Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)Drakaina
 

My pleasure, Drakaina http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Back to the original thread again...

I'm currently playing SP games with the Conceptual Balance Mod on, and I found that an early "Wild Hunt" is somewhat broken...

Wild Hunt in the original game design is a Conjuration 9 spell, requiring 50 gems and N6. With the CB enabled, this spell gets a huge discount on price/requirements: it becomes a Conjuration 5 spell requiring just 30 gems and N5.

In my SP games, once I got this spell up, I had around 4-6 special battles per turn with a high enemy priest/prophet/sacred commander killing ratio.
That means 2-3 successful 'holy' assassinations per turn at a bargain price of 30 gems!! That's what I call efficiency...

I know that in MP an enemy human player won't be fool enough to keep sending sacreds/priests into the deadly forests each turn; although it can be really annoying for them, specially for the players relying on a hardcore bless strategy (Mictlan)...
Overall I suppose that is a good MP spell for making new friends! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Should this spell cost and requirements be slightly higher than CB but lower than the ones found in the original game?

Thanks

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

yep i did cast wild hunt cb mod in a blitz game. That was too good. Some nations have their best mages also priests.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I don't think there are too many cases in MP where angering all the other players are worth however much it would harm them. However, it was 40 gems in dom2 CB, and I wouldn't be opposed to resting it to that.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Could not read whole thread, i read the few few pages.

1. MA Ulm, nothing about Ulm warrants the curse of their units and commanders having 9 mr. This defect was remedied, in Aarlens, black steel Ulm mod, which i think made them more viable.

2. MA Pangaea's Pans are good, no old age, but Pangaea is severely limited on research with only a 350 gold mage for 8 research. The limited access to magical paths, combined with expensive research, a 30 admin, castle,and paying a penalty to get mercenaries, more than make up for the recuperation and strong units. MA arcosaphale also heals afflictions, has tough units, but has much better research, astral mages, access to many branches of magic, better castles, no mercenary penalty, and is a much better race endgame.

I would suggest giving the pan 1 additional
research point or dropping the cost to 300 gold.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

You shouldn't be recruiting Pans for research. Use Dryads and Black Dryads for that instead.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Ram,

I specifically said MA Pangaea who does not get black dryads. As for the White ones, they get a whooping 3 research for 110 gold! Though technically 3 for 110 is cheaper than 8 for 350,You are not going to win many research races getting 3 research a turn. Man's daughter of Avalon gets 4 for 80.

I could live with 4 research for 110 gold. But I would rather just pay the 350 gold and get 9 research with the pan, even though you can get 9 for 330 with 3 dryads as it presently stands.

The point is, pangaea's research could use a slight boost.
It is not like Pangaea is overpowered in MA in the least.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I'm doing quite well in a MP game where all my research was performed by Mictlan priests in a drain 2 dominion, who give me only 2 research points per turn. You don't just add three research per turn, you add 9 research per turn out of three castles for the same upfront cost, and less than half the long term costs. The Dryad costs you 3.67 gold per turn, the Pan costs you 23.33 gold per turn. If it's just for research purposes, then you can afford to have 6.4 Dryads for every Pan over the long term. The Dryad is always cheaper on a gold cost/RP basis.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

That is true, but early in the game, you have 1 castle. And initially, i like to produce Pans, until I get one with death bonus. I have several other reasons why i like having the pans
that are not related to research.

But the thrust of the thread, and my point, is not to debate the relative merits of researching with a dryad v Pan, they both could use some help in the research area. Yes, the dryad is slightly better than Pan at research, but they both are below average.

Conceding your point, then bumping the Pan to 9 research will not affect game balance at all.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

If it won't affect game balance what's the point of doing it?

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I was being sarcastic.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

You were? "bumping Pan to 9 research will not affect game balance at all" seems a very strange thing to say sarcastically. Ok though, if you say so.

Is there an ETA on the next version of CB?

