[kennydicke]

Alpine Joe

Be careful with those greatbows. I don't really have a precise suggestion on their balance.

A poster named Globu had concerns as well, looks like it may be back to the drawing board. Historically, the average Mongol warrior would carry both the recurve bow for mounted use and the larger bow for use on foot at a longer range; with each bow he would have two quivers, one with armorpiercing arrows and one with arrows more effective for killing/wounding lightly armored humans and horses. (Yes, they purposefully killed horses.) I only made two to save precious weapon-space. Further ideas will, hopefully, be forthcoming. Side note: average Mongol warriors also carried a tool-use knife, a dagger, a tool-use battleaxe, a sabre/scimitar, a lance, a buckler, a suit of armor, a helmet, and silk underclothing for protection against armorpiercing and poisoned arrows; as well as all the trappings to maintain and repair said items, as well as mend their clothing, tack & harness and siege weapons. This amount of gear was mitigated by the fact that even the lowest born man or woman warrior (they were equals) would have four to five spare horses to take into battle.

Qayan infantry are actually pretty good for what you pay. Might not be thematic

I, as well, felt they were too cheap. I actually plan on raising *all* troop costs, there lower cost was more of a testing measure. I just thought it would be better to use suggestions as a control, than my own arbitrary choices. I agree that they are not thematic for a cavalry nation, ala dominions. However, historically (I seem to like that word), the Mongol cavalry was the vanguard for a larger infantry force; it's just that the cavalry was so powerful, by the time the footmen got there a day or two later, the besieged had already lost or surrendered (this fit nicely because then the tired footmen would become the local garrison). (Much like the Huns, they actually rarely attacked, they usually just camped outside the gates until someone came out and paid them to go.) Originally, I had intended them to be PD only, but decided that ignoring an important part of their historical strategy (cavalry making camp at area of invasion to tie up forces and prevent supplies from reaching the besieged, as the infantry foot-slogged their way to the same point for the pitched battle; not unlike my dominions playstyle where appropriate) would be detrimental to the overall feel. I am open to change on this and all subjects, however.

Vanguards are wierd right now. 3 attacks per round, one at 6 and another at 4? Does this mean they can ever hit with the light lance charge? I don't know, but I'd suggest taking another look at their weapons. If you are committed to stealth that is fine, but raise the cost to 25 at least if you keep the stealth. Perhaps take off the light lance completely?

I think in my limited playtesting they only ran out of ammo once, but the reason I gave them high ammo was because they always carried two very large quivers with them. I gave them all high AP, high mapmove and three survivals (among other reasons) to simulate the quickstrike nature of the mongol hordes, whose infantry was even known for it's rapid deployment. I am not really commited to stealth, I just thought stealthy cavalry was a neat idea that I hadn't yet seen elsewhere. I was thinking of giving them flaming horsebows (more damage? less ammo?) and raising the cost to thirty gp. They have a lance because even Mongol infantry carried a lance to use as a spear (their lances were more like spears in design, although used as a lance on horseback). I can change whatever feels wrong though. Or even remove them completely. I aim to please.

Same issue with light cavalry

I guess I could lower the AP on them somewhat, but I used AP as the first primary variant for the troops. I believe I was trying to create similar stats to Horse-Brothers, who I feel represent Huns/Mongols/Cossacks. I was going to increase gcost to five more than whatever I set the vanguard at.

regular cavalry seems alright, as do mounted women and heavy cavalry....

I thought they were all a little cheap, but maybe I actually hit the nail on the head with them? Maybe I'll go just 5gp higher on each, instead of the 10-15 I had planned.

Honor guard would be okay if they were cap only.... otherwise I fear the nation will be dominated by a bless.

I made changed them from cap only to mitigate the fact that I added low numbers of them to second tier PD, and to make a bless viable. I realize that they probably don't *need* a bless, but I think bless should be an option (not a 'be all-end all') for all/most nations. I can easily add them to a startsite though. Or perhaps change them in such a way that a bless wouldn't seem mandatory (if it does).

Vessels are pretty balanced. Perhaps they should be the only cavalry with stealth?

Probably a good suggestion, if one more person agrees then I will make it so. I really like the unit myself. And if you wondered why I gave them (and most of the troops/summons) abilities they can't use, it's because my dominions-playing bro have GoR wars, where we try to GoR as many different units as possible. (Ever GoR a four-star militia? He *ROX*!)

Death worms: too cheap....i would make it one effect for 4 gems instead.....death worms seem pretty awesome. That way with N2 you can get two for 4 still.....3 for 4 is too cheap.

One worm for four gems was exactly what I was going for. But I can't seem to make it do just one. My #nreff is 1001, is that the wrong value for a 1+ summon? Or am I using the wrong value? Anyway, that change will be implemented as soon as I figure out el problemo. If I can't for some reason, I will double or triple the gem cost for a better ratio. Do you feel nature is appropriate? My first thought was blood, my bro suggested fire (though they use electricity and acid, not fire, despite the graphic).

Yetis: i like this summon...cost feels right for a small raiding troop

I also like this one, and even felt it was the right cost. I thought they were too strong though, maybe my judgement was hasty. My bro says the leadership on the commander is too low (though, knowing him, he summoned allies for twenty or more turns before even looking). I felt poorleader was just right (and he would have no leader if it didn't summon troops as well). This is one I really want a better sprite. (Current Great Ape sprite would be ok if it had white fur.)

Sky Spirits: Strong, but a major focus so keep as is

Strong, but not too? When I had them at conj-3 at 10 air gems for 3+ I easily conquered yalun-to in less than two years. (Then my cap produced 4 air gems a day though. And Tengri was low enough cost for me to take 9 dom.) I like them as they are as well.

Call of the Mastodon: hmm...feels a little too good...one N2 mage with 5 gems can summon up a lot of mammaths.....then again, N gems are competing with death worms.

I hadn't actually tried it since I increased the fatigue cost (was 80!). Maybe reduce the number of effects? Or perhaps raise the researchlevel? Or just raise the pathlevel? Would using elephants instead of Caelum mammoths make a difference? Ideally, I would make a new Mastodon troop, but not until I have a proper sprite. I really like the fit, the Altaic area was rife with mastodons in an earlier time (and seems to go great in dominions). Plus I own an album called 'Call of the Mastodon', and I love the title. Although, in one battle, on one cast they took a fort by themselves. The other two times I used them they ran away. I just assumed that this would happen more often than not (low morale, I think) and didn't test it any further.

Chosen of Tengri: The biggy....immortality makes this summon way way way too cheap. I would say 50A or 45A is probably a more reasonable price....summoning one of these guys should be a huge investment.

I had actually meant to disable to immortal tag. Although, it fits best with their other summons and the spirit multihero. The low cost was also part of playtesting. Part of why I made them cheap was because of the cost of those durn airboosters. Will raise the cost to 50, because you have great suggestions, and does seem to be very reasonable if I leave them immortal (will still raise to ~40 if I disable #immortal).


Muchas gracias! Will respond to the rest of your post ASAP.