Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I'd probably give every Jomon unit a #bonus longbow, call it a yumi and give it whatever resource cost is appropriate.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

What's up with all the LOLongbow fanboyism in these kind of games? The whole thing is just silly to me and serves no purpose.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

What on earth are you talking about? I don't see any "LOLongbow fanboyism" at all in this or any other thread here. As for Jomon, Samurai were archers first, whether on foot or horseback, and their sword would only be used for when the enemy was too close for shooting. Realistically, they'd also prefer to use a naginata or yari if they knew they were going to fight simply because it's safer than fighting with a katana.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

vfb has been possessed by the ghost of machingunjoeturbo :O

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Oh dear god no. That was just painful...

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Jomon does not equal Japan. Jomon = orientalist vision of japan, at best. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but ideas like 'give all Jomonese units longbows' do not belong in this thread. It's about balance, not historical blah blah.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

To give all Jomon units longbows _is_ a balance suggestion. The cavalry at least should certainly have them. Since the samurai archers are currently inferior to the non-archer troops, and since one goal should be to have Jomon field armies that are composed of archers that are no less deadly in melee combat, then the elites should certainly have their own archery equipment.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I do not really see why this should be one of the goals. If we are talking about balance, Jomon's troops are definitely not the main problem.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Would you ever recruit a Samurai archer over an Aka-oni samurai? I sure wouldn't, and I'd rather not see yet another army with independent archers.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

So, probably, the logical course of action is to improve samurai archers, and not to give aka-oni samurai longbows?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Given that Jomon's troops are resource constrained, the problem is always going to end up being that you can build X samurai archers or 1.3*X Aka-oni. It would certainly be possible to change Samurai archers so that they would be a better or equal buy to Aka-oni, but that would make them virtually indistinguishable.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Well, the 'thematic' option is to keep Ashigaru the same price and give them shortbows. I suspect that won't fly, though.

Is there any reason Samurai Archers don't have the same stats as the 'other' 12 gold samurai, the O-Ban? That would improve them plenty, it seems.

Also, does it bug anyone else that Shrimp Soldiers use Glaives when they probably should be using Naginatas?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Longbow samurai cost more gold because longbows are awesome and if they cost the same as the other samurai they're basically all anyone would build.

So there's no chance they are going to get a stat boost to be semi elite in melee as well.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Probably nobody ever uses them, because Jomon fails to get underwater. So, nobody noticed this.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

The disconnect between troop performance, resource cost, and gold cost is one of the things that still needs to be looked at more carefully I think.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

The main thing samurai archers need to be more viable is a lower resource cost so that they're actually massable, rather than costing more resources than every single other unit you can recruit. So if you're going to change them, I would suggest finding ways to lower their resource costs.

Samurai armor takes 8 resources. The kabuto takes 2 resources (and is the helmet with the worst resource to protection ratio in the game under vanilla, at 6 resources). The longbow takes 5. And the katana takes 7.

This is all a lot of resources for things that an archer doesn't really need. That said, you would basically either need to create entirely new equipment for them (ashigaru armor isn't really very thematic, you could maybe replace the katana with a wakizashi for 3 less resources), or just make them completely unarmored, possibly with a precision bonus. They would still cost 13 resources (10 with wakizashi), but I can see no realistic way to lower their resource cost sufficiently other than the complete removal of any armor given the insane resource costs of all samurai weaponry.

Although come to think of it if you wanted to make an archer with no armor it might be better to make an entirely new unit.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

While their high resource cost is an issue, I'm afraid that if you make them massable they'd be the only thing people would recruit. Longbows are just so incredibly awesome. Personally I'd be okay with reducing the res cost a little, but only enough that its possible to recruit some of them, not to make them the default unit.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Sombre: Gold cost is not supposed to reflect equipment but the person's stats. As such, i strongly advocate reducing the archers to 10 gold to match the other samurai (and giving them the same 11 precision of their non-archer brethren). Since resources are the limiting cost, and they will always cost more than resources than a samurai without a longbow, the difference in gold cost is negligible and silly.

-----

That said, I don't see any real way to make samurai archers at all playable given reasonable gear, and thus reasonable resource costs. I would, however, reduce the resource costs because they are ridiculous.

Katana should cost no more than 5 resources. That it takes almost as much as the armor is ridiculous. (this also puts it below the no-dashi). I would probably place it at 4r.

The longbow should cost like 2 resources. Seriously.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

1) MA man recruits them for 9 resources, so while they'd be more massable, even a completely unarmored guy with a wakizashi and longbow would be less massable than man's longbowmen.
2) Longbows are a lot more awesome when everyone isn't wearing plate and carrying tower shields. Even indies in la are hard to kill with longbows.

