Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

... and its a Death economy, so your income will be constantly shrinking. So having many IOs mean more and more upkeep for less and less income. If you don't 'cross the Rubicon', militarily speaking, fairly early on, you die in a spiral of bankruptcy. This is of course an issue for everyone to some extent, but it hits BF Ulm harder and more directly than most.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

But then so is Abysia's when you play with their standard death-2, and that doesn't start to have a really noticeable effect till turn 60 or so. Many of your provinces will not have any taxes for bloodhunting purposes as well.

At 0.2% dying per turn, you'll have lost ~12% of your income in your capital by turn 60. Most of your newer provinces will have lost more than that just due to bloodhunting.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Not to belabor this point, since this thread is about Saber Cherry's excellent mod, but death-2 is 'standard' Abysian scales? See this is what seperates the winners from losers in multiplayer games. I would lose every single game i played - against the computer! - with those scale choices. You just know exactly what works down to the turn, and damn all and everything else, i suppose.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

tinkthank:

Hmmm... makes sense to me (I assume archering is harder with a helmet and plate cuirass...). Except for the indy longbow, who IMO deserves 11 precision, especially at 12g each. Longbowmen (from what I understand; please correct me if I'm wrong) are people who devote their life to the longbow, and their skeletal remains can be unearthed, examined, and shown to be from a longbowman because their hand and fingerbones are deformed in a certain way, due to the strength and practice required to use them. Whereas shortbows and (particularly) crossbows can be given to recruits who are taught to use them in weeks or months.

Xbow: I tend to think of Marignon units as elites across the board. But you're right, prec 11 seems like too much considering I dropped the price. Maybe I should either make them prec 10 (-1) or 10 gold (+1)...

Flags: I don't know. Considering that they need no armor, training, or salary, it's hard for me to justify charging ANYTHING for them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I never build them unless I have a bless-effect pretender (useful for flagellants, like water, air, or fire). Anyone else have input on the cost of flagellants, considering trained light infantry is 7-8g and miltias are 3-5g?

Knight of the Chalice: I have no idea why I did that. Maybe I mistyped? Or maybe they just "felt" expensive and I didn't fully consider how good they are. At any rate, I'll put them back at 90.

I rarely play Ryleh, but it's fun to watch froggies poison themselves (due to range-0 attack) against Atlantain poison spears and poison armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I put them at 3g 2r instead of 5g 1r where the extra resource is to note that you don't get an unlimited supply of lobotomized slaves. They lower gold cost is for three reasons:
1) Their theme gives super-cheap lobo guards, and unless I dropped them to 3, human militias would become cheaper, which makes no sense!
2) They require magical leadership...
3) They should not have a salary; that's crazy.

At any rate, I cannot think of any justification for them costing more than 3 gold. However, I CAN think of justifications for dropping their stats. Should physical and mental abuse to the point of insanty increase HP? No... Should it drop you fighting skill? Yes... and by more than 1 att and 2 def. What do you think about lobo guards that are 3 gold and 12 hp (standard), 8 att (-2 from atlantian standard), 6 def (-3 from atlantian standard)? At that point they are much worse than the worst human militia in combat, aside from their 50 morale.

So... I think I'll drop their stats as described (-1 hp, -1 att, -1 def from base game) but keep the 3g price.

I boosted the precision to keep them in line with other Abysian mages, and for 1 other reason: some blood combat spells need precision. Of course, nobody ever casts them, so it shouldn't matter, but who knows... As for lesser fear -5, come on, it affects NOTHING! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It says "they are greatly feared" in their description http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

(riderless) hunter spiders are perhaps the awesomest recruitable units in the game. Those costs make sense, assuming those units need tenders. I wouldn't want to turn my back on a riderless hunter spider if nobody was bothering to keep him on a leash http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Yeah... I guess that's fine. Even with those costs, I still kind of hope my riders get killed, so that I get a much cheaper unit that's about as good as before http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Non-spider Machakans have to be good at SOMETHING http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I assume they do a lot of hunting, as a pre-agricultural society. Also, their archers get no armor and die in droves. I always recruited indy archers as Machaka. But if you find them to be too awesome, they could change...

Nornae and Seithkonae are humans who happen to live with/near the Jotuns, while Vaetti (I assume) were created / evolved in a cold place. In retrospect, it seems fair (to me) to give Vaetti 50% CR.

I sort of wonder what the effect of 25% FR / CR is on fatigue when fighting in hot / cold places...

I wonder... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I don't think so, but I'll look into ways to add the ability, or else modify the text to be less misleading.

I gave them a supply bonus of 1, with this logic:

1) They are fay (wild...-ish) hound capable of hunting and foraging for themselves.
2) They are size 3, and thus eat 2 food.
3) They are traveling with an army, and thus not capable of foraging as much as normal (they still need some additional food).
4) They were a pretty bad unit.

Hopefully, supplybonus 1 + size 3 = a unit that consumes half as much food as normal. Combining that with a better "weapon", hopefully they will become a useful unit. So, the "supplybonus" is misleading, considering that they still are a net consumer of supplies.

