and priestwise?
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
yep. its the truth. Orcs would rather ally with the sissy elves than the backstabbong hobgoblins. they've suffered at the hands of the hobgoblins once already, they know they cant be trusted.
i can settle with this.
perfect. maybe we can uses similar parameters to the Ordos
i definately want more brainstorming. im not happy with what i have so far.
the only Canon names i could find was Hobgobla-khan and Sneaky Gitz. everything else i think is left up to us
great ideas.
yeh, but i found a couple of hobgoblin references to sneaky gitz. though i cant see the harm in reusing the Orc one.
that works.
i was trying to capture some of the technologically advanced greenskins idea. but i guess youre right
its open to interpretation. i cant really see them riding horses. huge wolves yeh but not really horses.
hmm thats an interesting idea. although the wolf mounts wouldnt get hindered by forest either so i still propose at least a reduced forest penalty.
cool idea
true, shall we make hobgobs unable to get chariots?
cool
i suspect you mean cavalry not warg there?
and i like the Keshiks.
i was trying to capture the mobile siege idea with the engineers. but i can live with 2 move siege
and Sappers is what i was thinking for the suicide bombers (i just couldnt think of the word sappers)hmm im a little dubious about this, but ok.
i think so. did you read the link? it seems ok to me.
ok (are we blocking handgunners and cavalry as well?)
are you serious? horse shoes only cover a small portion of the foot, there is still plenty of space that the caltrops can get into. either way i dont care
twas just an idea very true...
i havent thought that far ahead... and actually i have no idea :/ maybe some form of wolf worship? (re the 'Ashena, Mother Wolf' unit.)
Ahriman
Tyrant
Absolutely.
Ok. I can see the appeal of the idea of a bunch of mercenary wolf-mongols.
Why? They still block you from charging, allow infantry to dodge and ambush you, block your line of sight and missile fire, etc. etc.
Cavalry are all about exploiting mobility, no matter what they're riding, and forests restrict mobility.
I think its fine for the spider riders and the goblin units, but I'd leave it off for a plains-based mongol-type faction. There are no forests in Mongolia
I think no warchariot, but I don't mind either way with the basic chariot.
Yes
Sappers arent' suicide bombers. They build a tunnel under walls to undermine the foundation, then burn the timbers holding up the tunnel, so that the tunnel collapses, bringing down the wall on top of it. They aren't in the tunnel when they set it on fire - they have a fuse.
It will need testing. But I like the idea of hobgob mongols as being awesome mounted mobile raiders, and decent defenders with all their archers, but weak on assault. Neither of the mongol strength (long-range bows and mobile cavalry) are very useful when assaulting a city. I like the idea of them being more vulnerable than normal to city walls; I wonder if there is any way to implement this?
Keep in mind: spearmen are still just as good at city assaults as swordsmen; swordsmen have bonus vs melee, not vs city attack.
Also, historically mongol swords were mostly scimitar types for use from cavalry, not for close quarters thrusting in melee.
Late-game, they can just storm with Keshiks.
Yes, but we just block the rifling tech. Only the dwarves and civilized urban factions should be able to research rifling tech.
Well, they'll still be using Destruction religion.... so my assumption was we'd just give them the same WAAAGH! shamans and magic.
But we still need something at Priesthood and Fanaticism for Orks, Goblins and Hobgoblins. And do we for ogres yet? I forget.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
I think its fine for the spider riders and the goblin units, but I'd leave it off for a plains-based mongol-type faction. There are no forests in Mongolia
fair enough
OHHH... you can blame age of wonders for my false interpretation
Goblin sappers in that game carried a giant bomb and exploded on walls i like your idea better then ok, i like it.
this will do for the time being
if we come up with something different later we can consider it hmmm yes we do need religiious stuff for these civs. i dont relaly like the Goblin fanatics as religious units (they have nothing to go with Gork and Mork IIRC, theyre just hyped up on shroomz)
i wonder if we should make destruction different by not giving them UUs, and instead having some other benefits to balance it?
such as slaves/ science/ food from city capture/destruction. perhaps arcane units could double as clerics due to their magic being that of Gork and Mork most of the time (or the Great maw for ogres). im not really sure on this topic! :/
Ahriman
Tyrant
I don't mind moving them somewhere else (and rebalancing as needed)
Though... isn't being hopped up on shrooms kindof a religious ceremony?
