Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

It turns out Tien Chi was the first race I played upon getting the full game - first Barbarian Kings then Spring and Summer.

I haven't done this bad playing dom since I first tried the demo to dom1!

I really like the themes and I'm rapt to see them in the game but playing them is . . . er . . . aaah . . . difficult . . . I can't think of a constructive way of putting it - they suck! They suck big time.

I have been playing these races solidly since I got the game 24 hours ago and I haven't come up with an idea that works. I have pillaged and slaughtered my way through the various races and themes of the demo leaving indies in my wake but I can't even get a half decent start with the Tien Chi themes.

Its not that I have completely run out of ideas - I still have a couple of schemes - its just that the troops combined with the scale restrictions are weak and very, very, hard to make use of. Compulsary turmoil is bad in Dom 2 and even when you try and get around it with maximim luck and the Lady of Fortune I can't make anything good out of it.

Suggested fixes? Both Barbarian Kings and Srping and Autumn have major disadvantages imposed upon them compared to Tien Chi normal so to make up for it increase their strengths.

1. Allow troops on hold and attack or guard commander to fire their missile weapons so that the cavalry can be used with cunning.

2. Increased precision for the horse archers and HC of the Barbarian Kingdoms option to furthur reflect the superiority of the conquering steppe cavalry.

3. Increase pillage ability for the Barbarian King option (good idea Nerfix).

4. Non-commmander chariots for the Spring and Autumn option with some limit on number buildable - perhaps home province only though this doesn't fit well with the decentralised theme. Limit of 1 per turn per castle would be better but perhaps hard to code in.

Obviously the Celestial and Spirit summons are interesting and have some potential but to get it to work the Barbarian King and Spring and Autumn themes need more military prowess to make up for their economic weakness. At present they are both militarily weak and economically weak.

If I have overlooked something crucial making these races work please let me know and I will beg forgiveness for complaining.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

Having "played" the allunits game, it seems that Barbarians Kings theme gets awfuly few new units, The Khan, Barbarian Horsemen and (possibly) Master of the Dead.

I don't have the full Version yet, but i just want to bring out my opinion:

I would like to see more Barbarian units with BK Tien, Barbarian units getting pillage bonus and getting Khan heroes (insted of immortals).

Chariot troops would also fit S&A Tien.

I'm not sure how to boos the economy of S&A... If BK would get troops with pillage bonus, they could just pillage provinces.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Master of the Dead is for Spring and Autumn to and the LC and HC of the Barbarian Kings are better value Versions of the main theme - they also lose alot troop types. I don't mind the narrow range of units as I want to focus on a mounted caste of conquerors - I just want them to work better.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a good idea as it fits the theme. In general Barbarian Kings should have a weak economy but get cheap mounted troops to terrorize opposition with.

New Idea:

Khans get free LC when pillaging or conquering a province based on the level of turmoil (greater the better), the amount pillaged, and the number of enemy slain. Pillaging should be what really gets this going as that shows the world that you give your troops a chance to acquire loot rather than keeping them in check and protecting the populace.

You would get a message saying "a band of warriors seeking loot has joined your Khan."

This fits the theme of econmically weak but militarily strong as the troops don't come through gold but through conquest and pillage.

A Version for Spring and Autumn would see the Chariot Noble gaining retainers (mixed would be nice) when pillaging/conquering.

Neither Barbarian Kings nor Spring and Autumn get to utilize the Tien Chi advantage of conscription based on order due to enforced turmoil so replacing conscription for them with recruiting via pillage and conquest seems to fit nicely.

Your thoughts please,

Keir

[ November 22, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

Pillage is just not worthwhile, even with a bonus. Too much population is slain. The only reason to pillage would be to drain population from a province that you couldn't hold.

The two alternate themes for TC are hard to play. No doubt about that. I have yet to see power that would justify the forced turmoil.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In general I agree but from the timing of our Posts I'm assumming you didn't see the one I put up about recruitment through pillage. What do you think of that idea Alex?

My hope is that you could create an aggressive race which never really builds much of an economy and yet its armies still grow thus keeping it in the game.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

Ah, recruitment via pillage. Interesting.
Seems reasonable. I'd love to see that tested.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

The barbarian kings seems to get slightly better cavalry for disorder 2...not good-looking to me. Spring and autumn looks interesting for the magic but loses its good cavalry units which removes most of my interest...and disorder-1 doesnt help either.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

The most logical fix would be as Keir has suggested, as well as Nerfix.

