If Giants existed in BC times...

[KissBlade]

Then the world will be ruled by a race of giants. So I can understand the thematically of how giant nations obliterate nations with spears and slings. But theme is something that should be separate from balance. There are some nations that are just completely butt hurt from theme (Jomon for example with their no shield LA policy) and some nations that just completely OP it (Niefel & Hinnom). It's hard to enjoy the theme of a game if turn 12 I'm crowding behind my walls hoping for my Dragon to get back in time to hopefully fend off big guys with swords looking to kick my ***. Heck that's almost like being back in junior high.

[HoneyBadger]

Well, I'm of the opinion that LA Jomon, and related Nations, should get an "air shield" bonus with their O-yori: a 40% air shield for their heaviest "samurai" armour, and a 20% for the regular samurai variety.

Also, Jomon could conceivably have a capital-only nagamaki-wielding unit, that would get a x2 bonus to larger creatures, if you wanted to mod one in. That doesn't sound like it would be too balance-destroying, and it's reasonable, for a Nation that had a history of fighting and winning against giant demons, and big ogrish goblins.

[Sombre]

Well, I'm of the opinion that LA Jomon, and related Nations, should get an "air shield" bonus with their O-yori: a 40% air shield for their heaviest "samurai" armour, and a 20% for the regular samurai variety.


I can't see the sense in that.

You can argue their armour is better than other armour against certain kinds of missiles, but translating that into dominions as an air shield is just silly.

I like Jomon not having shields. I agree they're a bit crippled by it.

[HoneyBadger]

Sombre:

I don't see why that would be silly, given the confines of the game. Just because this is represented by an effect that can *also* be produced through magic, doesn't necessarily mean that it's always a supernatural effect. The "Air Shield" supernatural effect represents (atleast in my imagination), the deflection of arrows and the obfuscation of the shape of the target's body, through a "heatwave" type distortion effect. Maybe I'm somehow wrong in that interpretation, but I consider it reasonable and viable.

And that's exactly what samurai armour was designed to do, to deflect blows and arrows, and to obfuscate the shape of the samurai's body.

I would ofcourse want to see the Prot value of Samurai armour to be lowered, accordingly, to balance against the suggested "airshield" effect, but samurai armour (especially the heavy version) is so bad, as it stands, that the Prot is about all it's got going for it.

There was a big difference in the relative sharpness of medieval European swords (which were commonly pretty blunt, when used in larger battles), and pre-colonial Japanese swords, and the way each was used, and the differing armour styles reflect those differences.

European swords were meant to be used over and over, to hammer the target into submission, with the side-effect of the possibility to ransom the still-living loser. Japanese swords, ideally, were intended to be used once, fatally.

So, European armour was designed to resist blows and distribute damage, whereas, if you got hit by a well made katana, by a samurai who was skilled in kendo, you'd be lucky if a blow just crippled you.

Impact was still a consideration, in Japanese armours, just like deflection was considered in European armours, but it's a matter of degree of emphasis.

Both styles had their advantages and disadvantages, but the way samurai armour is currently simulated in the game is quite a bit off. It could be bulky, but not nearly as bulky as it's portrayed in the game, and it was designed to allow a lot of flexibility and freedom of movement.

Another consideration is the respective size of horses, and the way mounted combat tended to be handled. Horses tended to be smaller in the East than in the West, being bred from rugged Mongolian ponies in the East, and bred for toughness, compared to the horses in the West, which were bred for size. That means that armour in the East were more likely to be lighter, designed for mounted use with bows and light lances, compared to heavy Western armours, that would actually lend their weight to the impact of a heavy lance-charge. Both used swords in mounted combat, and both developed weapons to combat mounted enemies, including the aforementioned 'Nagamaki'.

Keep in mind that what the game represents as samurai armour, and the katana, were both developed relatively late in Japan's military history, after the Mongols had already made their abortive invasion attempt, while European types of armour, as represented in the game, are considerably less specifically defined. Armour in an "Early Era" of Japan, would certainly not have involved the No-Dashi/katana, or the O-yori "great armour" of the Samurai. Both items, realistically, would have been confined to the Late Age, only.

[Sombre]

You want samurai armour to have a 20-40% chance of magically deflecting huge boulders, nether darts, seeking arrows, misc AN projectiles etc. Why not just ask for it to have higher prot againt missiles? That would make far more sense and is just as unlikely to get in the game.

[Endoperez]

There was a big difference in the relative sharpness of medieval European swords (which were commonly pretty blunt, when used in larger battles), and pre-colonial Japanese swords, and the way each was used, and the differing armour styles reflect those differences.