Gork and Mork are basically the gods of Orkiness; so doing anything very Orky (hitting things, getting drunk, breaking stuff, taknig weird drugs) is really a form of worship.
I don't think this works; there need to be some units from the Priesthood and Fanaticism techs.
I like the beakers from city capture for any Destruction civ (looted tech), but that should just apply equally for all these factions, and it will just be tied into the Destruction religion python code.
I don't think its worth varying this across factions.
This is possible I guess. We could drop the WAAAGH! magic tech entirely, and just use Priesthood for Little WAAAGH! shamans and Fanaticism for Big WAAAGH! shamans, but then we would have to tone big WAAAGH! down significantly, since Fanaticism will be a much cheaper and easier to access tech than Arcane Mastery.
Another thought: if you're really set on having buildable Discipline units for orks and goblins in the early game, why not move those to Priesthood? That kinda works, I think: Gork and Mork can unify the horde.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Some more random thoughts skimming the design thread:
I wonder if the earlier designed factions will be weaker than the later designed ones? We'll have to playtest I guess and get feedback.
Wood elves.
Mention in design that they can build in forests and ancient forests
I suggest that the watchtower and shooting gallery be designed to be replacements for walls and high walls buildings, which aren't realy appropriate for WE.
Also one of them (or another building?) should make the city tile count as a forest, for the purposes of combat modifiers (cavalry dont' help much).
In our old version, wood elves weren't able to build mines, lumbermills, windmills, workshops and watermills. They could build ore pits on bonuses (which were the same as mines), and could build
Instead of farms, they built orchards (which were identical).
And they could build singing groves (+1 hammers) on ancient forest tiles with fresh water or irrigation.
Were their cottages going to have a 5th level (treetop somethingorother) that gave a tile defense bonus?
Are we still having the Silvan ways civic? If so we should include that.
Plus, we should describe how the ancient forest mechanic is going to work. What should trigger forest change starting to occur?
Possibilies include a civic, a tech, just their palace (or race - ie no other requirements, starts from turn1), building the Eternal Wood tower, adopting their state religion.
Elven workers I thought were to have a 10% build rate penalty?
Dark elves:
The Empire:
If you can think of more tabletop units which would logically fit into our unit slots, lets hear them.
I'd be happy to have a UU knight (Reiksguard?)
Estalia
Each religion has a spread parameter; how would you change that for a specific faction, and for within cultural borders?
Religion spread depends on trade route pathing, distance and a parameter.
If you wanted, you could have python that added Salvation to every newly settled Estalian city IF Estalia has Salvation state religion, which would capture some of the fluff effect.
But improved inquisitors I think will work better than more religions spread.
Tilea
Lose all the hammer costs; they were messed up, based on looknig at things at the wrong difficulty level (where hammer costs are changed).
How about some Roman flavor as well in the early game?
Basically give the idea that its Renaissance Italy in modern times, but used to be semi-Roman?
In the same way that we can give the Brettonnians a feel of being ancient Britons/Gauls/Celts who developed into Chivalric France/Arthurian England?
I think this is somethnig we could expand for a lot of factions: make the early game more interesting.
For a lot of the nonhuman factions, we have some UUs for the early game, but for many others
Lets try to add some history.
Tilea:
Equites (ancient cavalry replacement)
Tilean Legionaries (axeman warband replacement)
Velites skirmishers (replaces skirmisher warband)
Estalia, Carthaginian stuff or ancient Iberian?:
Empire (ancient germanic stuff):
Brettonnia: ancient celtic stuff.
