Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

There are very few games that allow R'lyeh and Ermor. At least R'lyeh gets banned in 99% MP games. I find LA really nice without those 2 nations, but it surely has too much blood in it.
EA seems most unbalanced of all with all that sacred powerhouses. It really limit your choices to few nations if you have any serious plans. And even if you are a genius you won't survive with weaker nations, unless you are really lucky.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

I have looked more at the mod, but still have not had time to play a game with it.

Thoughts:

I like the scale changes. In kingmaker too many negative scales. Every single one of my neighbors have misfortune, typically with 3 order. And that is with the Worthy heroes incentive to not take misfortune.

I am not going to list all of the changes I agree with, but give feedback on those I disagree with:

Summons:

watcher-5 air gems-what is wrong with 5 air gems? You get a unit that has a patrol bonus that can uncover spies in 1 turn typically, and high precision and lightning. If you do not have mind hunt and spies are causing unrest, a watcher can be a saver-and a cheap one at that for 5 gems.

Aside from insane patrol bonus they can do some damage with very high precision and lightning.


Curse of blood-I still like the vampire at 77 blood slaves. He is immortal, has 3 d and 3 blood, and flies. Plus he summons more immortals with life drain. A pack of these can take down an sc. bloodslaves are easier to get then gems.

Plus if you summon 1 vampire, he can blood hunt and get your 77 bloodslaves back for you in a few turns. 44 seems like a steal. you can have unlimited vampires, unlike the blood royalty, so summoning one is a sure thing.

Constr item changes i disagree with:

Ax of hate-one of the best weapons in the game. Now at constr 2?

silver hauberk-one of the best mage chest pieces in the game. seemed fine at constr 4. if you are fighting a nation hitting you with numerous seeking arrows every turn, you quickly see the value of this item. low enc, good protection.

Vision foe-a ranged item that can give afflictions. why make it easier to obtain?


Without playing actual games with the entire CBM, my input is given without full working understanding of how the entire thing meshes together. And in that sense I realize my input is not as valuable as people that are playing mp games with the cbm.

But most mod authors like input on their mods, and i wanted to give mine, whether it has much in the way of value or not.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Some of these seem debatable (and I'd like to hear others opinions on them), but silver hauberk to be honest I still regard as pretty close to junk even in CB. Robe of missile protection is much cheaper and handles the same mage protection problem- and doesn't even add any enc. It's possible for very key mages you might favor the hauberk, but that's extremely niche at best, not something thats is going to be overused.

The watcher has a large number of difficulties. Unusual path combo, niche use (mostly vs spies), and taking a mage turn _every turn_ for patrolling. It's possible to find a situation to use them, but again I can't see it getting over used.

Along with all it's other artifact bow cousins, vision's foe has a couple major liabilities in the form of frequent misses and shield parries. It also again has an unusual path combo which make it's use very rare.

Axe of hate and vampire lord are things I have never ever seen used base game, and also not seen yet CB. It's possible they are diamonds in the rough, but if so I can't think of a better way to bring them to the forefront than with some incentives.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Vision foe is good against things that do not have shields and can be specifically targeted and are raiding your provinces, manticore, other large flying sc's without full slots. Admittedly a niche use however.

Besides patrolling, a watcher for 5 air gems is not bad in a battle. Unless the thug is 100 sr, is likely is going to take significant damage.

And in response to those numerous "how do i kill this water Queen" threads, though i have never replied to them, i have brought them down in mp games with packs of vampires. Risk free since it was in my own dominion.

Some nations, like Pangaea, only have the paths for curse of blood. And in Alpaca, because i was 2 drain as well, all the blood royalty was taken since i was dead last in research.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

None of these I said had no use. However, I do see them very rarely if ever used, and if they have a somwhat obscure niche, what's the harm in rewarding somebody who thinks of them?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

LA Argatha Hero (the possessed flame corpse, Nr 2835) description say he has some skill in fire magic, but he has only fire resistance and immortality. (of course he explode when dying).
I never saw him in vanilla game so i cannot say if his lacking fire magic skill is a bug from dominions or from cbm. However it would be nice if he had as last Fire Skill 1 to cast Fire Shield before blowing up.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

They are the same as in worthy heroes, where as I recall Turin game them a variable fire magic skill from 0-3.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Enchanted Forest (Conj. 9, N7) cost 320 Nature Gems ?
Is this a bug ?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Yes, that's a bug, thanks you for spotting it.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Cheaper vampires are something I can appreciate.