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Probably some time not long after the new IW patch.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

While it would be a huge task, I think it is unbalanced that some races get their toughest sacred units at every castle, (MA vanaheim), and a race like man does not get koas, which are not even sacred, at their other castles.

Man seems to really get slapped hard with the loss of units they can recruit away from their capital(5 units), and on a large map, not sure that is balanced. I can see stripping the Crone, and the 2 sacred units, but the daughter of avalon and Koa seems punitive.

I am not using MA Man as a poster child, it just the race I thought of 1st, i am sure there are others.

The issue with respect to balance is how races fair on large maps where they really have no access to their cap troops. Another race that is powerful is arcos. and they get virtually all of their best troops at any castle, especially elephants, and super high morale infantry. (And their astrologists can tp around the map).

So when you have tough tough races getting vans and elephants at every castle, not sure why man loses out on all 5 of its units.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

While touching on Man, they have terrible infantry, and their tower guard, described as the elite unit of Man(lol), should not be more than 10 gold.

It is 13 gold, and it is not even in the same ballpark as other infantry that is much better for 10 gold. And if you look at Pangaea's 13 gold infantry and compare it to man's 13 gold infantry, well you may even say man's so-called elite infantry should cost 8 gold.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

In CB it's 12 gold and has 12 morale.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

they say great minds think alike!

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Something to consider is that overall balance for a nation can not be reduced to comparing individual units. Infantry of Man may be inferior both in effectiveness and cost to that of many other nations, but does anyone think Man is a weak nation?

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Yes you have to have a holistic view if any balance is to be achieved in this game. It isn't a game of one unit pitted against another after all.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I was just playing about with CB MA Ctis and I noticed that Heavy Infantry have one less morale than City Guard. I still think they're somewhat useful as a resource sink, but city guard are better basically (+1 morale, mapmove 2, lower resource cost). Interesting anyway :]

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

You don't think Prot 16 (vs. 12 for City Guard) is worthwhile? I find Heavy Infantry mix nicely with Elite Warriors, except for the mapmove.

-Max

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Prot 16 is much better than 12 as a lot of weapons wielded by humans becomes pretty much worthless (unless you have huge fatigue that is). Spears for example, harm you almost every time when you have prot 12 and not to mention broad swords.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I'm not saying they should be changed, just that I'm surprised to find the city guard to be better. I think the reason HI aren't doing very well for me is that I'm fighting against my mod nation Avernum and several of their units either deal relatively high damage or have armour piercing weapons.

I mostly go for heavier protection to avoid missile fire, but it didn't seem to be troubling my city guard that much.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

As they both have shields and as shields are extremely effective against missile fire (double parry) it doesn't surprise me the least. Of course, armor is also good when facing archers and the like but it is not so price worthy as shields.

I use City Guards as cheap and effective early expanders.
Here are some pros that make them good at this:

+ Shields for facing archers

+ Pretty good armor for facing milita, light infantry and other spear wielding units

+ Reasonable encumbrance for fighting high defense units like the above as they don't have very good attack skill and only low damage spear.

+ Moderate AP. They can get "first hit" if you script them right. They can also chase and backstab most routers (-4 def) and get valuable experience.

+ Moderate defense skill (12). Will have a pretty good chance to avoid getting hit by light infantry (att 10), and tribe warriors.

+ High map move (2) for armored unit. You can return back to your castle to gather reinforcements or for defense.

+ Fortress defense bonus. When you are done expanding they don't become useless as you can put them in your newly built castles for defense; they will also gather experience over time becoming more useful again.

+ Good morale for lizard unit. VERY good in the beginning when you don't have dominion over a province (+1 to your moral -1 to enemies) you want to conquer from independences (they get +1 to their morale as it is their home province).

Cons

- No helmets. Very prone to getting critical once fatigued so use a small screen of light infantry with shields to draw arrow fire away from them.

- No missile units for "softening up" advancing infantry for killing with their low damage spears.