European swords were meant to be used over and over, to hammer the target into submission, with the side-effect of the possibility to ransom the still-living loser. Japanese swords, ideally, were intended to be used once, fatally.

So, European armour was designed to resist blows and distribute damage, whereas, if you got hit by a well made katana, by a samurai who was skilled in kendo, you'd be lucky if a blow just crippled you.

European swords weren't as sharp as katanas, but I'm not sure what you mean by "relative sharpness". Even western blades could cut through flesh and bone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4j3mvrDyQ) with relative ease, severe hands and achieve similar feats of "shrapness". Even so, you could grab a western sword by the blade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddeL1aw1BkE) without hurting yourself. (The videos probably have nothing to do with each other, so it's not the same sword.)

I've read a good article about the difference between a sharp edge and a beveled edge and how both will cut and why a beveled edge keeps it's cutting ability even when it hits metal, but unfortunately I can't find it right now.
I did find an old ARMA essay on a theoretical fight between a knight and a samurai:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

According to that, European armor succeeded in nullifying the cutting ability of swords. A sword, even a katana, can't cut through plate. Japanese armors were never as good, so katana could be used to cut through a samurai's armor and cripple him just like you said.

Both styles had their advantages and disadvantages, but the way samurai armour is currently simulated in the game is quite a bit off. It could be bulky, but not nearly as bulky as it's portrayed in the game, and it was designed to allow a lot of flexibility and freedom of movement.

I agree with this. From the above article:
"Generally speaking, European plate armor was designed primarily as a defense against sword points and other bladed weapons, whereas, Japanese armor was primarily designed more as a defense against arrows and spears. Significantly, it frequently had open feet and hands and a design that permitted archery. The knight's encased armor by contrast was idealized more for mounted charge with lance and or for dismounted close-combat. Japanese heavy armor contemporary with the period of the High Middle Ages knight was not considerably lighter than European plate."

The first bolded part implies that some kind of air shield or arrow parry ability wouldn't be out of the line.
The second bolded part implies that heavy samurai armor should have (at most!) as high encumberance as other heavy armors.

Besides, if the EA Oni already had samurai armor, surely it would be further improved. Since Jomon is getting an overhaul any way, it would be nice to have the armors finetuned. The encumberance could be lowered by 1 for all ages, or perhaps LA Jomon could get new type of armor with similar protection but lower encumberance and defense penalty.

[cleveland]

But theme is something that should be separate from balance.

Hinnom, Ashdod, Niefel, et al are indeed very powerful, and most nations could never beat them 1-on-1. Or even 2-on-1.

But therein lies the balance. "Superpower" themed nations MUST be dogpiled early & often. Non-superpowers must immediately ally & embargo against them, and kill anyone who won't. In that sense, the nations are quite balanced; it's player passivity & stupidity that creates the imbalance.

I suspect it's a rather brilliant effort to abolish the "NAP-3 with everything in sight, turtle until turn 90, then wish/SC my way to victory" approach that's so popular, and soooooo boring these days. Kudos KO. :)

[MaxWilson]

But theme is something that should be separate from balance.

Hinnom, Ashdod, Niefel, et al are indeed very powerful, and most nations could never beat them 1-on-1. Or even 2-on-1.

But therein lies the balance. "Superpower" themed nations MUST be dogpiled early & often.

And of course if the nations had existed in real life, sans megalomaniacal pretenders, the human nations would have had plenty of incentive to gang up on the insane cannibalistic giants.

-Max

[KissBlade]

You guys are still missing the point. To suggest that the fix for a nation is to "gang up on them because they are too powerful" is already acknowledging their imbalance. If a nation can destroy you one on one then you're not going to be having a whole lot of fun being that one they attacked. So what if he's not going to win the game? You won't either.

[MaxWilson]

You guys are still missing the point. To suggest that the fix for a nation is to "gang up on them because they are too powerful" is already acknowledging their imbalance. If a nation can destroy you one on one then you're not going to be having a whole lot of fun being that one they attacked. So what if he's not going to win the game? You won't either.

Oh, are we talking about the game? I thought we were having fun speculating about alternate histories where Dom3 was real. As far as the game goes, I wouldn't mind seeing other nations buffed a bit. I have a slowly-ongoing project to improve all nations to the point where I wouldn't mind playing them by e.g. changing built-in weapons and removing cap-only restrictions on mages. Currently it seems like many nations are optimized for small maps or are otherwise unfun for my playstyle.