I gave them bronze armor, resulting in +2 rcost and -1 protection (seems close to Illwinter's bronze armor guidelines). As a result they are slightly worse, so I dropped the cost 10% to compensate. I've only played that theme once. Is 35g still a fair cost even with them becoming slightly worse due to bronze armor?

And I gave them +2 hp, +1 str... and yet, they still aren't very good http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Especially with light archers getting 2 strat moves, which they deserve. I plan to keep them as they are unless I hear reports of them being overpowered...

Hmm, shows how much I know about cavalry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Still, Dominions' morale system greatly penalizes small groups of strong units, and it's terrible (and unrealistic) when a group of 10 heavy cavalry routs because one gets killed by the opposing 10 medium infantry.

You're welcome, thanks for the feedback!



rabelais:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

1) I wasn't sure... I was setting them as 0 just in case. However, as mentioned above, there seem to be a couple justifiable reasons for making it nonzero. What do you think?

2) If I could find a way to do that, it would be great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Good suggestion! I'll have to experiment with the #flail command (att bonus versus shield) and see if it works on ranged weapons. Otherwise, I'll keep AP, as their seems to be good historical justification. If it is overpowered, I can always bump the price of longbow units (on the basis of the much longer training longbowmen undergo). If anyone wants to run a test to see if you can mod a ranged weapon (with #flail) to ignore shields (try giving round shield 20 defense), feel free... I have no computer on which to spend time with Doms II for a few days.

3) You're right, I gave them pretty darn good stats for a 12 gold stealthy unit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Seems too good. When I play BF Ulm, I ignore units and spend all my effort on blood, making vampires, and so forth. I don't think I've ever built a Ranger, because those vampire barons are just too much fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And the Zweihanders look really cool. Hmm...

On the other hand, Rangers wear almost no armor and use the crappiest standard 1-h weapon in the game, the Axe. Real rangers use swords. Considering that their bad armor and bad melee weapon make them poorly suited as anything except archers, and that they cost 20-50% more than normal xbows, I think 12g is fair. But if they got a broadsword and ringmail hauberk, it would be a different matter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif At this point, I think I'll leave them as they are... unless their seems to be a consensus or anecdotal evidence of their overpoweredness.



TheSelfishGene:

Less rigorous, yes. As for last minute... it took me about 12 hours http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Unfortunately, I went in phases and first adjusted prices and stats, and later adjusted a few pieces of armor and probably forgot to re-change the prices. Black Knights die like flies before astral / air spells and especially Nether Darts / Bolts. But I agree, 50g is too cheap for possibly the best "standard combat" unit in the game... I'll put them back at 60.

Interesting logic. Of course it also costs 70 resources, so you can't make more than 2-3 per turn (and personally, I'd rather have a Firbolg, esp. when playing Ulm), but they are also available from turn 0. So I'll put them back at 60.

Hmmm? I didn't add any armor to indy troops that I remember, other than Villians.


... I'll post the rest later, gotta run right now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

TheSelfishGene:

Oooh! Thanks, I missed that.

Indy longbowmen have 11, Man longbowmen have 12. I can't think of any units with 10 precision and a longbow, but I may have messed something up... was there one in particular you noticed that had longbow + 10 prec.? But the longbow weapon change... hmm... well, weaker, faster-firing, longer range, more expensive compared to Xbow. But compared to the original longbow, essentially the same on light units, and much stronger on heavy units. I wish I could give it 25% armor piercing. But doesn't it seem wierd to you that in Dominions 2, longbowmen are useless against knights? Quite contrary to reality. I really like Rabelais's suggestion, and I'll see if I can get it to work.

Thanks!

I'll look at them; the current mod mostly ignores leaders with magic paths. I don't like themes to force your pretender choice, which BF Ulm does. Maybe there's some way of making Sanguine Heritage castable by national mages (assuming at least one +path item is equipped). And having units fulfill their description is never a bad thing, either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Scott Hebert:

Blood isn't very illuminating, but maybe SB? And/or throwing a random onto a mage might be interesting.

1) True, but it hits all nations.
2) Yes. Like Tien Chi, this is (IMO) unacceptable (for national mages to be unable to cast national spells).
3) Yep... what about making them making them (BBDD?) with a different name and description?
4) ... I never like death (with living nations). I don't care about misfortune so much, esp. with fortunetellers. But hey, they are thematic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
5) I agree...


Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! I'll see what I can do, but remember that no solutions will be ideal to everyone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Note! This is just a preview; I have not yet uploaded a new version of the mod.

Ok... thanks for all your input! These are the changes I've made so far (many from forum input, many not). At least, the ones I've documented. I still need to look at some other things (like archer costs, adjusting longbows, and messing with BF Ulm's mages). If you have any problems with the changes, please say so...