Two ways to do this:

*Fire closest/no scripting put forward
+ Will fire into the enemy ranks
+ Will build up fatigue (very effective when facing heavily armored infantry) letting the City Guard get critical hits easily.
+ Will hold up pretty good against low attack low damage weapons as spears as they have 13 in defense.
+ Will draw some fire into the enemy rear from its own archers when in battle.

- Some of them will die of course but they are cheap so use many. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

*Forward and hold attack
+ Will get fired at by archers even when the city guards runs past them.
+ Will not get harmed in close combat.

- Will fire into the battle between the city guards and the advancing enemy with their javelins.

There are lots more to this of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Sorry for being somewhat off-topic.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I do not think MA Man is weak, but if you look at their troops they can get at a castle far from their capital, it is not good either.

Man is average imho. But I think they get too big a penalty on troops away from their capital. Man IS weak when compared to Vanaheim and Arcos MA, and both of those nations pretty much get their full compliment of troops in all castles.

And of course Arcos. can tp their astrologists around the map, so even their mage that is capital only is not limited on a large map.

In short, Man's infantry sucks, and warden's are capital only. I do not think man is powerful enough to make them pay a premium for a very average infantry unit even if he is called elite.

And while you cannot only compare similar units among the different races, if the races you are comparing are close in power, than you can compare.

Man does get the longbow men, and air magic. Longbows are good, but many races have as good or better missile troops. And missile troops are plentiful to buy in dom III from indies. maybe not as good, but serviceable.

man gets knights and koas, but neither is sacred.

In the scheme of things, I would adjust man's so-called elite infantry upwards, as they did, and at least consider allowing the Daughters of Avalon and KOA's to be recruited at all castles.

Or conversely, limit vans and elephants of arcos and vanaheim to capital only. Though arcos could easily gate them, at least they would have to make that small effort. But the capital only penalty really does not effect a strong astral race like arcos., so my preference would be to relax the penalty on other races, rather than try and limit the astral races and Vanaheim.

And lest we lose sight, having fun is the key point. Why not try to let people use the troops they like best as often as they want to the extent it does not really unbalance the game. And since many games are played on small maps where the capital only penalty is marginal, i do not see the game balance being affected drastically.

Yes i realize that part of the penalty is to limit their production, more castles means more can be made per turn.

But I think any unbalancing is more pronounced with mages and sacred troops, than a costly nonsacred troop like the KOA, or the lord guardian and guardians of ulm. I see nothing unbalancing about allowing these nonsacred, non mages, being made at all castles.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

But Lord Guardians are only trained in the Keep of Ulm as they as they are the elite of the elite in Ulm. So it says in the description at least. You can change that of course but I would find it rather unthematic that you can recruit elite "lords" in every castle.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

What are better than longbows at every castle?

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

And when you add wind guide(and possibly flaming arrows from a pretender/indies/summons) those longbows become more than good.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I hate longbows! Being on the receiving end that is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Even with tower shield troops you lose men with every volley when the arrows are wind guided and fire enchanted (as Shovah wrote). The only relief is that those longbowmen don't have a lot of armor and most new players tend to ignore protecting them from counter archery/"crossbowery" and fliers. Oh, and you can always cast storm/rain/mist (if you're lucky Man will do it for you), that will keep you somewhat alive.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

If you get blasted by Man's air mages you might not think that storm is so great. They also can buff their melee troops with a lot of different Nature spells.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Yes I know, but at least you get rid of those tiering longbows. I prefer to be blasted by sorcery over shot by an arrow any day. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Just kidding of course.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

MA races with longbows(off the top of my head)
Pangaea, Shin. Bandar Log, Man.

Better than longbows(at times)

Tien Chi has the composite bows, Maragon crossbows, Ulm arbalests, and ap bows are not commonly found among indies. Ulm's arbalest are also better infantry than many so called infantry.

And later in game, arrow fend can neutralize missile troops to a large degree, so you cannot always rely on them.

My only point is, not to argue with anyone, is that some races likely could use some adjusting with their capital only troops.

As for thematics , just change the description of Ulm's keep to say "In Ulm's Keep, the heart of Ulm, the FIRST Lord Guardians and Guardians were trained."