-Max

[cleveland]

Balanced opponents. (http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/blog/images/Checkers.jpg)

Sure they're imbalanced. Sure you're dead if they attack and you can't get any help. But who says it won't be a whole lot of fun? ;)

[Aezeal]

I don't think this game is intended to be totally balanced.. I think KO even said so. While personally think all nations should be somewhat balanced (more so than they are now) I think the idea cleveland has is right.

[Juffos]

Dominions isn't designed for one-on-one battles. Thus, nation balance isn't that necessary as it is in those dueling games such as Starcraft. Successful diplomacy can and will cripple even the mightiest nations in this game.

[Kristoffer O]

I always thought Ashdod was more powerful than HInnom, even before the Hinnom nerf. But the complaints were more focused on H at the time. Ashdod will probably receive some kind of nerf, but I haven't given it too much thoughts lately. Suggestions are welcome. Many H-nerf suggestions were much in line with what I was thinking, and some gave me new input and new ideas.

So don't be afraid to suggest possible changes.

I will try to think a bit about SP people as well, since they have expressed concerns that their most interesting adversaries being nerfed. Hmm, perhaps a start army bonus on diff-lvl would help, since start army is one thing that was nerfed with Hinnom, andf it is an easy way of giving a powerful nation a slower start. I hope it would not be too hard for JK to add.

[Sombre]

I have to say, claiming they're balanced because everyone can gang up on them pisses me off a bit. You're greatly limiting the variety in the game if every single time ______ is forced to fight an alliance of people, the first person ______ attacks gets crushed without being able to do **** about it (but that's ok because his allies will avenge him) etc

You're limiting the strategic options there and toning the variety in the game down, not increasing it.

[Sombre]

I will try to think a bit about SP people as well, since they have expressed concerns that their most interesting adversaries being nerfed. Hmm, perhaps a start army bonus on diff-lvl would help, since start army is one thing that was nerfed with Hinnom, andf it is an easy way of giving a powerful nation a slower start. I hope it would not be too hard for JK to add.

Was there actually any consensus that the giant nations are challenging to SP players? I play SP and I've never seen Hinnom (pre nerf) or Ashdod have any more success than the average AI nation. In fact they have done worse in basically every single game.

[MaxWilson]

I will try to think a bit about SP people as well, since they have expressed concerns that their most interesting adversaries being nerfed. Hmm, perhaps a start army bonus on diff-lvl would help, since start army is one thing that was nerfed with Hinnom, andf it is an easy way of giving a powerful nation a slower start. I hope it would not be too hard for JK to add.

That would be awesome! Especially because then you could also crank up the indy difficulty level, slowing down the human player's expansion without much hurting the AI.

-Max

P.S. Nerf Ashdod all you want, except *please* don't make Zamzummites cap-only. It radically changes the feel of a nation when its best recruitable-anywhere mages suddenly become cap-only.

[DonCorazon]

Its challenging too since new players don't always realize what a threat a particular nation is, not to mention, having to organize an alliance against Ashdod every game becomes painful after a while. Games with Ashdod tend to feel like team games (when you can even rally the support) since you need to organize, coordinate, etc.

And while I am not a StarCraft player, I always thought that the balanced but unique nations is what made it such a success. I certainly don't think Dominions needs to be so finely tuned, but Ashdod at the moment feels extreme - like Shaquille O'Neal playing hoops on a European kindergarten court :)

[AdmiralZhao]

I'd have to second Sombre. Ashdod shouldn't win by default when one of their neighbors decides to act in their short term self interest rather than making sacrifices for the good of all the other nations.

[KissBlade]

Either weaken Niefel/Hinnom/Ashdod's early game /significantly/ (probably using Yomi has a measurement) or weaken their late game. As it stands, they have the best early game with troops that pretty much just don't die if you use them right to the best late game with recruit able SC chassis'. The pop kill doesn't even compare to the fact that Ashdod has one of the best battle mage chassis in the form of Zaz's. And does Hinnom really need healers???

[MaxWilson]

I still think one good, thematic nerf to Ashdod would be to change their PD from Gileadites, Edomites, and Gileadite Archers (over PD 20) to Human Slaves and Edomites (maybe keep the Gileadite Archers over PD 20? Or just put back the regular Gileadites). Rephaites are rare, right? In Hinnom times they didn't even have any females and were reliant on Qedesot to make more Rephaites.

That's not the only thing you'd probably do to them--gcost raises to mages in order to further hurt their research wouldn't necessarily hurt the flavor, and you could even eliminate the cap-only gem income entirely (which would hurt the early Constr-4 forging, as well as being a totally unique penalty). In fact raising gcosts might even intensify the theme of the nation (quality over quantity, now with less quantity). Or, what if Rephaites had some kind of unique vulnerability deriving from their demonic heritage, like an across-the-board cold vulnerability? I don't know if that one makes sense given the mythology though.