We could get some ideas for this from something like Rome: Total War.
Still no design up for chaos I note.
Anyway, back to work.
I wonder if the earlier designed factions will be weaker than the later designed ones? We'll have to playtest I guess and get feedback.
Wood elves.
Mention in design that they can build in forests and ancient forests
I suggest that the watchtower and shooting gallery be designed to be replacements for walls and high walls buildings, which aren't realy appropriate for WE.
Also one of them (or another building?) should make the city tile count as a forest, for the purposes of combat modifiers (cavalry dont' help much).
In our old version, wood elves weren't able to build mines, lumbermills, windmills, workshops and watermills. They could build ore pits on bonuses (which were the same as mines), and could build
Instead of farms, they built orchards (which were identical).
And they could build singing groves (+1 hammers) on ancient forest tiles with fresh water or irrigation.
Were their cottages going to have a 5th level (treetop somethingorother) that gave a tile defense bonus?
Are we still having the Silvan ways civic? If so we should include that.
Plus, we should describe how the ancient forest mechanic is going to work. What should trigger forest change starting to occur?
Possibilies include a civic, a tech, just their palace (or race - ie no other requirements, starts from turn1), building the Eternal Wood tower, adopting their state religion.
Elven workers I thought were to have a 10% build rate penalty?
Dark elves:
Should be -1 defense strength, not -1 strength.
The Empire:
If you can think of more tabletop units which would logically fit into our unit slots, lets hear them.
I'd be happy to have a UU knight (Reiksguard?)
MoralE, not moral. Completely different words. Along with Rogue/Rouge, this is one of the biggest things on the internet that drive me nuts.
Estalia
Is that even codeable?
Each religion has a spread parameter; how would you change that for a specific faction, and for within cultural borders?
Religion spread depends on trade route pathing, distance and a parameter.
If you wanted, you could have python that added Salvation to every newly settled Estalian city IF Estalia has Salvation state religion, which would capture some of the fluff effect.
But improved inquisitors I think will work better than more religions spread.
Tilea
Lose all the hammer costs; they were messed up, based on looknig at things at the wrong difficulty level (where hammer costs are changed).
Pinch won't help anymore, since we merged ranged/gunpowder. Just give them the +1 first strike and +15% vs ranged units.
How about some Roman flavor as well in the early game?
Basically give the idea that its Renaissance Italy in modern times, but used to be semi-Roman?
In the same way that we can give the Brettonnians a feel of being ancient Britons/Gauls/Celts who developed into Chivalric France/Arthurian England?
I think this is somethnig we could expand for a lot of factions: make the early game more interesting.
For a lot of the nonhuman factions, we have some UUs for the early game, but for many others
Lets try to add some history.
Tilea:
Equites (ancient cavalry replacement)
Tilean Legionaries (axeman warband replacement)
Velites skirmishers (replaces skirmisher warband)
Estalia, Carthaginian stuff or ancient Iberian?:
Empire (ancient germanic stuff):
Brettonnia: ancient celtic stuff.
We could get some ideas for this from something like Rome: Total War.
Still no design up for chaos I note.
Anyway, back to work.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
i was wondering this exact same thing. i think perhaps toning down the later ones slightly and boosting the earlyer ones would be a good idea to kindof bring them onto the same level.
i agree with all of these. ill add something soon.
oh ok.
yeh i definately would like a few more UUs for the humie factions. Reiksguard Knights is one of them
hahaha ok
ill try fix them (but i think ive been good with my english lately)this is a good idea.
ok. actually speaking of hammer costs. once weve designed chaos, i think ill make an excell spreadsheet of all the units and if you could would you mind going through and assigning resource and tech requirements and unit costs?
ok
sounds like a good idea...
These are nice names
ill add them at some point todaynope theyre the last ones. hopefully ill have time to do them tomorrow evening, and then we can go through all of the civs and tune them up a bit.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Sure, no problem. Obviously, tweaking from testing.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
Make sure you leave room to add units. In a week or two, hopefully (breathe in, breathe out), I'll be able to add some more units. Some much studying this weekend!