I agree wholeheartedly on the magic scale rollback.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

LA Argatha, ageless olm hero: i got 3 of them, description says the Olm have earth and water magic "of varying power", however all my Olm heroes have no magic.
Did anyone managed to get heroes with magic skills ?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

I wonder if that might be due to the mod interference bug. Or there is a WH/CB bug.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Did I miss something? Is the new Worthy Heroes attached to CBM?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

WH 1.8 is.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Isn't WH 1.8 incompatible with the current patch?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

My copy of WH/CB works just fine with the current patch, I find I can't have more than CB and maybe a mod nation enabled before I start getting interference, so you might just have one too many patches enabled.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

quantum_machanics,

Your comment on oni cost reduction in CBM got me interested in CBM and I just downloaded a copy to play around. I noticed the following:

Errors:

Titan (female) has base research 29
Lord of the forest: Typo in description: "beats" should be "beasts"

Oni:

Shinuyama can summon 3 oni for 3 gems (conj3) and 4 kuo-oni for 3 gems (conj4) but Yomi need to pay 35 gold each and 45 gold each respectively for these units. I also noticed that some other low level summons has drastically reduced costs (but those have no recruitable equivalent). So does this imply that gems are far more important in CBM than in the base game (so alchemy is even less desirable), and is it intentional that Shinuyama should be more powerful than Yomi - much cheaper access to oni?

Please bear with me if I am completely off the mark. CBM's changes are very extensive and probably changes the game in ways that I am not aware off - I have only spent an hour or so with it.

Last but not least, my hat off to you - I cannot imagine the number of hours you have put into such a massive project.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

I'm preparing for an upcoming CBM and playing pythium for the first time..

Looking down the conjuration spell list I'm confused - the national summons in the manual aren't there, but the Sirrush and some kind of conj 9 hydra is.

Is this a CBM change and just not documented? Am I missing something? What is the C9 hydra like?

Thanks,
D

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

It sounds like you're playing LA Pythium and reading the manual entry for MA Pythium (which isn't even present in the manual since it was introduced in a patch).

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Ah ok

So is the information on the conj 9 hydra anywhere? Can't seem to find it in anything

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Bogarus malaya druzhina still lack lances. They have both warhorse hoof and a regular hoof though. Guess one is horse's, second is rider's. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

Just find the debug mod (in the mod list, I think), and you will be able to cast all spells without doing any research.

It's quite a beast I think - immortal, even - but either isn't a commander or has poor slots, can't remember which.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

will have to download the debug mod when i get home, too tiring playing it all the way to C9 just for that!

thanks llama

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentation
 

I found some spelling errors and other typos, so I fixed them. There were a couple of incorrect mod keywords as well, I'm not sure what they were doing, but now a couple of things in theory will work better.

I've only included the .dm because it's the only file I've changed, you can diff the changes if you want to see what exactly has been done. I've left alone all american / british spelling differences and not changed anything where I wasn't sure of the correct one, but it might be worth checking anyway. If you don't like me correcting your work, that's fine, just tell me and I'll delete the post, but I thought I'd at least offer the chance of other people benefiting from my 10 minutes going through with a spellcheck routine.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentation
 

Thanks Darloth, I certain don't object to some help in polishing. Every time I release a new version I realize right a way a half dozen little bugs/problem that I didn't catch.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentation
 

I can't find an edit button (edit: Ahh, it appears to be one of those high tech eventually-disappearing edit buttons) so I'll just have to make a new post.

I missed "beats" even though the thread has pointed it out twice, because of course beats is a real word so the spellchecker skipped it. More importantly, I changed thraldom into thralldom, which I shouldn't have done as that's an item name and would break anyone who expected to start with it. So, a couple of slight changes later, and new one. Oops ^_^

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentation
 

I think the cleansing bell is a bit cheap now.. against demon or undead it's VERY powerfull and for 5 gems it's a bit overpowered. While not equipment for a die hard SC it can be very usefull for troops with a bit of staying power. (I'm using them against Lanka in MP and on blessed Niefel Jarls you get quite some punch out of them, basicly much more kill since their usual main strat is just wait till frost kicks in.. now whileI'm waiting demons fall left and right)

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentation
 

I'd like to make a general statement disagreeing with lowering the cost of a spell *just* because it's unpopular. If it's unpopular because it's not very good, then I think steps should be taken to find ways to make it more effective, rather than just cheaper, because what's the point of a cheap spell that still isn't worth casting? I don't know how easy this would be, but if a spell can be modded by cost, it seems reasonable that there are ways to mod it more potent.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentation
 

Well gem cost reduction means the most in summons - and maybe got cost reduced and/or # summoned increased. So in those cases it's more just about making the spells gem effective, since all summons are potentially useful, just in vanilla many are neither gem nor time efficient.