Unlike Hinnom, though, Ashdod's non-sacred troops don't need any nerfing at all because the best of them are already sub-par (about as good as Iron Crows IMHO). Not bad, and certainly usable, but nothing like Dawn Guards.

-Max

Edit: One more possibility. Cannibalistic giants and their descendants are inbred and tend towards megalomania--what if all Rephaites had Insanity (5)? Man, that would be a huge pain.

[Sombre]

Edit: One more possibility. Cannibalistic giants and their descendants are inbred and tend towards megalomania--what if all Rephaites had Insanity (5)? Man, that would be a huge pain.

I think Dom3 players are generally not in favour of nerfs based on increasing micromanagement.

[HoneyBadger]

Sombre, 20/40% might have been a little on the extreme side, but maybe 10/20?. It's just guesswork, afterall, and it's not even my idea, originally, but I like it. And yes, with a chance to deflect everything. It's a fantasy game that doesn't attempt to model everything perfectly, and 10/20 wouldn't be an enormous advantage, considering the severe drawbacks samurai armour already has.

[Lingchih]

Edit: One more possibility. Cannibalistic giants and their descendants are inbred and tend towards megalomania--what if all Rephaites had Insanity (5)? Man, that would be a huge pain.

I think Dom3 players are generally not in favour of nerfs based on increasing micromanagement.

Indeed, you are correct Sombre.

[HoneyBadger]

Endoperez: You're talking about a modern repro blade that has been sharpened. Most likely, it's made from a modern type of steel that didn't exist in the middle ages.

It comes from, and exists, in an entirely different world from Medieval Europe, so while it does answer the question of what's possible, it doesn't bear that much on what actually happened.

The best quality blades coming out of Europe at the time most likely came from Toledo, which was for a long time a Moorish colony.

Certainly, good-quality blades existed in medieval Europe, but they weren't, generally, consistent in their quality until the Moors started showing up. Aside from that, a sharp piece of metal can cleave through a deer carcass-and a sharp wedge of copper could probably have done the same exact thing, and certainly an Aztec obsidian sword could have-but that's a much different thing from slicing through a moving, fighting human being, with just clothing on, let alone armour, and doing it again, and again, and again.

The Vikings probably had better than average steel, because they were exposed to so many cultures, and had slaves (with their skills) from all over, not to mention owning Jarnberaland, which I understand has lots of high quality iron deposits, thus the name.

Other good steel probably came out of Byzantium, as well as the satellites of the old Western empire, such as Venice, but, aside from the questionable ability of Europe to mass-produce blades that would take an edge, outside of Toledo, there were broad differences in how those blades were utilized.

Like you touched upon, having a sharp blade does little, if it won't penetrate your opponent's armour. Points of swords were made to do that, and the medieval knight was trained to use their points to pierce armour. Sharp or not, and not was more likely even for the high end blades, a sword in Europe was basically just a big iron club with a dagger on the end of it. It was designed to hold a straight, piercing point, and not to break. The blade was a secondary consideration. Some perfectly good swords were never even sharpened. Weapons and armour evolved side by side, in Europe, as mirrors of each other, until the invention of gunpowder.

I think the main thematic difference between a medieval knight and a feudal samurai was that a samurai was trained to kill instantly, and if necessary to die at a moment's notice, while a knight was trained to beat the enemy by whatever means and level of force necessary, and to survive anything that got thrown at him. Their equipment reflects those differences, at it's most basic, even in the quality of their armour, since it wouldn't have been so very difficult for a fully armoured samurai to commit seppuku right there on the battlefield, while a knight-aside from suicide being a mortal sin-might have found it almost as difficult to kill himself, as a peasant with a pitchfork would have found it to kill a knight.

[Endoperez]

Aside from that, a sharp piece of metal can cleave through a deer carcass-and a sharp wedge of copper could probably have done the same exact thing, and certainly an Aztec obsidian sword could have-but that's a much different thing from slicing through a moving, fighting human being, with just clothing on, let alone armour, and doing it again, and again, and again.

Do you have any sources? I don't see why cloth alone would make such a huge difference in the cutting power of an edge. Furthermore, the ability to deliver a good hit to a moving target, while difficult, comes from the skill of the fighter and not from quality of the edge.

I agree with many of your points: many European swords probably sucked, the quality varied wildly, and good swords were rare. I was talking about the good swords, because I was thinking of knights and presumed they'd have the best swords they could buy, along with the best armor and horse and whatever else they needed to stay alive.