Ahriman
Tyrant
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Leave room where?
orlanth
Storm God. Yarr!
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2001
- Messages
- 1,805
If you like, you could have a building Forestgoblin Totem present in cities with >3 Forest tiles that give the appropriate racial promo to units built in that city, and Nightgoblin Totem present in cities with >3 Hills/Peaks. I'm not too attached to it though.
Yeah I also really like the theme of earlier tribes developing into later nations. Though if we go to the trouble to make UUs, let's try to make sure there's at least a slight actual gameplay difference.
Tilea: proto-Roman -> Renaissance Italy. I love having the early units come from Rome Total War. Perhaps Legionaries could start with Moral(e), maybe Equites have a national cap but don't cost gold upkeep as they're patricians who pay for their own equipment. I almost wonder if they could be able to get Imperial Roads in midgame?
Bretonnia: Gallic tribes -> Frankish kingdoms -> chivalric France etc. I still like the idea of their early tribal Swordsmen units being able to use Dyes in addition to metal (its really not that unbalancing; there are tons of examples where a civ gets a somewhat stronger UU in a given era)
I like those Hobgob ideas; though agree we need to differentiate from Hung which are the prototypical shrieking Mongol horse hordes, as well as differentiate from generic Destruction-minded Gobbos. As you say in addition to the Central Asian horsetribe flavor Hobgobs are the most technologically advanced/organized and scheming, influenced by their off/on collaboration with the Dawi Zharr. Its not unreasonable for them to eventually use gunpowder as Ogres can. In the vein of Kublai Khan or Hulagu Khan who became pseudocivilized and founded dynastic empires, how about developing a slight Mamluk or Ottoman flavor for lategame Hobgobs, including Hobgoblin Janissaries and a weak but mobile cannon unit.
Yeah I also really like the theme of earlier tribes developing into later nations. Though if we go to the trouble to make UUs, let's try to make sure there's at least a slight actual gameplay difference.
Tilea: proto-Roman -> Renaissance Italy. I love having the early units come from Rome Total War. Perhaps Legionaries could start with Moral(e), maybe Equites have a national cap but don't cost gold upkeep as they're patricians who pay for their own equipment. I almost wonder if they could be able to get Imperial Roads in midgame?
Bretonnia: Gallic tribes -> Frankish kingdoms -> chivalric France etc. I still like the idea of their early tribal Swordsmen units being able to use Dyes in addition to metal (its really not that unbalancing; there are tons of examples where a civ gets a somewhat stronger UU in a given era)
I like those Hobgob ideas; though agree we need to differentiate from Hung which are the prototypical shrieking Mongol horse hordes, as well as differentiate from generic Destruction-minded Gobbos. As you say in addition to the Central Asian horsetribe flavor Hobgobs are the most technologically advanced/organized and scheming, influenced by their off/on collaboration with the Dawi Zharr. Its not unreasonable for them to eventually use gunpowder as Ogres can. In the vein of Kublai Khan or Hulagu Khan who became pseudocivilized and founded dynastic empires, how about developing a slight Mamluk or Ottoman flavor for lategame Hobgobs, including Hobgoblin Janissaries and a weak but mobile cannon unit.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
nice ideas on the hobgobs there orlanth. im pretty fond of a decent ottoman influence, much like the Dawi Zharr. and i do think some flavourful gunpoweder units for hob gobs would help differentiate them from Hung a bit.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I still think a generic goblin promotion is much cleaner than splitting goblins into three.
We're respecting historical development (bronze age -> iron age) and vanilla civ, rather than tensile strength. Iron is better than bronze because it is so much more common that you can have a lot of metal equipment; metal swords and armor for ordinary troops, rather than just bronze speartips and bronze armor for the very wealthy.
I agree, but these can be pretty minor.
For eg: Bretonni swordsmen and spearmen start with wartatoos
Note that this isn't quite the same as:
In ADDITION to would require some extra coding, and would have large balance issues.
