Master of Mana Xtended - Download and Changelog
- Thread starter esvath
- Start date
take away quick learner promo from the start from monks and thats enough, starting location near usable unique landmark is a big boon for everyone and even bigger for elohim. and thats right.
Taking away quick learner should work, but it would be a shame, since that's one of the things, that makes monks fun and unique. Maybe a different solution is possible, like reducing their strength by 1, but I'm not sure whether this will be enough.
I personally think as well, that the Dovevo are too powerful and that there strength should be reduced by 1.
doveveo - 1 str, totally agreed, maybe keep quick learner for monks but without movement starting bonus ( can take later anyway)
doveveo - 1 str
Monk: - quick learner: otherwise they level just to fast.
Monk: 1 base Movement would be ok because, one can take "Ethne the White" with the Sacred Warrior trait -> Mobility I, quick promotion is availeble for Monks -> +1 Movement, maybe let them start with quick, to compensate for -1 movement
I recently had a game, where I was stuck in a jungle area. In this game I had a lot of trouble getting enough wood. You can't cut down jungle to get wood (which can't be changed iirc), you can't build sawmills in jungle and, since most of the jungle wood is placed on grassland, you cant even build trading posts. So essentially, if you're stuck in the jungle, you're screwed for wood. Of course, you could try to build some cities outside the jungle, to get your from there, but some mapscrips create big jungle areas, so it's not always easily possible.
My suggestion would be, to make sawmills buildable in jungle tiles. And additionally, since jungle is already much worse than normal forests, jungle tiles should, in my opinion, only give +1 money and not -1 food and +1 money like they do now. They already give unhealthiness, so I don't think they need -1 food.
My suggestion would be, to make sawmills buildable in jungle tiles. And additionally, since jungle is already much worse than normal forests, jungle tiles should, in my opinion, only give +1 money and not -1 food and +1 money like they do now. They already give unhealthiness, so I don't think they need -1 food.
I think cottages on plains is fine, as long as it's only for Kuriotates. But I don't think enclaves need a buff.
If your have an enclave on grassland you have a base yield of 2 food plus the 1 food of the enclave, which is enough to sustain itself. Sure, in vanilla ffh2 you only needed 2 food for each pop, but in mom you have resources, that give 20% extra food. And since Kuriotates have 3 ring cities, they are more likely to get some of these resource bonuses. You can also buff your cottages further with adjacent workshops, which you can't in ffh2. And you get culture from enclaves, which is more important in mom than in ffh2. And finally, Kuriotates is, in my opinion, already relatively strong and doesn't need a buff.
how do you even play Taranis civ? capital city has not usual resource bonuses, therefore difficult to build .... ??
Melanie88
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 17
It's difficult, certainly. I am able to win consistently with my favourite civs, so perhaps I fancy being put in my place now and again. -- But difficulty is a different issue from this simple problem of game mechanics. It simply will not answer for an immobile unit to retreat from the city where they are imprisoned and then to sit, useless and defenceless, while the world passes by 
a note on Austrin :
- food caravan -6F get multiplied by multipliers... so in facts it removes 6F of tile PRODUCTION, not of effective food.
Having 6F surplus is possible in total, but if taken only from the tile production: it is huge (as you only have access to 6pop).
- food caravan -6F get multiplied by multipliers... so in facts it removes 6F of tile PRODUCTION, not of effective food.
Having 6F surplus is possible in total, but if taken only from the tile production: it is huge (as you only have access to 6pop).
just to comment my above message : I don't know if it is an issue or not, but I wanted to make note of it.
slightly related: I'm playing Austrin with the leader that can switch cities. (and I abuse this a lot, which is fun).
however there is a "bug" :
food increase stacks... all the cities that switched a few times have a base production of food of a few 15-20... without any citizen working on food !
I noticed it when I found out that a few of my cities could work 6 "1F tile" (+production/other) without entering starvation.
(and I didn't experiment to see how much stacked... is it only 4/switch : the elephant+deer / or other ?)
(however I checked : production and commerce/science/gold do not increase)
another "balance" thing :
My austrin civ get too much gold.... I never had to reduce the science slider. (and I only have 1 merchant district, without even the sub-disctricts).
... and I can't use that gold for anything.
normally gold is used for improvements (but I don't need much fo those), or to absorb a few turns at 100%science or culture or spell research.
however, here, there is nothing to use that gold for.
maybe the exotic market could raise commerce instead of gold ?
slightly related: I'm playing Austrin with the leader that can switch cities. (and I abuse this a lot, which is fun).
however there is a "bug" :
food increase stacks... all the cities that switched a few times have a base production of food of a few 15-20... without any citizen working on food !