When you mention unsharpened clubs, you might be thinking of the estoc, which had (at least sometimes? really out of my comfort zone here) octagonal or hexagonal cross-sections that indeed had no blade whatsoever, and were meant to focus enough power to the (possibly unsharpened) point that it could benetrate armor. They were specialized weapons and not just normal, unsharpened swords.


My understanding (mainly from the ARMA site) is that swords weren't used against knights, but against people who couldn't afford to wear good armor in battle or for self-defense outside of battles. There were other weapons more suited for hurting people in armor, like maces and "hammers" and estocs, and halberds against mounted knights, and lots of other weapons I don't know proper names for. Since there were better weapons for harming other knights, I don't see why a knight would take a poor sword into a mace-fight.

I'm running out of time here, but here's a nice article about how swords were used for different purposes. I didn't have time to see if it goes into detail about western swords' qualities versus Japanese swords, but it looks like it might.
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm



For KO:
Ashdod could be made to only have access to expensive castles, and could perhaps have more expensive labs and/or temples.
Also, Ashdod's random-only mages should NOT be recruitable without a lab! They might not be their best battlemages, but it's still not right. A general "you need a lab before you can recruit this unit" ability would probably have uses in modding as well, if Johan decided to add it.

[MaxWilson]

One way to make the random-only mages require labs would be to give them some fixed paths, but negative magicboost (just like dragons or Chayot) those paths back down. E.g. Rephaite Sages are S1+100%(F2/E2/S2) with #magicboost -1 in astral. I believe that would force them to be recruited in labs. It would also make them more difficult to empower, but nobody cares about that.

An undesirable side effect, though, would be that you could take an E2 Rephaite Sage and give him a booster (Starshine Skullcap) and he would become E2S1.

-Max

[HoneyBadger]

Cloth might not make an enormous difference, but it does make *a* difference, several infact, depending on the type of cloth, and the weave, and the circumstances around which it is struck. Pretty much anything can make a difference, in the middle of a battle. Armour was often *made* from cloth, typically layers of silk, or quilted linen, which should answer the question right there.

Swords were relatively rare, anyway, as were knights compared to the total population, and knights with swords were happy to have them. Even a very cheap sword was still a lot of metal dedicated to *just* fighting, and the skills to make a really good sword were rare, and sought after. Metal that could be used to grow food and build shelter was instead dedicated to supporting the Noble class, and their wars. All this made swords, of any kind, expensive.

One thing you should understand, Endoperez, is that I've been studying weapons and armour for my entire life. I was taught by my dad who studied and assessed swords professionally, for a living, for years. I was around swords, I read about them since I've been able to read, I've studied fencing and fighting with a wide variety of midieval weapons, both Western and Eastern, I've studied Eastern and Western forging techniques, and I've made a particular study of armour.

I'm not saying that I know everything, there's an enormous amount of material to digest-maybe too much for anyone to understand in a single lifetime-but I am saying that I'm talking from an educated and experienced position, and if there's something I don't know about midieval weapons and armour, I can probably atleast research it, find out about it, and make an educated guess about it.

[Endoperez]

One thing you should understand, Endoperez, is that I've been studying weapons and armour for my entire life. I was taught by my dad who studied and assessed swords professionally, for a living, for years. I was around swords, I read about them since I've been able to read, I've studied fencing and fighting with a wide variety of midieval weapons, both Western and Eastern, I've studied Eastern and Western forging techniques, and I've made a particular study of armour.

I got the feeling you knew what you were speaking about, but it seemed to contradict what I had read before. That's why I dug up sources and didn't just go from memory: I wanted to see if my sources were wrong.

It also seems that we are either thinking of different ages or I'm totally off with my image of a knight: I was thinking of a knight armored head-to-toes in expensive armor fit to his body, riding a specially-bred war-charger. Both the horse and the armor would cost ridiculous amounts of money, so the cost of a good sword shouldn't be an obstacle.

EDIT: I knew about cloth armor, but you mentioned that clothing could make a difference, and that didn't seem right. I can't see a shirt stopping a sword, or even a knife. You probably meant something like heavy cloaks or something along those lines.

[lch]

EDIT: I knew about cloth armor, but you mentioned that clothing could make a difference, and that didn't seem right. I can't see a shirt stopping a sword, or even a knife. You probably meant something like heavy cloaks or something along those lines.
Without having read anything in this thread except for this last reply of Endo, I'd expect that what <s>Max</s> HB had in mind was similar to a Gambeson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson).

[MaxWilson]

EDIT: I knew about cloth armor, but you mentioned that clothing could make a difference, and that didn't seem right. I can't see a shirt stopping a sword, or even a knife. You probably meant something like heavy cloaks or something along those lines.