I do think that tweaking the costs of unique artifacts is a bit silly though, except maybe to raise the cost of some to reflect their perceived value.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

Still, how about fixing Bogarus cavalry? Its their only damage dealing troop after all. Malaya Druzhina still have no lances, Grid Druzhina has lances instead of bows (wich makes sense), but no shields (which makes no sense since they lost bows).

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

I have a strange anomaly, and I am wondering if it's being reproduced in others. Namely, the Great Enchantress changes are not applied in the game. I also tried to change the Great Enchantress in a different way than those registered in this mod, and that didn't work either. So I am wondering if the unit ID # given in the game itself when you "shift + i" is inaccurate.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.3, updated documentat
 

I agree with most of your points. Not just the magic items, but I disagree with most of the changes making spells more powerful and easier to cast. The only significant exception is domes, as they were initially too expensive and took too long to research.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

By the way, I ought to add that the mod is a stupendous work. So please don't take my disagreement about the changes to items and spells as indicative of my assessment of the mod overall.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

Well that is pretty baffling, every thing looks fine as far as I can see.

As for bogarus cavalry, I thought I fixed that this version but guess it slipped through.

About making spells and items easier/more powerful, as I've said before my assessment method is pretty simple, if I never see something being made use of, I improve it. This is naturally not full proof, but I think it would be hard to argue that on the whole it doesn't work out to a closer balance than base game. And of course the key thing to refining the balance is feedback. I have actually come around somewhat on the vampires, next version they will probably be 66.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

Great work with that. I have always been reluctant using mods, I like to play games the way devs thought it... but this mod adds a lot of things I like... and for the (few) ones I don't... oh well c'est la vie ^^

May I bring one small suggestion? On a discussion about fortune telling, I brought the idea of the Oracle pretender having it, for thematic reasons. Even KO agreed it was not a bad idea. Maybe it could be nice if the CBM puts some of this ability (3 points? 5?) on the Oracle (let's say for half the points of a Luck scale, as it would prevent bad events in the capital to happen in the moment you need it more for Misfortune choosers - at the beginning). I think it would be a nice and thematic addition, as it is an immobile chassis which ppl will take awaken for the gems it gives in the mod, it could open a new nice strategic opportunity ^^

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

I agree, fortune telling on the oracle would be good.

I just want to say, once again, how much I love this mod. If I could I'd play cbm exclusively. I hope you continue to work on it qm, using the new features like water and forest shape etc in interesting ways.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

One nice thing to use for this mod would be if the devs add the command asked today... the one for new "second shapes" that some commanders already get when they're prophetized ^^ I think i.e. Oni Generals of Yomi would really deserve something this nice ^^

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

Quantum Mechani, could you look at the possibility of making EA Abyssia's Demonbred commanders non-Capital? Have you already considered this? They're one of the easiest and best ways for EA Abyssia to break into other forms of damage than Fire, and since they're Commanders, they still can only be recruited 1 at a time. Doing so would give EA Abyssia a competitive boost that I would assume is much needed, now that EA Gath and Lanka are running around.

I can't imagine that, as Capital-Only, they're used very often, and making them non-Cap opens up some interesting directions that a player using Abyssia might choose to take.

Thanks!

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

A thought for CBM that I believe I've mentioned before: Skirmisher shields.

Currently a fairly useful unit against massed xbows is a cheap fairly low rcost unit with a shield. This is because if the bolt is parried by the shield, prot no longer matters. Cheap units /without/ shields are generally too quickly killed no matter what their cost and numbers, to be a useful counter.

But I personally feel the counter is not well realised enough. Although it's certainly better for a cheap prot 5 guy with a shield and a spear to be used as crossbow fodder than a medium infantry with prot 13 and a shield, or any unit without a shield, it isn't the kind of significant difference that makes you want to actually use light/skirmmish infantry.