I noticed it when I found out that a few of my cities could work 6 "1F tile" (+production/other) without entering starvation.
(and I didn't experiment to see how much stacked... is it only 4/switch : the elephant+deer / or other ?)
(however I checked : production and commerce/science/gold do not increase)
another "balance" thing :
My austrin civ get too much gold.... I never had to reduce the science slider. (and I only have 1 merchant district, without even the sub-disctricts).
... and I can't use that gold for anything.
normally gold is used for improvements (but I don't need much fo those), or to absorb a few turns at 100%science or culture or spell research.
however, here, there is nothing to use that gold for.
maybe the exotic market could raise commerce instead of gold ?
Hello again everyone.
I'd like to offer my perspective on the discussion of Elohim monks. They seem to be too good in offense, while they are supposed to defend the holy lands. A well developed monk could have (1) 40% attack bonus (staff 10% + ki strike 20% + offense 10%) and 3 first strikes (staff 2 + quick 1), (2) +33% against melee units and immune to posion at purity of body, making them great against orc and goblin barbarians for exp farming, (3) +2 holy strength from justicar class, (4) magic and element resistence, +30% healing rate and healing while moving (purity of body 10% + wholeness of body 20%), and immunity to mutated, weak, crippled, diseased, plagued, charmed, enraged and crazed, and (5) they have quick learner pormotion. I think (4) and (5) are the exact reasons which make them a great unit, and should not be changed as this is what makes monks special, even though they contribute to monks' offensive capacity. However, I think a reduction in their attack capacity would nerf them enough without losing any flavor. So maybe give them (1) 5 instead of 7 as attack strength (which can be later compensated by justicar or the 40% increase), (2) reduce their bonus against melee units, and/or (3) reduce the percentage attack bonus and/or the number of first strikes. By the way, monks get immunity to poison at purity of body and then wholness of body again, does that need a fix?
And here are some other random comments:
a. Tomb lord appears twice in Aristrakh pedia entry, and IIRC, they appear twice in production menu too. Adventurer appears twice in Grigori entry. And Jotnar citizen for Jotnar as well. Mulyalfar appears in Frozen entry as well, although it's written as Illian's UU. Dryad and Furie are shown in Weaponry entry, but not in Aos Si entry.
b. If there's need to nerf Dovoveo who has a quasi- +4 affinity with life mana, what about Illian's frost drakes? It's quite easy for (player's) Illian to stock 20 water mana in mid-late game, which makes Drifa and Wilboman nothing in comparison with these 120-hammer beasts. What about reducing their affinity to +3? This would still give Illian strong military support in late games (as they need to fight the whole world) without introducing absurdly strong and cheap units.
c. In comparison with frost drake, Aristrakh's dracolich seems quite weak because Aristrakh can't mass produce great sages for mana nodes. However, I never tried if moving capital could give you both dracolichs from the old capital and vampires from new capitals at the same time; if so, I guess there's no need to buff them.
d. Sheaim's advanced gating does not work for me. I have dimensional gates on map, even within my border, usurped or not, and the AC counter is 100, but I still cannot use the global enchantment and the red letters read "requires an Amagaddon Count of XX+ or higher".
e. This is more like a question: how does bombard work? It seems that only one unit can bombard one stack every turn, and what does "bombard damage is capped at 100" mean?
f. This is more like a request: can we give matagot or minotaur a "build road" ability as Sheaim's workers cannot enter flames or fields of fire? This could give Sheaim the ability to expand their mana stock while not giving them many economic advantage, and these two demons look like heavy labor types.
I do appreciate everyone's active involvement, and thanks again to esvath's great efforts!
I'd like to offer my perspective on the discussion of Elohim monks. They seem to be too good in offense, while they are supposed to defend the holy lands. A well developed monk could have (1) 40% attack bonus (staff 10% + ki strike 20% + offense 10%) and 3 first strikes (staff 2 + quick 1), (2) +33% against melee units and immune to posion at purity of body, making them great against orc and goblin barbarians for exp farming, (3) +2 holy strength from justicar class, (4) magic and element resistence, +30% healing rate and healing while moving (purity of body 10% + wholeness of body 20%), and immunity to mutated, weak, crippled, diseased, plagued, charmed, enraged and crazed, and (5) they have quick learner pormotion. I think (4) and (5) are the exact reasons which make them a great unit, and should not be changed as this is what makes monks special, even though they contribute to monks' offensive capacity. However, I think a reduction in their attack capacity would nerf them enough without losing any flavor. So maybe give them (1) 5 instead of 7 as attack strength (which can be later compensated by justicar or the 40% increase), (2) reduce their bonus against melee units, and/or (3) reduce the percentage attack bonus and/or the number of first strikes. By the way, monks get immunity to poison at purity of body and then wholness of body again, does that need a fix?