Clothing hampering blades seems right to me. When it comes to blades, especially impaling weapons (vs. cutting weapons), your skin is the thing protecting you. Once a knife penetrates your skin it can be amazingly deep with only a little extra force. It's very plausible to me that clothing could make a difference.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php

"Even today, prosecutors trying homicide cases involving death by stabbing will sometimes attempt to convince juries that a deeply penetrating stab wound serves as an indicator of murderous intent by virtue of the great force required to inflict such wounds. It is generally accepted today among experts of forensic medicine, however, that the force requisite to inflict even a deeply penetrating stab wound is minimal.8 This opinion would seem to be supported by the experience of a stage actor who inadvertently stabbed a colleague to death during a stage performance of Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet. The unlucky young man delivered a thrust at the very moment his vision was inadvertently obscured by a member of the cast. Although he claimed to have felt no resistance, a post mortem examination revealed that he had penetrated the chest of the victim to a depth of eighteen centimeters.9"

"Except for bone or cartilage which has become ossified, it is the skin that offers the greatest resistance to the point of a blade. In fact, once the skin is penetrated, a blade may pass, even through costal cartilage, with disquieting ease.10 Generally, of the factors governing the ease of entry, the two most important are the sharpness of the tip of the blade and the velocity with which it contacts the skin. While the mass of the weapon is a factor in penetration, the velocity of the blade at the moment of contact is of greater importance, since the force at impact is directly proportional to the square of the velocity of the thrust.11"

8 B. Knight, Forensic Pathology (New York: 1991) 146-147.
9 Thimm (Supra n. 6), 463.
10 C. Polson, D. Gee and B. Knight, The Essentials of Forensic Medicine (Oxford: 1985)125.
11 Knight (Supra n. 8), 147.


-Max

[Endoperez]

Clothing hampering blades seems right to me. When it comes to blades, especially impaling weapons (vs. cutting weapons), your skin is the thing protecting you. Once a knife penetrates your skin it can be amazingly deep with only a little extra force. It's very plausible to me that clothing could make a difference.


Interesting. I knew that knives could easily cause really bad wounds without much force, but my (faulty) conclusion was that since skin/body tissue doesn't offer much resistance, extra layers of cloth wouldn't help either. Thanks for the clarification.


P.S. Speaking of Jomon, this means that their armors could be made of cloth that wouldn't be encumbering but would still offer great protection.

[KissBlade]

Jomon sucks.

Edit: Makes me want to make a guide for them a la my Patala guide tradition. Need to play a few games with them in MP though. =(

[legowarrior]

I think a new guide on the Jomon would be awesome. Although I hope they really don't suck all that much. They have interesting summons.

[Kristoffer O]

You probably want to wait a bit with a Jomon guide, since they are my ongoing project. I've not been working much on them the last month, but I believe I will have some time before school starts again.

They will get some new summons and some other stuff. They will still be unshielded :)

[Gregstrom]

Thinking of cloth armour... IIRC Mongol cavalry tended to wear loose shirts of raw silk. The cloth tended not to be cut by arrows, which a: protected the archer and b: made removing barbed arrowheads an awful lot easier, because the cloth around the arrowhead made pulling it out much safer.


On the swords/armour bit, I'm with Endo on maces/hammers etc. being used a lot. The Royal Armouries in Leeds (UK) have a few experts who do demonstrations of swordfighting, jousting etc., and I chatted a bit while visiting. I think they were talking about late medieval/early renaissance equipment (full harness and so on), and apparently swords would start a battle literally razor sharp but got blunted pretty quickly due to hitting hard objects with a great deal of force. Hitting plate armour with a newly sharpened blade could do pretty horrible things to it, but you weren't going to keep an edge on the blade very long. A can opener on a stick of some sort was much more reliable against armour, and still killed unarmoured men pretty well into the bargain.

Oh yes - since the later armours were quite highly engineered to allow mobility with high levels of protection, just denting armour could have a serious impact on the wearer's mobility.

[KissBlade]

You probably want to wait a bit with a Jomon guide, since they are my ongoing project. I've not been working much on them the last month, but I believe I will have some time before school starts again.

They will get some new summons and some other stuff. They will still be unshielded :)

The unshielded parts would be ok if each samurai had a high enough morale to not get fazed by the arrows.

[HoneyBadger]

Considering Samurai beliefs about death and honour, another solution might be to give all samurai units an automatic "sermon of courage", so that, as other units died around them, their morale would actually go up.

[MaxWilson]

Considering Samurai beliefs about death and honour, another solution might be to give all samurai units an automatic "sermon of courage", so that, as other units died around them, their morale would actually go up.