Cosmetic Changes:

Added a bunch of new weapons and armors (maybe 10 of each) These are generally for aesthetics (like gilded armors, silver armors, etc) and do not change balance. Even the ones with different stats often don't change anything, but I'll list some:
Avalon Knights get silver armor - just like regular full chain, but -1 encumbrance. This has no effect since they are mounted.
Ulm units with full helms get Full Hlmet of Ulm. This is 2 prot, 0 def, 0 enc. In other words, a weaker version of the Black Steel Helmet. Since this has no effect other than giving units +1 defense, and defense is virtually useless to Ulm units, it probably has no measurable effect.
Fire Lord and all Marignon's gold-colored units get Gilded Armor. Stats do not change.
Tien Chi Eunichs get kung-fu training, and learn Punch and Kick (instead of Fist). They are now able to beat blood slaves in combat, which you sort of expect from a field commander.
Tien Chi healing immortal gets a magical pruning knife.
All TC immortals get super weak armor (Immortal's Robes (2, 0, 0), or Flea-Infested Cape (1, 0, 0) for the old man).


Important Changes:

Tien Chi immortal swordsman got way better. He was terrible before (in combat) partly because he had 2 weapons and no ambidextrity. However, some of the bonus is integrated into his sword and "imaginary" shield, so giving him a new weapon and shield will make them go away again (somewhat).
Sling becomes -1 prec instead of... whatever it was (-3?).
Slingers get 9 prec (-1, total of 8 with sling). They're still terrible, except against flagellants or with flaming missiles, but better than before.
Man Foresters got better stats and supplybonus 2 (feed themselves and 1 other person, probably with rabbits and truffles).
Throwing axe precision went from -4 to -2.
Axe Thrower gets precision 9.
Lobo Guard dropped -1 hp, -1 att, -1 def, since they were abused to the point of mindlessness.
Hoburgs got lower resource costs. Just as big units have higher rcost for armor, tiny units deserve lower rcosts for armor. I doubt anyone built Hoburg HI, especially since (I think) hoburgs are grassland-only.
Crab Hybrid gets ambidextrous 4 (since I gave pincers length 2 rather than default 0)
Spider Warrior dagger replaced by Poison Dagger. Makes sense, right?
Man's Green Knight gets custom armor, reinvigoration 1, and regen 15% (instead of 10%).
Machaka riderless spiders get upkeep (great spider: gcost 10 {.66g/turn}, hunter spider: gcost 30 + sacred {1g/turn}). They are still an incredibly good deal, but someone needs to be paid to tend them (they don't get the money).
MAR Royal Xbows became 10g (+1).
Knights of the Chalice went back to 90g (+10)
Daoine Sidhe back to 35g (+3)
Ulm Rangers: I wanted to give them a patrol bonus but there is no way to do that yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Instead they got #neednoteat (and a description change about wilderness survival) and traded axe (terrible weapon) for shortsword (good weapon). Gold cost: +1 to 13g. They should still avoid melee, but at least have a chance.
Ranger Captain: +5g (to 50g) and leadership went from 10 to 25. Also, same changes as Ranger.
Black Forest Ulm Commander: 25 leadership went to 50 leadership, to be on par with other Commanders of Ulm. BF units are weaker, anyway.
Black Knight: Returned to 60 gold (+10)


Non-unit changes:

Added #foodmult 150. This gives 50% more supplies. It makes the AI less likely to starve, makes units that eat less disadvantageous over non-eating summons, makes light units and militias more useful, and reduces the need for winebags, summer swords, cauldrons of broth, and nature picks on pretenders specifically for those items. If / when I make Chuckwagon units, this might be taken back out. The constant need for magical winebags when using mundane troops is annoying.

IMO, a higher #foodmult over default is vital to balance units... though I admit it is not an ideal solution, and it won't magically make hordes of militia as desirable and useful as hordes of vinemen or longdead.



Sound ok? Aside from things still to do, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

For example... I'm considering increasing the price of every recruitable mage in the game by 10%, EXCEPT the ones that are already "too expensive". If a 180 gold mage (say, a Vanheim Dwarf) can kill 50 units unboosted in a couple battles in the early game... why is he much cheaper than those 50 units? It makes you want to spend all your money on mages (which is what good players often do). 10% probably is not enough, but I'll do it and see how it feels.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Great!

After more testing, although I have come to appreciate even more the fine changes you made to national troops (GREAT - thanks! Love your mod!), I have come to be sceptical about one type of change (only): those changes to the Indy troops. Although you have done a fine job now of making most of these very viable to purchase, and additionally accomplished a nice feat in making Independent Province Nations more variable, slightly tougher, and more flavorful, you have also applied the same principles you used in beefing up the underused and niche-seeking national troops, who often sat sadly in a corner drinking tea out of a paper bag (IF they were lucky) just hoping one day to sit sadly in a niche. The effect of this is that it often now seems just as good to me to purchase Indies as national troops. I don't like this for only one reason (NOTHING to do with Balance): It encourages making the armies more homogenous, and hence also detracts from the national flavor impact of different nations. (Don't ge me wrong: it doesnt do this a lot, but I did notice it after a few more test runs with me.)

In other words, trying to phrase this without using "balance" at all: I think the "niche" which Independent troops should fill is actually a quite different one than that of national troops. I think this indy niche should be to (a) be purchased when really needed in a hurry out in the front or (b) to enhance a nation's access to a type of unit otherwise completely lacking (e.g. archers for Abysia, Atlantis, Van or Heavy Cav for Pythium or whatever) or (c) to buy when you really have some cash left over or (d) give the strong national themes a "local" flavor in the provinces those troops are naturally at home or (e) something else.