I can't see them working as your sole recruit without fire arrows. Until then, they just do not have enough damage output in the armor-heavy late period. Unless you're fighting manikin hordes or something else that doesn't have a shield. Plus you would still be owned by indy shortbows, who are more easily massed, cost less and actually have armor. There are maybe 8 LA nations whose expansion units are not nigh-invulnerable to longbows, and even fewer who could not adapt to deal with them just by changing what they recruit. I cannot see 12-15 resource longbows approaching overpoweredness in LA.

Squirrel - I think I agree with you on resource costs. Longbows are actually 3 resources in vanilla. Katana are still 7 though. And basic samurai armor 10 :sick:

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Remember that if you make katanas or Samurai armor better/cheaper for Jomon, it'll also buff Shinuyama.

If you want to lower Samurai Archer resource cost, just give them a Yari instead of a Katana. Bam, down to 17 resources.

Also here's the thing about Samurai Archer stats--they're lower even than those of indie Longbowmen, who at least get 11 Str and 10 HP. Incidentally, giving Samurai Archers Yari solves the problem of 'why would anyone buy anything else'--their weapons would be different.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

there's no reason why the Jomon Katana has to be the same as the Shinuyama Katana. Given the Katana as we know it is a relatively late developement, Shinuyama arguably shouldn't have them at all.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Obviously the humans copied or stole the Katana design from the Oni and Bakemono. I think it would be a little bit counter intuitive giving them different versions of the katana, but I guess you could. Doesn't seem worth it to me. If you want to change the resource cost on a unit it's better to just change its ressize if you're worried about shared equipment.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Hi,

I'm fan of LA Ulm and i'm wondering how useful Zweihanders are compared to rest of the LA Ulm infantry?

At the first look they look great 20 prot, 13 HP and a greatsword. But then you realize that they have 8 enc, 9 mr and they cost 14 gold and 36 resources.

At the same gold cost and less resources than 30 Zweihanders you can have either 42 pikeneer, 42 halberdier or 42 infantry of ulm.

Against what you would choose Zweihanders? Well against infantry that doesn't have shield, has length 2 or less weapon and doesn't have high morale. So against what do you use them against? Also Zweihanders are fewer in numbers so they are even more vulnerable to magic than other LA Ulm units.

High resource unit should bring you some advantages, so should the cost be lowered to 10 gold and maybe the encumbrance to 7. Zweihanders need so much resources anyhow that they are difficult to mass, so low cost wouldn't make them too good. It would bring benefits players that choose high production scale. Currently LA Ulm trend is to choose sloth and go for rangers? Is that thematic?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Reducing the gold cost of zweihanders will not solve their problems.

Enc. 8+ infantry is virtually unplayably bad. Even 7 enc. and i start to get worried. When its 8 enc. without a shield you know you're just hosed.

FWIW, if i had to choose Ulmish heavy infantry at all, I'd take zweihanders against heavily armored troops or giants because of the high weapon damage. However, using standard Ulmish heavy infantry is generally a mistake because they're just so bad at doing anything.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

As in many things rdonj, I agree with you completely. Samurai archers are a honeypot (trap) on this nation.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I think samurai's having less hp than militia is just plain ridiculous. =\

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I would like to make a suggestion: could medallions of vengeance be made cursed? Generally, I don't see it used all that often, and by making it cursed, it means people are going to have to extra careful placing commanders who pick them up, as if you decide to leave your commanders/mages clustered together and a stray arrow finds one carrying it (left over by some random scout), it won't be a pretty sight. Certainly it gives it a slightly greater niche use. There aren't many uses for it otherwise, and this way, the Medallion of Vengeance becomes a nasty little surprise, for nations with fire gems to spare.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Don't they blow up? Must be some kind of magic bomb or somethin', if it's still around after the explosion.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Shhhh! No more talk about MoVs. Might reveal my favorite use for Horse Brother Commanders... ;)

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I've already talked about kamikaze Vampires. ;)

AHA! HORSE BROTHERS!

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

MoV can't even be picked up can it?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Only if you have -6% luck.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Yeah, and that requires 4 hands to accomplish.