I don't understand. How is SoC different from just giving them a high base morale, and why would that make their morale go up? (I suppose it might affect the "average" morale of their squad, but losing units makes your bonus for "intactness" go down.)

Sermon of Courage is simply +2 to Morale, end of story.

-Max

[rdonj]

Considering samurai beliefs about death and honor, you would probably lose your best commander every time you lost a major battle as he ritually killed himself. I'm not sure that sounds like a good idea to me.... Samurai do have decent morale, but perhaps it should be a bit higher thematically speaking. Their defense should almost be a little higher as well. The samurai do make excellent shock infantry as is, it would just be nice if they worked a little harder at surviving.

[Wrana]

Actually, Japanese fencing was more offense-oriented relative to both European and Chinese ones. So, it looks like their defense is quite OK. Regarding arrows, I think lack of shields is partly compensated by their own bows - which, of course, leaves you with more resource-intensive troops, but you can use them for both missile combat and shock attacks. Historically, Japanese army suffered greatly in missile combat both during Khubilai-khan's invasion and in their own invasion of Korea in 16th century...

[chrispedersen]

Thematically (perhaps not accurately)

When I think of samurai - I think light amour, made of laminated wood. High moral. Charges (on foot). Ki screams. Experienced, and fast on initiative.

I think my take on Jomon would be:

1. Make the units take fewer resources. Wood and cloth are a lot easier to shape into armor than steel
2. Perhaps give them a paralyze special attack (Ki yell) - good once per combat.

Finally, it would be cool, if on the death of their leader they routed from combat (or commited sepuku). Aka, they route if the leader they serve on dies or routes.

Finally, since they were a professional combat force, perhaps make it easier for them to gain experience, or some of them with experience. Or, let a Jomon fort GIVE experience to any units garrisoned there.

[JimMorrison]

Hmmm, I'd say just simulate the particularly intensive martial training, by boosting both Att and Def by +1.

Small resource drop (maybe reduction of 3 or 4?) to all infantry would make it easier to field armies of useful size (and greatly help with initial expansion).

Also, while you may come up with convincing arguments why samurai armors should be AS encumbering as metal plate, I'm hard pressed to understand why they should be moreso.

[Endoperez]

Here's some comparisons between Samurai armors and others (prot, def, enc, res):

Samurai Armor: 14; -2; 3; 10
Full Scale Mail: 14; -3; 3; 12

Heavy Samurai Armor: 17; -3; 4; 14
Plate Hauberk: 17; -3; 4; 20

Kabuto (Helmet): 16; 0; 0; 6
Half Helmet: 17; 0; 0; 3

The helmet takes way too many resources, but
the basic Samurai armor is actually resource-cheap, and Samurai Armor allows mapmove 2 (unlike Full Scale).

Just lower Kabuto cost to 3, and Samurai Archers are 23, Samurai without bows 18 and 20 resources, Samurai in heavy armor 23.

[Sombre]

Kabuto are significantly more ornate, which I guess is where the res cost comes from.

They could still be 4 or 5 though, rather than 6.

[Endoperez]

I just did a little test on one of my existing mods-under-construction, and I'd like to say that the following changes make for Samurai with very different feel from other heavy infantries:

Kabuto: rcost 3, def 1
Samurai Armor: def 0
Heavy Samurai Armor: def -1

Samurai with naginata (18 res): prot 14 def 12
Samurai with katana (21): prot 14 def 14
In heavy samurai armor (25): prot 16 def 14
Aka-oni (red devil) (21): prot 14 def 16

Opinions on if this would actually help them, or just make them different without really affecting the balance?

[Endoperez]

Kabuto are significantly more ornate, which I guess is where the res cost comes from.

They could still be 4 or 5 though, rather than 6.

Wikipedia claims that they were done by riveting lots of small metal plates together. Then during a spesific period of civil war (had to make lots of helmets quickly, I guess) they simplified the design so that they were made from just few plates. At that point, the helmet-makers started adding paper-and-wood ornaments (:eek:) on top of them.
That shouldn't matter though, because samurai in Dominions need a boost, and having to pay for a tower shield (3 res) without getting the benefit doesn't help.

[Agema]

Edit: removed

Sorry, I forgot to go to the end of the file, bit redundant.

[rdonj]

I just did a little test on one of my existing mods-under-construction, and I'd like to say that the following changes make for Samurai with very different feel from other heavy infantries:

Kabuto: rcost 3, def 1
Samurai Armor: def 0
Heavy Samurai Armor: def -1

Samurai with naginata (18 res): prot 14 def 12
Samurai with katana (21): prot 14 def 14
In heavy samurai armor (25): prot 16 def 14
Aka-oni (red devil) (21): prot 14 def 16

Opinions on if this would actually help them, or just make them different without really affecting the balance?