Recruitment through pillaging with a reduction on the population loss and increased gold on pillaging because they were so effective.

Then they could have Turmoil in their provinces and in general it wouldn't matter since they don't require a castle to build their units outside of the Khan and elite.

If you could balance the numbers of recruitment and gold vs pillaging it would be an interesting twist on the entire theme/race.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

How about when an army with a Khan conquers a province it automatically pillages it and gains recruits.

This avoids the Khans pillaging while the Celestial masters conquer which would be silly as there is more prestige in conquering and pillaging than just pillaging.

It would have to be carefully balenced as this could lead to rapid build up of forces. However huge hordes of Horse Archers does not seem unrealistic or impossible to deal with.

I have come up with a semi-decent Spring theme race but its main strength is using the Prince of Death to get the start going. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif This gives me a chance to get a decent start and see how the rest of it unfolds rather than the stumbling I have been suffering from. In the go I just had I got chainmail of displacement through a random event on the 1st turn. Sure makes the Prince of Death a monster and works a treat on The Nobles to.

Most useful Celestial summons so far are the Spirits which are a must on turn 4.

cheers

Keir

[ November 22, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

I could see that as being potentially unbalancing. If it required time and resources (Units to pillage) then it would be akin to using your forces to generate resources. Also the new units (Horde or Hordling as I would name it) should be unable to pillage gaining units, but still be very good at pillaging (as most men who would join the horde would be to pillage, as that is the attraction).

Also throw in a racial chance for an uprising to occur in provinces, or increased chance of uprising, then it would suit it well.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some of the changes suggested on the heavy vs. light thread a while back would help BK too. Strategic mobility was one of the Horde's greatest strengths, yet it is all but useless in Dom II (you can only move one province into enemy territory, same as plodding hoplites). Move and pillage order would go well with a pillage bonus, too - and it's perfectly appropriate for BK.

I don't know what other barbarian units you could add, though - the Hsiung-nu weren't exactly known for their infantry. Would a sacred elite cavalry be appropriate? I don't know that much about religious beliefs of the Hsiung-nu or similar tribes, but if Arco can get a sacred hoplite and Ulm can get a sacred black knight...
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some people have proposed extra restrictions on chariot troops for S&A (like 1/castle/turn), but I don't think this is necessary. Dom II already has a mechanism to keep a given troop from being raised too quickly: resource cost. It's entirely reasonable for a chariot to cost a lot of resources. (Especially if the normal chariot troops are armored like the nobles.)

In any case, I like the idea of a chariot troop for S&A, too.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fixing the overall turmoil/luck problem would help. I'd have done a lot better in my first S&A game if I hadn't lost over 1/3 of my home province in the first ten turns... with luck 2. Order doesn't just boost your income directly, it also protects you (some) from crippling events which are otherwise quite common even with a luck scale.

One way to boost the economy is to lower troop costs. The S&A CM is already insanely cheap for his abilities (250!), the Master of the Dead (which both BK and S&A get) is a 75 cost sacred priestmage (great researcher with a magic scale) and the Master of Five Elements is pretty cheap too IIRC - about on par with a Sauromancer or High Seraph. I haven't played Barbarian Kings yet, but maybe the barbarian horsemen should be cheap to recruit compared to their power.

Another is to lower building costs - BK would be a good candidate for cheap temples (what did they use for temples anyway?), S&A for cheap labs.

Pillaging isn't going to be an effective way to supplement your economy until you can do it without sitting still, IMO. Move and pillage is a necessity to make pillaging an effective strategic option. (Fear the Vikings, fear the Mongols.)

S&A tends to get a slow start (IMO) because of their magic dependence. Their higher base gem income and powerful mages at bargain prices don't help that much if you don't yet have the research to back them up - and even a "bargain" price is still a lot on an early game income. Celestials take no research but you need powerful mages (or a pretender with the right paths) to summon them and priests to get the most effective use out of them. Maybe a combat pretender could help offset their lackluster military. Of course chariots could help too.


The CM and Master of Five Elements could also benefit from the addition of more cross-path spells (there are already a pretty good amount of cross-path items, but most spells are single path). Mages with a diverse set of magical abilities are often less useful than mages with a high level of only one path because there just aren't that many things to do with multiple paths. It's more effective to cast one powerful spell repeatedly than alternate between several individually weaker spells.