For this reason, I would really like to see most of those troops get a price increase (or read: have their original prices dropped NOT QUITE AS MUCH as you did, quite excellently so, with the national troops) or somehow be made less comparable to national troops.

Additionally, I would like to see map movement restricted again, specifically as examples Indy Archers be scaled back down to map move 1 (this btw would still make them fine province defenders or great buy-me-quick-near-the-front troops and good Indy Nationals). Low mobility would not only scale down those troops overall strategic value while keeping them viable for niche filling but would also (at least to my playing style) encourage the garrisoning of troops in as many provinces as possible (as an alternative defense form to mad castling, even if this form is no way equal in terms of balance to having a castle in every province, obviously).

(On an aside: do you have a comprehensive list of the changes to Indies, or could you send them to me? I could do some of these changes then for myself without pestering you, and offer them here on the boards on the off chance anyone would want them.)


Another Side Note Suggestion: For Ulm, I think a novel but decent tweak would be instead of the individual battle-style improvements in armor or armaments (although I like it, especially the magic weapon on the guardians) or a reduction in price, give each and every Ulmian a boost in MR of 2 or in some cases 3: Ulmians are infused in mundanity. (So just the opposite rationale which gave them crappy MR to start with.) Yes, Ulm is supposed to make up for its crappy MR by pushing its crappy Drain scale, but even in doing so they only get back up to "normal" -- I think a nice tradeoff for lacking magic whatsoever would be having decent resistances to it.

So.... thanks very much! Whole new worlds are opening up, and I think I am going to enjoy playing with different styles now some races I would like to like, like Pan New Era and Machaka, and new styles with races I already like, like Man and Marignon and Tien Chi....!

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete!
 

Ya, this sounds really nice, SC! Now I just need to steal time to play it... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

PvK

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

It's not nearly as major an undertaking as Proportions but hopefully it accomplishes a similar goal... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete!
 

Ulmites being a favorite of mine, I'll comment just on what I've read in recent posts here, since I haven't gotten time to try this yet.

* Giving Ulm troops a helmet that doesn't reduce defense will in fact be helpful, at least to some of the troops (e.g. Chain/Hammer/Shield), particularly when they start gaining experience, at least against average regular troops.

* I second thinktank's suggestion to give Ulmites higher MR. If it were moddable (tis not), I'd have every level of drain scale add to their MR, but failing that, +2-4 MR for Ulm would be neat IMO, and I'd do that rather than improving their helmet design.

* Did you look at Ulm morale? Anyone know why Ulm pikeneers get +1 morale compared to the other troops? +1 morale would also be useful for the other troops, but IMO +MR is better - there are ways for Ulm to deal with their morale - not so much for their MR.

PvK

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete!
 

Ulm is your fav PvK? I'm not sure how. I've been practicing with them a bit these past few days to get ready for the MP game with SC's mod. And I forsee myself getting utterly crushed, even if a low-magic rule is selected :}

Also, I wanted to reiterate:

Light Cavalry should have thier bows swapped out for javelins. Messing with precision, cost, etc, won't help when mounted bowmen (without appropriate tactical commands) are inferior in every way to un-mounted bowmen.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

The standard indie LC already have a javelin variant, I don't know what the point of throwing out the shortbow ones would be.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Do they? I'd never seen those hmm.

Well the idea behind throwing out the shortbow one is that there is no use for them. No matter how you tweak thier precision, cost, etc, etc. Are you telling me you are going to buy them as is? Even with SCs mod? What would you use them for?

My point was just that, in reality, mounted archers are(were) an incredible thing. They could move into range fast, shoot the enemy and then move away just as fast. Constantly killing the enemy while staying out of range themselves. But dom2 provides no tactical options for this. "Fire and Flee" would be optimal for these purposes if it didnt break up your units into a handful of provs like a rout. You could buy 20 LC and just sit them in the path of an attacking army and they would shoot at them and flee every game turn...

But we all know that Fire and Flee doesnt work. So then I am looking at the LC and seeing no place for it, no reason to recruit. And I thought to myself that giving them all javs would be - at the very least - more effective than having a unit which is no better than a traditional bowman, but costs more and consumes more supplies.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

To be honest, I don't think I would buy either javelin or shortbow LC, even in this mod. However, the javelin ones are just as common as the shortbow ones, so there is no need to replace them.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Well... from my analysis, they aren't overpriced... from a strict numbers standpoint. (Well, they're not overpriced just like all cheap mages aren't overpriced...) Thing is... Spy-mages are horrible. Assassin-mages can at least do something while they're sneaking around (kill commanders), but why have a spy-mage? Now, if you could use other players' sites with spy-mages, that would be a different issue.

Another idea would be 'stealing' gem production with spy-mages.

Yes, but it doesn't make it any less of a problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

With an enforced Death scale, there's no way to offset this problem (aside from Growth-enhancing sites).