Starting with wartats just means they get the bonus without dyes. As soon as they get bronze weapons, wartats is overwritten and they are just regular swordsmen. Which is appropriate; celtic infantry were nothing to write home about. They beat Rome only when they had massive numeric superiority, and/or ambushes.
Bretonnians should mostly be a late-game power; their peak strength should be when they get Knights and fanaticism, not with early game infantry.
Tilean Legionaries could start with a first strike chance (thrown pilums)
Tilean equites should probably just be generic ancient cav. Or this:
Estalian basic spearmen could be Carthagianish Sacred Band, with a city defense bonus. Or they could be -1 strength +1 holy strength. A religious feel ties in nicely with the Estalian flavor.
And they could use Cathaginan spearman unit art.
Estalia could have slingers for their skirmisher warband (like balearic slingers)
Mongols became Chinese much more than they ever became Ottoman. I think hobgoblin Janissiaries would kinda feel weird.
Perhaps we could just let them get normal handgunners.
I could see them with a weak cannon UU with 2 moves, again with city bombardment rather than unit bombardment; that fits in their theme well.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
were trying to figure out a way to destinguish the Hung from hob gobs. we agree that Hung should be more mongolian than hob gobs, thus hob gobs needed something else, so we chose ottoman
though its a fairly irrelivent point cool, id agree to this.
Hmmmm guy's i thought a bit about the undead factions, and my idea is to implement special Militaristic civic's.
Idea is to turn military production of Undead troops to 200 % in cost for production/sience and population penatly. There should be very high tech requirements like: Necromancy + Fanatism + Tyrany + Military Tradition techs required and Eternal Life as state religion.
It would look like that: Country gets militaristic troops production boosted with food. Second point is that when you end production you spawn Two (2) troops instead of 1. Price for this would be 2 population points of city decrease. Whole kingdom get -30 % production (hammers) and income (cash earn). Population during this civics can't increase in cities.
There could be also penatly in unhappy citizens. For example every unit production finish cause 1-2 citizens to be angry and 2 population would be killed.
As every civics it can be turned off in 10 turns (5 if you got eternal life shrine). I think that even after 5 turns it will start to cause serious problems to owner of such tech.
As you can see, this civics would be ultimate wapeon of undead countries, that sacrifices itselfs to beat the enemies. Causalities of this tech would be long-term, because of lower production, lower income that make really evil combo with high growing cost of army, and of course population crisis, that will last for really long (Lower population = less cash and less production).
Hope it is capable to implement and it's not way too OP
PS. I still can't find a name for such civics. It should be really cool ;o
*Sorry for mistakes, i hope you are able to understand this :<*
Idea is to turn military production of Undead troops to 200 % in cost for production/sience and population penatly. There should be very high tech requirements like: Necromancy + Fanatism + Tyrany + Military Tradition techs required and Eternal Life as state religion.
It would look like that: Country gets militaristic troops production boosted with food. Second point is that when you end production you spawn Two (2) troops instead of 1. Price for this would be 2 population points of city decrease. Whole kingdom get -30 % production (hammers) and income (cash earn). Population during this civics can't increase in cities.
There could be also penatly in unhappy citizens. For example every unit production finish cause 1-2 citizens to be angry and 2 population would be killed.
As every civics it can be turned off in 10 turns (5 if you got eternal life shrine). I think that even after 5 turns it will start to cause serious problems to owner of such tech.
As you can see, this civics would be ultimate wapeon of undead countries, that sacrifices itselfs to beat the enemies. Causalities of this tech would be long-term, because of lower production, lower income that make really evil combo with high growing cost of army, and of course population crisis, that will last for really long (Lower population = less cash and less production).
Hope it is capable to implement and it's not way too OP
PS. I still can't find a name for such civics. It should be really cool ;o
*Sorry for mistakes, i hope you are able to understand this :<*
Similar threads
- Locked