And here are some other random comments:
a. Tomb lord appears twice in Aristrakh pedia entry, and IIRC, they appear twice in production menu too. Adventurer appears twice in Grigori entry. And Jotnar citizen for Jotnar as well. Mulyalfar appears in Frozen entry as well, although it's written as Illian's UU. Dryad and Furie are shown in Weaponry entry, but not in Aos Si entry.
b. If there's need to nerf Dovoveo who has a quasi- +4 affinity with life mana, what about Illian's frost drakes? It's quite easy for (player's) Illian to stock 20 water mana in mid-late game, which makes Drifa and Wilboman nothing in comparison with these 120-hammer beasts. What about reducing their affinity to +3? This would still give Illian strong military support in late games (as they need to fight the whole world) without introducing absurdly strong and cheap units.
c. In comparison with frost drake, Aristrakh's dracolich seems quite weak because Aristrakh can't mass produce great sages for mana nodes. However, I never tried if moving capital could give you both dracolichs from the old capital and vampires from new capitals at the same time; if so, I guess there's no need to buff them.
d. Sheaim's advanced gating does not work for me. I have dimensional gates on map, even within my border, usurped or not, and the AC counter is 100, but I still cannot use the global enchantment and the red letters read "requires an Amagaddon Count of XX+ or higher".
e. This is more like a question: how does bombard work? It seems that only one unit can bombard one stack every turn, and what does "bombard damage is capped at 100" mean?
f. This is more like a request: can we give matagot or minotaur a "build road" ability as Sheaim's workers cannot enter flames or fields of fire? This could give Sheaim the ability to expand their mana stock while not giving them many economic advantage, and these two demons look like heavy labor types.
I do appreciate everyone's active involvement, and thanks again to esvath's great efforts!
thanks
my 0.2
For me it was frustrating that in the line of monk-only things, so few were really relevant for attack. However, they make great explorers... (due to high survability) high movement, immunities, healing...etc and thus they can get into many fights withs barbs, and get much xp (quick learner free from start) and thus you can get them to level 15 ie all the monk line + combat V + heroic attack/defense II others, in the time a melee unit reaches only lvl 8... but that is not the greatness of Monks, its only that they are a bit easier to grow... if you focus first thourgh a low-return quest of fulfilling the monk-only lne
if it doesn't work like that, there should be an issue...
my 0.2
I kinda disagree. Counting staff is strange.. whereas counting all the other is also strange. or even justicar. A recon unit with same xp can have 50 % with combat V, +2str with Aeron chosen (+heals upon combat), and then have 2 more promotions to reinforce that (for example +2x poison + 40%chances to get poison bomb).
For me it was frustrating that in the line of monk-only things, so few were really relevant for attack. However, they make great explorers... (due to high survability) high movement, immunities, healing...etc and thus they can get into many fights withs barbs, and get much xp (quick learner free from start) and thus you can get them to level 15 ie all the monk line + combat V + heroic attack/defense II others, in the time a melee unit reaches only lvl 8... but that is not the greatness of Monks, its only that they are a bit easier to grow... if you focus first thourgh a low-return quest of fulfilling the monk-only lne
Normally as many units can bombard a stack as you want as long as there is 1 unit that has more health than cap (or 100-cap ?)
if it doesn't work like that, there should be an issue...
Thanks, Calavente. I enjoy reading your comment. I agree with you that monks don't have to be the units with the best offensive or strength bonus, but they are good enough in offense and they can be easily mass-produced. My analysis was just based on personal experience that my last Elohim game ended in sending monks taking AI cities which were guarded with melee units mostly, and when the monks approach the next city, they are all in one piece again (similar to the AAR of Psychodad's). And of course, they are also powerful in destroying enemies outside of cities too... (but maybe that's because there was not hippus in my game) I would definitely agree that monk's OP is a combination of several factors, but I personally enjoyed their fast growth (including the mass production of high level monks) and quick recovery, so I was suggesting a nerf in their ability to attack and conquer.
PS. This might be a cultural thing, but I am sorry to say I can't share your frustration in monks' lack of attack promotion... I really thought monks appreciate defence more...
Personally, I don't mind the monk's lack of attack promotion, either. If I had to choose, whether monks should be offensive or defensive, I would choose defensive. On the other hand, an offensive monk makes some sense in my mind as well.
I like suggestion (1). It would make invading an enemy civ with a monk based army a bit slower while still keeping monks useful in the beginning of the game. I think that's quite important, since they are the starting units of the Elohim.
Similar threads
- Sticky