*nods*

Personally, can you add the third tier? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I know the Hero is one, so it exists, but you could do so much better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I normally play with Zen's balance mod, or my own mod, both of which HEAVILY PUNISH Misfortune. Yes, it doesn't matter so much with the Fortunetellers, but it does hurt them otherwise (their Heroes are so cool, e.g.).

Switching the Illuminated ones to Blood would be the best solution, IMO. That's still quite a bit worse than Mictlan or BoH Abysia.

Heh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Ah, unfortunately... I only replaced full helms with Full Helm of Ulm. And only Black Plate units get those, not full chain units... and Black Plate units never really get defense above 10 anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif So, it's mainly aesthetic...

That would make Ulm more powerful, but really change their theme. A "Magic Resistant Ulm" theme might be interesting, but I'd do it seperately, if I did one.

I gave all Ulm Black Plate units +1 morale, since I imagine they would feel invincible in their super-heavy armor. And because they are used in small groups, and small strong groups have excessive routing trouble with Dominions II's morale algorithms. And (base) Ulm has only holy-2, aside from the prophet... which is a double whammy.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

More changes. Still no new version uploaded.

Game's 3 worst weapons improved slightly:
Glaive went from (10, -1, -1, 4) to (10, 0, -1, 4)
Halberd went from (10, -1, -1, 4) to (10, 0, -1, 4)
Axe went from (7, -1, -1, 1) to (7, -1, 0, 1)
Indy Archers made slightly worse:
Light Archer: +1g (7g)
Archer: +1g +1def (8g, 9 def)
Heavy Archer: -1prec (10 prec)
Heavy Crossbowman: -1prec (10 prec)
Pureblood Abysians get +1 attack (after all, they cost 20 gold, they're a warlike race, and only had 10-attack 9-defense?)
Pureblood Abysians also get -25% cold resist (from description: 'vulnerable to cold').
Humanbreds are unaffected by these changes.
Man Spearman (Short Spear) dropped 1g to 8g.
Ctissian Slave Lizards dropped price by 1g each.
Ctissian Taskmaster given 3 moves, so now they not only have a reason to exist (before, they didn't), but also, Ctis Runners have a reason to exist (cheaper, and finally there is a commander that can lead them with 3 strat moves).
Falchioneer dropped to 11g.
Royal Guard +3 rcost to 48 (it was too low compared to other mounted units with same equipment)
Skin Shifters (werewolf precursors) bumped +2 hp (15 hp) to prevent pre-shift death.
Galderman gets +4 hp, +3 str, +1 att, +1 def, +25% since he is also a werewolf.
Einheres get +1 hp (to 13) so they don't die before they berserk, and full ambidextrity (3).
Bane Spiders and Spider Warriors get 11 mr instead of 10. Must either be their mysterious spider armor, or something that happens under the tutlage of the Black Sorcerers...
Jotun Woodsmen dropped -10g to 40g. Why were they the same price as scouts that are better in every way? Plus, they are capitol only, and just not that good, with no armor, shield, javelin, or stealthy priest to bless them...

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Now this doesn't make too much sense to me, as woodsmen with an appropriate bless effect already had better cost effectiveness than niefel giants.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Hmm, you're right, I never realized that. Should I decrease Giant costs or boost Woodsman costs, or something else? Woodsmen are not good enough for a bless strategy, in my opinion. I'd bet on the same cost in gold of Daoine Sidhe, Flagellants, Black Hunters, Vans, Paladins, Black Templars, Jaguar Warriors...

Do you find Woodsmen to be useful?

How about Giants?

New version out.
 

Version 7 is finished. Check the first post for changelog and to download the file!

Re: Infantry Balance Mod
 

I'd rather see Militia boosted somewhat and kept to "normal" price (5-15 gp) rather than a free crappy Militia that will soon be abused (by having tons of them boosted with enchantments. Ever thought of effect of Haunted Forest on a 1000-militia pack http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif o ? )

Re: Recruitable Rebalance Version 6, non-beta, is
 

There's been a lot of us who've mentioned that we'd love the option of limitting research the way it is in the demo : capping it at level 4 while avoiding the other limits of the demo. Even better would be an option to pick which is the highest research level (2, 3, 5, 7, etc) to be used. Not something most people would want to play regularly, but a very nice change of pace, with higher level magic and construction removed.

Best of all, something like this could be coded with minimal effort, since it would merely change the cap. Here's hoping to see something like it in Dom3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Black hunters are too expensive for the very low MR that the hunter spider has in my experience.

Re: Recruitable Rebalance Version 6, non-beta, is
 

Cainehill: there already are mods which do that. I don't remember if they are available somewhere, but try searching for them from the forum.

Re: Recruitable Rebalance Version 6, non-beta, is
 

Re: Woodsmen, the Commander is dreadfully undercosted (by my rubric, at least). He should cost ~90g, IIRC. So, I think it's not the unit so much as the commander that needs the change.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

I had boosted them to 8 (+3) because I don't like seeing sacred units with really low MR (seems somehow wrong). But that's still really low. Some other sacred animals, like Cu Sidhe, Gryphons, and Sacred Serpents have high (above 10) magic resistance. Do you think it would be fair to give Hunter Spiders 11 MR? It seems so strange for a sacred unit to be easily subverted.