So what I propose is that suitable 'skirmisher' units, such as the Arco peltast, get special 'skirmish' versions of their current shields. So the Velite would get a 'Skirmish Tower Shield' instead of a shield, the Peltast a 'Skirmish Shield' and the Machaka jav armed warrior a 'Skirmish Hide Shield'. How would these shields differ? Well they'd have an extra point of parry and a slightly lower prot value. This represents the fact that though the shield is no larger, the skirmisher is used to using it as his first and last line of defence - he understands better than others how to shelter from missile fire and he doesn't have such heavy equipment, armor and weapons wise, allowing him more freedom to manuever his shield. With the parry 1 level higher, he's significantly better against missile fire, while still being killable and expendable - he's also more likely to parry in melee, particularly with his already high def score (due to lack of malus from heavy armor), however with the reduced prot (you can imagine the skirmisher uses a slightly lighter version of the shield, or that he's less able to ignore glancing blows due to lack of armour) if he does parry and it's against heavy infantry, cavalry or the like, he's still toast, just like before.

Thoughts?

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

I think that sounds like a great idea.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

As a sub-suggestion:

I believe (pending testing later today) that Jotun and Agarthan boulders are parryable, even by something like the machakan hide shield. Making them AN or AP won't change this and making them AOE-1 is basically too nuts.

However there is a way to make missile weapons unparryable by shields. I did it with the skink blowpipes to make them good anti skirmisher weapons and I also did it with the Warplightning Thrower of the Skaven, because it didn't make sense for AN warp energy blasts to be parried by shields. All you need to do is make the actual weapon do 1 damage, capped. Then you add a #secondaryeffectalways of something like 'Boulder impact' with an appropriate damage value. Voila! Unparryable boulders that aren't aoe.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

It'd seem harsh, though, that the shield protection wasn't used against the boulders. A heavily shielded unit should be at least somewhat protected against the boulders.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

This is true. A heavy tower shield should add at least something to your prot vs the boulder. However given the choice between a tower shield not adding any prot against a big boulder and a machakan with a hide shield batting it away like it's an sling stone, I know which I prefer.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

I don't think I would try to parry a giant piece of rock coming to my face, expecially if thrown by an enormous, strong cyclops :confused: it is dodge or be squeezed, in reality (sadly)

Oh, I don't want to become the "Fortuneteller guy", but I think from the description both the Lady of Fortune and the Lord of Plenty may deserve some Fortunetelling ability, as they both are supposed to "bring luck to the people around them"... yet they don't have the tag... so, maybe not the amount right for the Oracle, but some Fortunetelling would add some flavour :happy:

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

Well the lady of fortune increases luck scale iirc.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

Generates good events regardless of Luck scale, I think. Similar to how Doom Horrors make bad events.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

While updating the CBM Forging References, I found two small :bug:s.

The first :bug: is with the Evening Star. It is not working as intended due to 2 misspellings of the word "effect". Currently, the erroneous code is:

The second :bug: is with the 2-handed Bane Blade. It is still a Construction-2 item, though presumably should be a Construction-0 item like its 1-handed brother. This is because they're both called "Bane Blade" and the game only mods the first, 1-handed version.

--------------

Both :bug:s can easily be corrected by appending your CBcomplete_1.3.dm file with the following code:

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

Typo for the phoenix pretender description "... but lcks the physical strgth..."

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

heya, I've been messing around with MA Man in CBM, and have discovered two things which I didn't know.

Knights of avalon aren't sacred despite costing more than knights of the shroud (EA ERMOR) which have recup as well... is it just paying for speed?

This doesn't bother me so much, since I doubt I would use them at the price even if they were... cheap stealthy wardens are clearly better assuming you don't need strat move 3.

The second thing does surprise me and I'd like to ask why it was done.... man MA longbows only have range 35 now, which makes any old composite bow (even in EA) superior.

This is bizarre and arguably some sort of dominions sacrilege, and especially unexpected as the resource cost was bumped up.

It's true than man's longbows were best in game, but they haven't much else going for them, and there doesn't seem to be a way to maintain an advantage (i.e dispel storm or arrow fend), so its hardly unbalancing.

Anyway just wanted to get that off my chest... now I have to go back to designing an MA man pretender for Dodeicus, that won't be a total pushover.

Send me a PM if you have any ideas.

Re: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation
 

Knights of Avalon were never sacred... I leave such thematic decisions to KO.

The longbow thing was a change I thought I rolled back, I guess it's still in there somewhere.

EDIT: Thanks fungalreason and cleveland, I'll look into those next version.