Still, I would like to raise the issue of MA Ulm again, as there was discussion about it in the "nations under CBM 1.6" thread on the main part of the forum - mainly that MA Ulm mages lack diversity, iron angels are (pretty much) impossible to get and cast, especially now without blood stones. Also the troops are very high enc - full chain mails are still usable, but their flavor text says that they "are large and can endure much physical punishment before collapsing", which would in my books mean more than just +hp. Full plate units are enc7 and def6(axe) or def4(flail), chainmail units enc6 with +1def for the aforementioned weapons. The low def score pretty much plainly states that the troops are not made to evade the hits, ever, but to endure them, and chain mail doesn't really do the job properly. Slashing some enc or implementing national earth-based slight reinvigoration spell (such as earth version of relief) would do lots for the troops, and slightly boost the mages. Reducing the requirements, level of research and cost of iron angels would do a lot of good for MA Ulm lategame also.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I would definitely be pro a research level reduction for iron angels. Not sure about cost currently.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I've only ever found one use for Medals of Vengeance. I was playing Pangaea (suprise!) and IIRC the opponent at the time was Marverni (or perhaps it was Tien Chi; some fragile human mage-wielding nation anyway). I had found (or rather, taken a province with the site) a site with mages capable of crafting MoV's, crafted five of them.

Enter the Harpy commander. I recruited five of them for this test. Gave them each a red bandana, a Medal of Vengeance, and script Hold, Hold, (if I had been defending, I would have added one more Hold to that), Attack Rear.

KABOOM. Scratch a few evil hostile mages and their equally evil guards. I tried it again (with just three harpies then IIRC), but the opponent had put some archers/slingers/something at front with Fire Fliers, and the harpies did sadly died before attacking, and killing a couple dozen maenads this time :(


Would work wonders against communions too, I think. Except of course if the opponent is expecting you to do it...

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I find it hard to get fliers on attack rear to actually land near casters, personally. Maybe it works differently for flying commanders with that order though.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

As I noticed in "Nations under CBM 1.6" thread, several nations widely considered weak (Tir, Eriu and Man in particular) are, so to say, "nature themed". Nature is a useful path to have, but it lacks real power, especially in endgame. Path considered game-deciding (Death, Astral, Blood, to a lesser extent Earth) are generally unavailable to these nations for thematic reasons.

So, maybe it is possible to give Nature a bit more endgame power? I do not really know how can it be done - maybe by seriously boosting some obscure high-level summon like that dragon (forgot the name). Anyway, in my opinion boosting Nature can solve many balance problems at once.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Pangaea has a thing which forces fliers to actually attack rear, if they just wait a couple rounds. That thing is called "maenads" (and "manikin", except in CBM 1.6, but that is a good change IMO :) ). The maenads swamp the front line and flanks, so fliers with Hold&Attack Rear actually *have to* attack rear (and commanders with Hold, Hold, Attack rear actually attack rear (on the defense it's best to scrpit Hold x3 Attack rear, so that the maenads can swamp the forward positions)). Otherwise the fliers just end up attacking the front or flank, and the fun goes wasted :)

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I would rise up a tabu on the table.

Flaming Arrows.

Been looking at the different percieved weak nations, and they all seem to have one commong thing: They would benefit a lot from a more easier to cast Flaming Arrows.

There must however be something I am missing, ie some of the super strong nations would reap the benefits even more. But as I am the simpleton that I am, I just can't figure out which nations that would be.

So, if I may ask, why was Flaming Arrows originally made so hard to cast in CBM? Is that reason still valid now, with the changes CBM has gone through in the different versions?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Flaming arrows was simply too dominant a spell early on. It may not be the case any more, but people were rushing to cast it to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. And it is absolutely devastating in the early game, increasing the kill rate of archers by like 300%, if not more.

Historically nation balance has been less the target of CBM than unit and spell balance - where there have been nerfs it's because the spell or unit, as an option, eclipsed everything else to such an extent that it was simpler to tone down that option than boost everthing else.

So while easier flaming arrows would help weaker nations, its biggest change would be making everyone go after it again - provided they have archers they'd want to be casting it.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

While I'm not sure easier access is the way to go with Flaming Arrows, CBM may want to think about focusing on nation balance more than it has been. Some of the generally considered weak nations probably aren't, but some of them almost certainly are, and it would be nice if those nations received some boosting _as a nation_ to make them more competitive. Especially since better balance won't hurt standard ways of playing the game but would substantially improve the play experience for a number of game varieties, such as RAND style games.

(MA Agartha being the first nation eliminated by somewhere in the ballpark of 10 turns before the next elimination was probably not a surprise to most people, for example, and it would be nice if random nation selection didn't result in some players getting shafted).

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I was playing mostly vanilla games earlier, and I don't remember Flaming Arrows cast by much anybody else but Marignon, Machaka and Tien Chi, and Ulm and Man if they happened to have a pretender casting that.

My memory can be quite selective, but I think I've never seen Flaming Arrows cast ever against me in a CBM game. And I usually play Pangaea and I love Mass Protection, so Flaming Arrows would make lots of sense.