You're right. I remember playing Jotunheim and conquering several provinces with solo Woodsman commanders, without any special equipment. That's pretty potent for a scout... Unfortunately, if you make them 90g, Jotunheim themes other than IW pretty much lose their ability to scout at all. If they were 100g stealth priests with 10 leadership, able to lead raiding parties of Woodsmen, it would solve both problems (and gaining the ability to do stealth raids of blessed woodsmen makes up for losing the ability to economically scout, IMO). Does that sound fair?

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

I rarely purchase Jotun scouts and almost always use cheap humans in that role. OTOH, giving the commander stealth would provide me a reason to buy those, which I also rarely do now. Just thought you might want to hear the point of view of an infamous Jotun player ...

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

Infamous, indeed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Cherry, let me check... 10 Leadership + Holy-2 Priest for the Woodsman commander would raise his cost from a calculated 95 to a calculated 110.

I'm not about 'fair'. I'm about applying rubrics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete!
 

Ulm is my sentimental fav, and one I enjoy playing as much as any other, at least against the AI. I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy getting wiped out by competetive high-magic humans using Wrathful Skies and Life Drain SC's, though.

As with most nations, it takes some time to learn what does and doesn't work with them. I really enjoy building up a cadre of experiences Ulmites and trying to conquer a world full of Impossible AI's using mostly steel over sorcery (except when it's completely the wrong answer, such as against poison or soul vortex or wrathful skies).

PvK

Re: Infantry Balance Mod
 

Sounds ok to me, actually, except that battlefield resurrection spells might want some reconsideration. Medieval armies usually had a whole bunch of untrained fodder, mainly because conscripted peasants certainly cost much less than skilled warriors.

PvK

Re: Recruitable Rebalance Version 6, non-beta, is
 

It is pretty easy to mod out (or up) the spells. I agree it'd be fun. I've been working on a Hard Magic mod for a long time (taking forever mainly due to lack of spare time).

PvK

Re: Recruitable Rebalance Version 6, non-beta, is
 

Be sure to check out the "Null Spell Mod " I just put out. It lists all the spells with unaltered paths and costs, in mod format. Could save you some time...

Re: Recruitable Rebalance Version 6, non-beta, is
 

1) you forgot holy-3 ...
2) having water-2 on them acutally makes sense (Acid-Spells, which are rarely used otherwise), while having another nation with lightning-tossing mages is rather boring.
3) S&A CM is FAWS 3R .. that's not what I read from above...

---

And if you take away water from the CM, or if you really want to beef up S&A magic, replace Master of The Way's water with astral, so he can form communion with the CM, and summon water daemons.

---

And "Spirit Mastery" is starting spell of S&A. There's little that S&A has in the first turns, and now with 8 instead of 4 gems it won't even have Disposessed (sp?) Spirits ..

Bugs to be fixed...
 

...ahhh... I hope I didn't similarly break any other nations... I can sort of feel my reputation falling into a black hole... makes me want to play Space Empires IV... but I'll live http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

I realize water-2 plus fire is more interesting that air-2, but I was trying to make their national spells accessable. Having never played SA, I didn't realize the national sites gave water gems...

So that's fixed in version 7.1 (available at the first post). Thanks for noting the problems! As for giving MotFE astral, that seems sort of wierd (violating their name). You can do communions with only Celestial Masters, anyway, which (with this mod) cost about the same.

Re: Bugs to be fixed...
 

Don't confuse "Master of The Way" (100gp/WR2H) with "Master of Five Elements"(whatever) ...

Re: Bugs to be fixed...
 

Oh, hmm, I did exactly that. At any rate, I will take that suggestion under consideration (and probably accept it, considering how worthless Master of the Way is) for the recruitable rebalance mod v8, but I'm going to lock the current iteration (7.x) to balance changes unless bugs or major problems (like national spells becoming inadvertently nerfed) are noted... to avoid additional confusion. Hopefully TC has been boosted enough to compete in MP without communion, but we'll see...

Test game spot(s) open
 

Mod test game recruitment phase ended. Hopefully, valuable balance data will be gleaned for version 8 of this mod http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Recruitable Rebalance Version 6, non-beta, is
 

That is extremely useful - thanks!

PvK

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

I've been thinking about Ulm's MR problem for a while, and various other things, like why armor is totally ineffective against many of the game's spells. And I had an idea...

I'm sort of morally opposed to giving Ulmians a high base magic resistance in their default theme, because the goal of this mod is to change the balance of Dominions II while keeping Illwinter's themes and races intact. However, Ulmians are afraid of magic, and wear specially smithed armor... and now, in my mod, they wear black steel full helms, too. Wouldn't it make sense for the Smiths to use special materials, and inscribe special runes into the helms blocked harmful magic from soldiers' brains?

So, I'm thinking of keeping Ulm's base magic resistance at 9, but giving +1 or +2 MR to all Black Plate units (Full Plate of Ulm and Full Helmet of Ulm), bringing them up to 10 or 11. The description would be altered, of course, to mention that costly materials and laborious techniques are used... justifying a price hike. At 10 MR, 12g sounds reasonable, and at 11 MR... 13 or 14g, possibly with a resource hike as well. Black Plate units are currently 11g by virtue of having higher morale, HP, and more armor compared to Chain units.