I have no problem with S&A being a nation of relatively weak military and powerful mages. But the powerful mages have to be powerful, and low levels in many paths doesn't seem to be that effective. Most rituals are closed to the CM (without items or empowerment).

Hmm - that gives me an idea. Would it be possible for S&A to pay a reduced cost for empowerment? Say 35, 15, 30, 45, ... instead of the normal 50, 30, 45, 60, ...? A reasonable gem investment could turn a CM into a real magical powerhouse (especially once he started pulling out Power of the Spheres and maybe a communion...) and shore up his astral weakness too.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Like K.O himself said "Roman army wasn't know for its cavalry, but they nevertheless had cavalry"

Just replace "cavalry" with infantry and Romans with Mongols.

They don't need to be extraordinary, but it feels kinda clunky when BK Tien has the same footmen with the same descriptions as vanilla Tien.

Also, if i remember correctly, Mongols had some special means of mountain survival(they drank the blood of their horses or something like that), so Mountain Survival could also fit the Barbarian units of BK Tien.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IIRC the Mongols did use Chinese infantry at times, although I'm not sure whether they considered them better infantry, just preferred to ride horses themselves, or the Chinese troops were simply there to be used.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

Agree with Jasper re use of Chinese infanrty.

Agree with Chris re need to be able to move and pillage for it to be worthwhile.

Not so sure on allowing unlimited chariots for S&A unless they are significantly weaker/more expensive than the nobles one and why would they be? The Noble chariots are deadly (and fun) so you could easily make S&A into a military power.

I'm still keen on the idea of conquering and pillaging in the same turn and recruiting followers to the "Horde" through the process. In terms of balence its a matter of making sure you don't get too many not making the process slow as that would defeat the purpose. I think the Khans prestige is what attracts follwers not using your army as factory the way Zen described it. The story of Temujin (Ghengis Khan) is of a dispossed noble making his way back to power through tenacity and the followers that military success bought him - and they were the core of his army to be not inferior troops.

I am aware this is a major change and will likely never happen but its too appealing to let slide easily.

Cheers

Keir

[ November 22, 2003, 23:15: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

Well in the balancing of it; maybe using pillaging to gain an army would be more factoryish, but if every time you conquer a province you gained an army it can be exploited (SP especially; but MP is my thoughts) by allowing provinces to be defeated in order to retake them and X number of new units.

Perhaps it could be used akin to a Pan; they flock to a Khan in a territory that was recently overtaken (Up to ~5 turns previous).

You don't want to make the new units totally worthless so there must be a limitation on how they are found.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not if the number of new units were dependent on how many enemies you killed when conquering the province.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

So would it be pure unit based? What about Ermorian, or Carrion Wood theme? I would think it would be based on the population of the province not the force defending it.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Excellent - you are interested in the idea then.

Number killed would be a good thing to factor in but not necessarily the only thing as butchering big inde provinces of militia etc is really easy. If enemy killed combo'd in some way with gold pillages maybe and/or turmoil.

But hey if you want to put it in of course do it how you think is best. I really want to play Barbarian Kings so anything that makes it work ok is good by me.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

Well maybe we could define the modifiers:

# of Units Defeated /20 = X # of Attracked Mongoloids * Khan Awe (His modifier for attracting Followers, A Ghengis Khan hero would have an increased # here

That type of forumlaec for the defeat of a province, then for up to 5 (or 4, or whatever you'd like to say) seasons after province taken there would be an additional formula for attracted hordlings.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not if the number of new units were dependent on how many enemies you killed when conquering the province. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This would effectively avoid cooperative multiplayer sleazing, but it doesn't feel like it fits. Perhaps instead base it on how much you pillage, but decrease it proportional to unrest already existing in a province?

In the end however, I simply don't like this idea, and think it is strongly unthematic. The Mongols weren't really into raiding like that, but rather into conquering -- which they did very nicely. What raids they made were more like scouting expeditions to be followed up by later conquest.