For Man, "The Knights of Avalon, loyal to the Mother of Avalon, fight alongside her." As you know, the Mother of Avalon can be recruited at all castles, so it is no less thematic to allow the KOA to be recruited all over either.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I understand. However, being able to recruit elite units everywhere kind of takes away their charm for me. It feels so gamey somehow, even if you make it realistic within the fantasy world by adding premises to why you are able to do it.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

And I agree 100 percent with the earlier discussions on changing the luck events.

A lucky event should never be a bad thing. Getting militia usually is a bad thing. Having faith decrease in favor of growth is at best a break even event(the game is called dominions), and having a witch curse your troops for gems is a bad event if your pretender or key unit gets cursed.

I think the events getting troops should be quality troops that most would want. And I think events where people move into the province should be much more common. It seems there is an obsession (with events, spells, themes, high taxes, patrolling) in general with lowering the population. And there are few ways to increase the population of a province.

So more luck events boosting population would be nice.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

you consider guardians elite? I consider vans and elephants elite, and they are recruited all over. And on a large map, you may never see your guardians(map move 1) or other elite capital troops because it is too hard and not worth the effort to get them to the front lines. So you may well not get to use your favorite troops at all mid and late game.

I agree in principle with your statement, but the thread is about balance. vanaheim do not get dwarves all over, but they can research fine from their capital, and they can search sites remotely. But troops whose value is exclusively in combat cannot be put into play from their capitals.

So, it may be worth exploring in the concept of balancing the nations.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Theres a difference between elite and powerful. Units like guardians are supposed to go through extreme amounts of training ect.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Not to mention that units like elephants, while useful sometimes, are certainly not elite by any definition, and aren't necessarily even powerful.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

elephants grouped with hyperists, are a powerful against smaller units. They are certainly more powerful than a guardian unit from ulm(who also has a crappy mr), and in certain situations better than the KOA.

You are correct they are vulnerable to smite, mind blasts, astral magic, but they can trample some very powerful units as well. Units that otherwise are very hard to kill(double blessed vans). They fight to the bitter end when grouped with hyperists and they do get lots of afflictions, but arcos. can heal those.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

The LA Marignese high/grand inquisitor seems a bit overpriced at 210 for an oldage F1H3. The normal inquisitor is 110 and has the same abilities with only one less level of holy (F1H2).

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Oh and did you mean for LA agartha to not have Agarthan infantry (not the heavy or light variants) as recruitables?

I figure it's a bug, but maybe there's some reason.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Sombre, what are you talking about? LA Agartha does have the basic Agarthan Infantry (unit 1355) as recruitable and so does MA Agartha. Both had it in 3.06 already and nothing has changed in that regard with the new patch.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

I have no idea about the new patch, but either my copy of Conceptual Balance Mod is different from yours,... or we're interpreting the title of this thread differently. When I say 'did you mean for X' I'm referring to QM and the Conceptual Balance Mod.

Attached is a screenshot of the CBM LA agartha recruitment screen with a piece of 'code' from the CBM dm file. No 1355 there.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Ah, sorry, my mistake. Got confused for a moment. The Agarthan infantry is available in the vanilla game, so their omission from the CB seems strange. Especially since that unit is hardly a balance issue in and of itself.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

No problem, I probably should have posted my comments in the mod forum CBM thread anyway.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Ah, thanks for pointing this out, yes it's a bug (with CB). There is a similar bug effecting EA Ermor Flamen, both should be fixed next version.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Actually I was meaning to ask you - there are a few bits in the CB 'code' where you #clearrec a nation and put the numbers back in.

Why? Have some nations had units removed/added? I can understand if you've made a unit cap only by assigning it to a site, but for some of the nations where you've #clearrec'd them that isn't the case.

Re: Conceptual Balance (Discussion)
 

Those are mostly to accomplish adding in a new scout unit that doesn't have the same ID as the indy scout, in order to change just the indy scout's price.