This change would essentially divide Ulm Infantry into two distinct lines:

Cheaper Chainmail units (10g / 20-25 resource / 12 HP / 10 MOR / 9 MR), good against indies, Lightning (armor-negating) and Water magic (which is either armor-negating, in which case cheaper units are always better, non-armor-negating, and unlikely to kill any Ulm units), and Nature magic (again, poison is armor negating).

Elite Black Plate units (12-14g / 35+ resource / 13 HP / 11 MOR / 10-11 MR), good against Heavy Cavalry (absorbing lances), Crossbows, Fire (armor-piercing, but unlikely to kill Ulm units), Astral and Death (both MR-save) magic.

I could even make Black Plate Armor more special, with protective runes against elemental magics (+ 25, 25, 25 or + 35, 35, 35), making them some of the most battlemage-resistant troops around.

Do these sound like good changes for Ulm? They're pretty major, but still completely thematic for a nation that fears magic and entrusts both magic and forging to masterful smiths.

Re: Recruitable Unit Rebalance Officially Complete
 

I also think that having extra magic resistance would help Ulm, but that just increasing their magic resistance would make them play very differently from what Illwinter meant.

I could agree on the magic resistance, or elemental resistances, but not both. I also think elemental resistances would suit them better, but that would be quite a large jump in game balance.

Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

All changes can be seen at the top of the first post in the thread. Aside from bugfixes, a bit of additional "flavor," toning down Niefels and mauls, and cheapening a few bad buys, the primary changes are:

1) Giving light infantry and cavalry +1 attack, to reflect the greater dexterity of a trained soldier wearing little armor.
2) A complete and major change to all Black Plate units, resulting in a new Ulm. Please tell me if you like it or not... I have a feeling some people may not, but it makes sense to me. Moreover, it makes their unit lineup more fun, varied, and interesting, while still entirely within the scope of Illwinter's concept of Ulm (in my opinion).

As a side note, virtually all units in the mod that had major changes or equipment changes also have new or adjusted descriptions to reflect those changes.

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

I'm still very much against what you did to archery. Longbows and Crossbows already did their respective jobs well. A Longbowman was more expensive to train and much more devastating against at long range and when used against lightly armored people. 9 points armor piercing for a Longbow is completelyu inane, 14 points of non-armor penetrating damage conveys their purpose really well.

That's the part I don't get. While the power of many units is off (especially Horse Archers, who suck), the Shortbow, the Longbow, and the Crossbow all fit perfectly together relative to each other. Why give them a new and different job on the battlefield when they are already desirable and historical as is?

-Frank

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

I may change the longbow back... it's appearing to be overly powerful, and as you say, overlaps the function of a crossbow. The reason I made the change was because longbows were not fitting into their historic role, which is to kill heavily armored enemies at great distance. The historic role of crossbows, on the other hand, is to provide a use for untrained recruits (and to pierce armor at short range), as crossbows are much easier to operate and aim than normal bows. Dominions II does not seem to match either of these weapons to (what I understand to be) their historic roles, considering that

a) in Dominions II crossbows are longer range and more expensive than shortbows, instead of shorter range and cheaper, and
b) in Dominions II longbows are incapable of harming heavily armored units, while in real life they can, and
c) in Dominions II crossbows kill heavily armored units at their maximum range. In real life crossbows do much less damage at their max range than arrows; probably not enough to pierce heavy armor, and
d) in Dominions II, a longbow usually kills a lightly armored unit in one hit. This would be very rare in real life.

I was trying to rectify those things... but since Dominions II is already designed with specific roles for shortbows, crossbows, and longbows, changing them (to be, in my opinion, closer to their historic uses) can have adverse effects, and would certainly change their current relative balance, because it is (as far as I can tell) not historically accurate.

So, that's why this mod is "under development" rather than "complete." If I find (through testing) changes that made the game better balanced, more fun, and more realistic, I'll keep them. If I find changes seem like they would accomplish those things, but in practice, actually break the balance or reduce fun, then I'll adjust or remove them.

I wish I could add things like "Damage reduction rate over projectile's trajectory", "Armor piercing percent", and "Damage type (crushing, slashing, piercing) pierce bonus versus armor type (soft, plate, chain, scale)" and even "Weapon damage modified by x% of strength", and especially "Weapon speed: 1.2 attacks per turn (for example)." Each of these would help differentiate weapons and enable them to be customized to their historic role. But I can't do any of those, so I'm doing the best with the mod tools (and game engine) provided, and thus giving longbows their very real ability to pierce armor, without making them similar to crossbows, is simply not possible.

Have you played with Man and found it overpowered?

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

I don't know if they are overly powerful but they are quite powerful at least against indeps. Against humans I think that their power would be somewhat muted by the "put little clumps of crud everywhere" tactic.

And as for white centaurs as discussed in the other thread I don't know if they are overly powerful. Yes they are clearly better than Vans which are, IMO, the best recruitable unit in the game. But it's capital only so it SHOULD be better than the Van.