I don't even think that turmoil scales make sense for the "Barbarians". The lands the Mongols conquered were safer and more orderly after their conquest. Their military was more orderly than every military that preceeded them, with the _possible_ exception of the Romans. Treatment of the Mongols et al as "Wild Barbarian Hordes" IMHO is a Western European and largely fictional bias.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Er, Jasper - the Barbarian Kings options is very much not the Mongols. The Mongols in China is Yuan Chinese, the army of Kublai Khan, which (in its early period) is one of those rolls royce armies that make generals drool in their soup. More like Tien Ch'i main theme but with better cavalry. Not like the BK theme at all.

There were "barbarians" on the border of China (eg. Hsuing-nu) as far as the Chinese thought and Chinese scholars bewailed their depredations so this isn't just a euro-centric bias. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif When the barbarians take and hold chinese lands they slowly became absorbed by the more developed culture - happened to the Mongols to.

The Barbarians kingdoms is exactly that - barbarian ruling over the Tien ch'i. Presumably an unstable intermediary period which will go one way or the other - order or complete chaos. I would like to be able to play with both the BK and the regular Tien Ch'i competing so we could see which way the balence goes.

Mongols inspired would be another race but I think a Steppe base Hsuing-nu inspired race would be better. We will never get the LC to work anything like as well as the Mongol LC worked so why pretend they are Mongol quality?

Cheers

Keir

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually the Barbarian Kings are not primarily inspired by mongols, but the Xiongnu that overtook the Jin dynasty in the fourth century. Much of the bureaucracy of the Han and Jin dynasties were lost. To the Chinese barbarian invasions were probably always experienced as chaotic and unorderly events.

On the other hand, mongols are well known and everyone will think 'mongols', and so do I to some extent.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Feudal strife and civil war were common to many empires considered to be "Orderly". I don't see the Mongols as being any different in this respect than any other empire in history. For example, I don't know of anything in their history quite like the strife seen in the Roman Empire. Then again, perhaps I've just read less about the Mongols...

Order scales increase income and reduce the frequency of events. This seems to me rather like what the Mongol rule did.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

[quote]Originally posted by Jasper:

Quote:

Feudal strife and civil war were common to many empires considered to be "Orderly". I don't see the Mongols as being any different in this respect than any other empire in history. For example, I don't know of anything in their history quite like the strife seen in the Roman Empire.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's a big difference in scope (politics vs social). The Roman etc. civil wars were headed by political figureheads, their supporters and their armies, certainly not the commoners who were the basis of the Roman etc. society. OTOH among the steppes nations (including the 13th+ century Mongols), vendettas were common and involved, to varying degrees, every member of a family, clan or tribe. IOW, almost every nomad in the steppes was concerned by this problem. GK and his successors edicted harsh rules to deal with this situation, but were only marginally succesful. That remained an endemic problem in the steppes until the russian conquest.

See the difference now? Strifes at the political level may be frequent in an "orderly" society, but would you call a country where every inhabitant is expected to cut the throat of his neighbor when honor is at stake, an "orderly" country?

[ November 23, 2003, 16:28: Message edited by: Nagot Gick Fel ]

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps. Feudal Japan for example was at times quite orderly, but had such problems. I also suspect the honor/face issue ran deeper into Roman society than you suggest, as well as the rest of europe. I think the anecdotes about safety of trade, the overall stability of rule, etc. have more weight overall.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Er, Jasper - the Barbarian Kings options is very much not the Mongols. The Mongols in China is Yuan Chinese, the army of Kublai Khan, which (in its early period) is one of those rolls royce armies that make generals drool in their soup. More like Tien Ch'i main theme but with better cavalry. Not like the BK theme at all.

There were "barbarians" on the border of China (eg. Hsuing-nu) as far as the Chinese thought and Chinese scholars bewailed their depredations so this isn't just a euro-centric bias. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif When the barbarians take and hold chinese lands they slowly became absorbed by the more developed culture - happened to the Mongols to.

The Barbarians kingdoms is exactly that - barbarian ruling over the Tien ch'i. Presumably an unstable intermediary period which will go one way or the other - order or complete chaos. I would like to be able to play with both the BK and the regular Tien Ch'i competing so we could see which way the balence goes.

Mongols inspired would be another race but I think a Steppe base Hsuing-nu inspired race would be better. We will never get the LC to work anything like as well as the Mongol LC worked so why pretend they are Mongol quality?

