Tien Chi! Sigh . . .

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by Nerfix:
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).

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...

Chariot troops would also fit S&A Tien.

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.

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.

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.

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
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...

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.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Nerfix:
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.

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.

[Keir Maxwell]

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 ]

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.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Zen:
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.

Not if the number of new units were dependent on how many enemies you killed when conquering the province.

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.

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Not if the number of new units were dependent on how many enemies you killed when conquering the province.

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

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.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zen:
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.

Not if the number of new units were dependent on how many enemies you killed when conquering the province.

---

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.