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

So why don't you fix it?
a) make them range=20, acc=+5
b) obviously, you need "armor piercing" and not to low damage
c) see a) ..
d) so you basically say that hitting a man through heavy armor is more likely to kill him than hitting an unarmored man? Think again ... never heard about shrapnel from armor piercing arrows http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Actually, the only good defense against a longbow is a thick, wooden shield, which will take much of an arrows momentum away by friction, as the shaft passes through it.

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

a) The battlefield in Dominions II is so short, compared to real life, that range 20 weapons with 1 shot per 2 rounds would only get one shot on light units, and zero to one shots on cavalry... immensely weakening crossbows. Furthermore, xbowmen would invariably rush forward at the beginning of combat unitl something was in range, getting themselves killed... and real life xbowmen would never do such a dumb thing. I think crossbows were normally used from above (towers, walls, hills) rather than from ground level, which is impossible in Doms II. At any rate, I think range 20 xbows would be useless weapons. What I did do was drop the range by 3 (10%) and reduce the pricing of some xbowmen.
b) Exactly, which is why I gave longbows ap.
c) Again, I don't want to nerf xbows to the point of uselessness, or make xbowmen run suicidally out into the battlefield to get into range.
d) No... what I mean is, a 14 damage longbow (Dominions II) generally kills a light unit (leather cuirass only) in one hit by dealing 11+ damage, which is unrealistic. Modded longbows (9 ap) generally do not kill ANYTHING in one hit, since they only do 8+ damage to even units with a leather cuirass only, which is more realistic. On the other hand, while less likely to kill light units than original longbows, they are also more likely to wound heavy units, by virtue of the ap damage. Therefore, the mod makes them more realistic against light and heavy units than before.

I'm trying to adjust the units and weapons to reach a certain goal... but, for example, I'm not entirely certain that crossbows, shortbows, and longbows were even contemporary. You can't balance flintlocks versus Steyr AUGs, no matter how hard you try, because one has no role when the other is available. And furthermore, I can't really put each weapon into its correct role if the battlefield is too small to model that role, or lacks elevation required by a role, or if the engine does not model the degrees of armor-piercing or ability to wound without killing that are vital to accurately represent a weapon. If a damage cap was allowed on weapons (5 damage for all arrows and bolts, for example, with a 10% chance of a critical hit that ignores this restriction), it would make the situation a lot easier...

The simple answer to your question is, I'm trying to fix them, but I'm not sure it's possible... I don't think that Illwinter's stats, my current stats, or your proposed stats are particularly good solutions, but maybe one of them is better than the other two, and approaching a good solution.

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

In addition to reports of longbowmen slaughtering well-protected troops, I also heard of less optimistic reports, where the longbows were only deadly when used at a fairly close range (a sort of kiss of death). Either way, I think your solution works well SC: longbows can kill troops with a bit of luck (a lot of luck in the case of knights), perhaps better than in history, but they will be less fearsome once the enemy has reached the archers.

Of course, that's the theory: in-game actual use of the longbow is another matter altogether. I would think they are fine with your changes: they remain powerful against independents, but another human player can use protective spells/arrow fend/storm to make your archers much less of a threat.

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

At the Battle of Arsuf (1191 a.D.), the muslim attacked with mounted shortbow archers and javelin throwers on foot in a skrimishing way.

For most of the day, it was only the crusaders left column of spearmen and crossbows which fought back.

Interestingly enough, the muslim couldn't do much impact on the shielded spears or the felt (!) armored crossbows, but took heavy casualties from the bolts. Only the knights horses suffered badly from the constant hail of shortbow arrows.

You may also check the Wikipedia entries about Longbow and Crossbow - according to those, the Crossbow was used in Europe since 800, the Longbow since the 12th century. (by the welsh some hundred years earlier. Claims that it in fact dates back to prehistoric day I doubt sincerily. The romans never conquered the welsh hill country. But if they would have been met by devastating longbow archers, there shurely would be some written evidence, but I never heard of such.)

It shurely wasn't my intention to offend you.
In fact, I think your supposed changes will go a long way to make the missile weapons more realistic.
What they are not, as Frank claims, in the standard game.

And my suggestions wheren't really that much thought-out, but just some numbers I threw into the dicussion.
Some more numbers (must most likely be tweaked somewhat) and intended use of the weapon .. :
Longbow 45 (ballistical archery, even on rear echolons)
Comp bow 35 (ballistical archery on distant targets, or over front troops which are close by)
Shortbow 27 (harrasing fire from the 2nd line into the front of the enemies battle line, or short-ranged direct fire into non-missile troops)
Crossbow 27 (precision fire against "heavy" targets, NO ballistic firing)

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

No offense taken. Thanks for the suggestions and historical info! I'll check the bows out on Wikipedia, and maybe some other weapons too.

Re: Recruitable Rebalance 7.2 is posted.
 

why not drop the xbow range to 20/25 (i.e. almost useless) and make them way cheaper to compensate - the thought being that maybe they will die before they get to fire, but wth, they're cheap?