Cheers

Keir </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is Hsiung-nu, but let's just use their most common name: The Huns.
I agree, this nation should be reworked a bit.
This nation should get more cavalry units [noble cavalry for example] and 'uber strong' horse archers. [uber-strong: the best available horse archer]
This is the weakest? nation as it is now.
The Huns didn't had any infantry units, they used the people of the conqured nations as slave infantry. [example: germans]

[ November 23, 2003, 17:11: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

I wonder if the Order scale is just the application of observed laws, tax collection and willingness to allowt he government to levy it's taxes in trade for public acts, laws and governmental responsibility. It has nothing to do with the culture in which it resides. The strength of the government to mold for the safety and well being of the whole and dealing with disruption and the willingness to 'buy' that with a general taxation.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure. Although I believe it was more a pastime in the nobility than in the peasantry. Maybe early medieval Iceland would be a better comparison.

Quote:

I also suspect the honor/face issue ran deeper into Roman society than you suggest, as well as the rest of europe.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But the vast majority of these disputes were solved by established courts, or the feudal lord. Impromptu courts were sometimes assembled in the steppes to deal with feuds that went out of control, but they were exceptional.

Quote:

I think the anecdotes about safety of trade, the overall stability of rule, etc. have more weight overall.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hehe, when one has to give weight to anecdotes... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . You seem to be a well learned person, so I assume you already know the anecdotic history of young Temujin?

Anyway, in the mongol empire, the true mongol-born were a tiny fraction of the population, the bulk of it was Chinese, and the mongol laws were enforced by chinese or persian court officials, so in the end I'll have to agree with you that a "mongol" Tien Ch'i nation in Dominions shouldn't have turmoil by default.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

Not that it really matters but:

Mongols were incredibly strict in their crushing of the old practice of vendetta's etc. "Lets see if I kill this bugger in revenge for the slights against my name I will be killed along with most of my relatives (or while campaigning my comrades) - give it a miss this time." They were indeed the most orderly nomads you will find.

The Barbarian Kingdom is Hsuing-nu/Xiongnu not Huns Mortifier as we don't actually know who the Huns were before they showed up in the west. The Hsuing-nu connection is informed speculation which may of may or maynot be correct. Added to this the Hunnic army existed in a completely different context to the Hsuing-nu's lordship over parts of China.

If BK where Huns they would not get significant amounts of Noble cavalry as Roman observers at Attila's court claimed they had no nobles - part of their strength as warriors was that they had no lords over them. They would also burn every city to the ground and live as nomads in the steppe. Somewhat different to the more highly cultured Hsuingnu who could not resist the lure of chinese wealth and comforts. The difference may have emerged with the Huns going (being driven?) west in their more original, hardened, steppe nomad form while the Hsuingnu (presumably more successful at the time of the Huns migration west) preyed on the boundries of Chinese civilisation and developed an enriched nobility - who may have used full horse armour for their HC.

So while it is tempting to equate the BK with Mongols and Huns, as we know them better, it is an approach one should avoid. Looking at ancient societies is about dumping preconceptions as they lead to confusionism - or maybe thats Confucianism in the case of China? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cheers

Keir

[ November 23, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't disagree in general with other things you've posted, and what you say is true while on the offense over a narrow avenue of attack. However, the strategic movement speed can often be important. In my current Ulm game, the limit of most of my troops to strategic speed 1 is an important disadvantage to my armies. I hired a mercenary band of 40 Tien Chi cavalry, however, and their higher strategic speed inside my own land made them invaluable as a "fire brigade" unit to meet sudden threats.

They were also extremely deadly, even against the likes of Jotunheim. The few foes who made it past the rain of arrows found themselves faced by 40 cavalry with lances, and died. If friendly fire gets changed so archers are careful not to shoot their own men, they'll be even dealier. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">While it is true that following the rise of GK Mongol armies achieved a level of organization rarely seen before, their social life remained somewhat chaotic and riddled by clanic feuds and vendettas. It is also true that the Mongols favored religious tolerance and eased communication and trade throughout their empire, eg it was more easy to journey between Persia and China after the conquest, but saying that China or Persia themselves were safer and more orderly than before is a bit of a stretch.

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ah. Good point, and I'm not really sure why Mongols sprung to mind first. Probably because as Keir suggests I was drooling over them. :-)

An army with an incentive to pillage would definitely add variety, so it sounds good to me!

Re: Tien Chi! Sigh . . .
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The vast majority of historians who specialize on this topic still think the Hsiung-Nu and Huns were actually the same people.