Mod: Conceptual Balance 1.3, updated documentation

[Sombre]

I don't think it's worth attempting to be honest. I personally don't have a problem with some nations being stronger, within reason. I believe a lot of people feel the same way.

But options are always good.

[Aezeal]

I know I know.. but Yomi seems especially weak to me already and the CBM doesn't seem to be helping that much. Also on a more background kind of motive: I think there still isn't that much incentive to go demons while this is sort of a demon race.

I think Yomi would deserve a little more love, I don't suggest to make them on par with Niefel, Hinnom or Lanka.

My suggestions:
- more ammo for their demons thrown fire and maybe a little extra damage and range there too. (so you have decent stand and shoot and then melee troops in the largest demons and a line of "archers" behind them in the smaller fire throwers.
- morale 8 for those archers



I guess a national only fire arrows with regulare cost isn't an option?

[Zeldor]

QM:

There is still a lot of place for adding and improving units. Even if it gets a bit unthematic or stretched. I am sure there are many people that would want to have an option to play with much more improved balance. I am fine with some nations being stronger but I just cannot accept the fact that some nations are extremely overpowered in almost every aspect of the game. You find a cool nation, you want to play it in MP and then you discover it sucks and you should thank the god if you are alive at turn 20.

If you make smth like that I will start MP game with that. It may even get some people to touch so unbalanced early age [I noticed there are very few games in that age and they are pretty much dominated by very few nations].

[quantum_mechani]

Aezeal said:
I know I know.. but Yomi seems especially weak to me already and the CBM doesn't seem to be helping that much. Also on a more background kind of motive: I think there still isn't that much incentive to go demons while this is sort of a demon race.

I think Yomi would deserve a little more love, I don't suggest to make them on par with Niefel, Hinnom or Lanka.

My suggestions:
- more ammo for their demons thrown fire and maybe a little extra damage and range there too. (so you have decent stand and shoot and then melee troops in the largest demons and a line of "archers" behind them in the smaller fire throwers.
- morale 8 for those archers



I guess a national only fire arrows with regulare cost isn't an option?

More ammo is really not a bad idea. All in all though I'd probably prefer just more straight cost cuts (less confusion when changing prices than the nature of troops).

[quantum_mechani]

Zeldor said:
QM:

There is still a lot of place for adding and improving units. Even if it gets a bit unthematic or stretched. I am sure there are many people that would want to have an option to play with much more improved balance. I am fine with some nations being stronger but I just cannot accept the fact that some nations are extremely overpowered in almost every aspect of the game. You find a cool nation, you want to play it in MP and then you discover it sucks and you should thank the god if you are alive at turn 20.

If you make smth like that I will start MP game with that. It may even get some people to touch so unbalanced early age [I noticed there are very few games in that age and they are pretty much dominated by very few nations].

Well, the thing is, if I did it I think it would be more nerfs than boosts. Much easier make those crazy nations a bit less so than boost up every militia to their level. Actually there is a pretty decent sized pile of such balance measures already done but cut from CB due to unpopularity.

[HoneyBadger]

I wouldn't want all nations to be perfectly balanced against each other. It makes them too similar. But each nation should atleast be fun to play in Multiplayer, and the balancing issues should atleast be addressed, even if they sometimes get overrode by other considerations.

And if a nation is weak, then it deserves more consideration, and more time spent on it. It's a credit to Illwinter that I can't think of a single nation that everyone universally hates-they might be considered unbalanced, but each nation has it's fans. They're all interesting in their own way, and so they do deserve time and effort to update them.

[quantum_mechani]

HoneyBadger said:
It's a credit to Illwinter that I can't think of a single nation that everyone universally hates-they might be considered unbalanced, but each nation has it's fans.

I find it hard to imagine this would not be the case, almost regardless.

[HoneyBadger]

To a point, but even so, it's remarkable to me that people will shout from the very mountaintops about how poorly a given nation functions in MP, but if you then question it's thematic character, they'll defend it with the same passion. Out of 50 plus nations, you'd think that atleast one would be popularly disliked. I just haven't noticed that happening, for any nation.

[Sombre]

I think prior to the recent updating LA Abysia wasn't well liked and I haven't heard anyone really talking about the new stuff it got either.

[HoneyBadger]

That might have something to do with the new nations, though-they've kind of outshone some of the nations that were less popular to begin with-including any recent additions to them.

I never said that every nation is passionately loved, some *are* less popular than others, naturally. Just none that have stood out as particularly disliked.

Also, the Late Age is a little skewed on that, I think. Being dominated by Ermor and R'lyeh seems to cast a shadow on some of the other late ages nations, and with magic also being on the wane, it seems a bit less suited for the casual fantasy gamer, and more for the wargamer (who then must digest Ermor and R'lyeh's advantages). I for one don't play Late Age nearly as much as EA and MA, in part because of that.