How commonly is Flaming Arrows cast in CBM games? Is it just a flue I never see it cast against me (or that I never seem to have any need to cast it when it finally eventually becomes available)?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

I don't have the mp experience to tell you how often it was cast or by which nations, but even if it was cast by very few nations under vanilla values it's such a strong spell and available so early that anyone who could cast it would want to beeline it immediately. It absolutely ruins just about any mundane army EA or MA and tips the whole fight as quickly as a high level spell like darkness, imo. Of course it was counterable etc, but it was really, really good for how early you could get it.

I don't have a strong opinion on the research level it's at, but I get why it was moved. Nothing to do with nation balance.

It's still a great spell. If you don't need it you're winning anyway I guess?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Yomi & Shin cast it easily too. And Aby, with any tribal archers.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Ok, but have you ever seen it cast under CBM? If it is not cast ever, then I suppose it is not very balanced as a *spell* (wether it would boost or not certain nations), or is it?


Any nation having good enough fire-mages to cast Fire Arrows in CBM will be deeply screwed. There is absolutely zero incentive to ignore Evocations for that long, you'd have all the amazing fire-evocations way before, so it is retarded to not go that way. When you then eventually end up with Fire Arrows (prolly after you've already have at least Evocation 5, Conjuration 5+ and Construction 6), Flaming Arrows is already a joke (flaming things are of very little use after early midgame).

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Well yeah, since I've cast it under CBM, I've seen it cast under CBM. I don't see what that has to do with anything anyway, since like I said I don't have the MP experience to comment on how widely used it is. I have used the spell and know how powerful it is. I'd say massing archers with fire arrows is a much better idea than forming up evocation barrage squads, under the vanilla fire arrows values. It takes only a few mages to provide a lot of extra firepower and they can continue to cast spells after the flaming arrows. To match that kind of firepower you'd be talking a lot more mages casting evocations.

I think you overestimate the amount of fire protection your enemy is going to field. Regular armies are still around and without total fire immunity until the lategame sees them entirely replaced with items and summons.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

Fire arrows also turns your missiles into magic ones, giving them +2 to hit versus shields, according to the manual. It may be more. I've cast Fire Arrows versus FR Aby troops, to help me punch through the shields (or zip around -- whatever it is magic arrows do). In CBM.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

The secondary effect from fire arrows may ignore shields entirely if poison missile weapons are any indication.

Actually I think someone tested this, but I don't remember what the result was.

edit: vfb's post was about the regular arrow damage though.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

If what you say was true, then I should see Fire Arrows cast all the time in CBM MP games.

For some odd reason I've never seen it used against me. Not even when I play Pangaea and use Mass Protection (which would make Fire Arrows even more effective).

It's cool to talk about the theoretical possibilities of a given spell, but my impression is that Fire Arrows is *not used*. If somebody steps up and say they use Fire Arrows and ignore fire evocations, then I shut up.

I would prefer to not read about theoretical number juggling. I spesifically have asked now three times if they've seen Fire Arrows used in CBM MP games, and so far none has told they have (unless I misintepret vfb's post above). I've also asked who would in CBM forego fire evocations to get Fire Arrows instead, and that doesn't even wake a discussion.




As far I've understood, Conceptual Balance Mod is about making items, units and spells more balanced. Does people feel Fire Arrows is balanced in CBM? Are the requirements (Enchantment 5 and a F4 mage) on par with what the spell does? Personally I think the requirement would be ok if it was in Evocation (where Flaming Arrow doesn't IMO fit thematically), but in a tree with zero Fire spells (oh, there is Fire Shield...) that is pretty close to ridiculous, isn't it?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6
 

That doesn't logically follow at all. People could be underestimating fire arrows, they could lack the path access, they could have been too busy with other research, they could have different uses for the mages capable of casting it, they could be in a continually poor position to use it etc

I've used fire arrows. vfb has used fire arrows. The use of fire arrows doesn't necessitate ignoring evocations. You've had literally two people respond. Like I said I don't have the MP experience to comment on its CBM usage.

See above. If you're patient you'll probably get more responses. You can also try in the IRC channel. I don't see the theoretical number juggling you refer to. I'm also unclear on who 'they' are. Me and vfb? We've both said we used fire arrows in cbm.

I don't have the experience with heavy fire nations (in cbm) to weigh up the early game applictations of fire arrows vs rushing up evocation. I did respond regarding vanilla, at the value you questioned the change from, where fire arrows are definitely legit to go for ahead of fire evocations in a lot of situations.

Not really. There are plenty of reasons beyond fire to be rushing down enchantment in the early/midgame. Fire arrows, being a single use per battle spell, doesn't require lots of fire mages. Just one or two of them. It can be cast by an F2 caster easily enough as well.