It would definitely help them. As they are samurai have only mediocre defense and prot, though admittedly higher defense than most heavy infantry. But they have no good way of avoiding damage. At least with 14 defense they're avoiding more hits, which would definitely increase their survivability.

[Sombre]

How would you explain something not restricting movement much (hence low or no def penalty) but still encumbering considerably?

[rdonj]

By being heavy but having very free joint movements?

I'm not suggesting that they actually get a huge defense bonus, for what it's worth, just that it would help them a lot at competing as heavy infantry. But they're not heavy infantry, they're shock infantry with ridiculous hit chances and decent damage, capable of killing light and heavy infantry alike. If you look at them in that light they're fine the way they are. The only thing they lack is a recruitable survivability unit.

[MaxWilson]

Ummm. Defense can come from other sources (shield of gleaming gold has a high parry because it's shiny and makes opponents avert their eyes), so maybe it's encumbering but also so garish that it hurts opponents' eyes?

-Max

[Sombre]

Well shields don't actually give defence (or I guess they might, but not through parry), it's just the misleading way it displays on the unit screen. Actually I think several shields reduce defence.

[Endoperez]

I came up with the effect first, liked it, and now I'm trying to come up with an explanation. :p

In this case, the armor's increased defense comes from different focus. This only applies on Jomonese, not Japanese, armors, but I imagine the the armor would be designed so it doesn't hinder the usage of the samurai's preferred weapon. Samurai Armor + broadsword/buckler equals defense penalty, but Samurai Armor + katana does not. Other nations' armor isn't as specialized, because some use swords, others use morningstars, some only use spears, they use different shields etc etc.

[vfb]

I guess it's how you thing about the shield affecting defense. I think shields give additional defense equal to the parry value, but on a shield hit, you still get damaged, minus the protection of the shield.

Even though Lead Shields have good protection, their low parry value means that they are rarely hit, so they don't help much in melee. A Shield of the Accursed should eat a whole lot of hits for you because of the high parry.

[Sombre]

Yes but the parry is only added to defence on melee rolls. It doesn't help against earthquakes, when being trampled etc. In fact with a tower shield for example, it gives a malus to your 'real' defence value in these situations. When compared with weapons and armour, which give defence bonus or malus in all situations, the parry value from shields doesn't come across as 'real' defence.

I personally think the way it's displayed just confuses people.

[vfb]

Thanks, I see what you mean now. And it's nice the way the mechanics are implemented, since it makes sense you can't jump out of the elephant's way with that big steel tower shield strapped to your arm!

[MaxWilson]

Well shields don't actually give defence (or I guess they might, but not through parry), it's just the misleading way it displays on the unit screen. Actually I think several shields reduce defence.

I know, but for our purposes it doesn't matter. The fact that the shield of gleaming gold is better at deflecting *arrows* because it's shiny is actually even weirder than if it boosted defense directly.

-Max

[Endoperez]

Well shields don't actually give defence (or I guess they might, but not through parry), it's just the misleading way it displays on the unit screen. Actually I think several shields reduce defence.

I know, but for our purposes it doesn't matter. The fact that the shield of gleaming gold is better at deflecting *arrows* because it's shiny is actually even weirder than if it boosted defense directly.

-Max

Silver Hauberk works the same way. I presume it's so shiny arrows can't see it and go right past.

[Agema]

The defence/parry will reflect that the glare partially blinds the archer or melee unit, I imagine, making them hard to target. Although that does leave a logic gap about why it still works against blind units.

[Sombre]

Who says the shield of gleaming gold is better at parrying arrows because it's shiny? It's just that it's a magic shield.

The only reason people associate shields and defence at all is the way it's displayed on the unit screen. If weapon damage was added on to strength in the display you'd get the same thing there. Fortunately it isn't, so it's less confusing.

[JimMorrison]

Who says the shield of gleaming gold is better at parrying arrows because it's shiny? It's just that it's a magic shield.

The only reason people associate shields and defence at all is the way it's displayed on the unit screen. If weapon damage was added on to strength in the display you'd get the same thing there. Fortunately it isn't, so it's less confusing.

Pretty sure they mean the Shield of Valor, which gives you Air Shield (like the also mentioned Silver Hauberk).

The irony being that in many cases, these missiles are fired somewhat "blind" anyways, just arced in the general direction of potential enemies..... Yet they miss the pretty armor every time. ;)

[Sombre]

Does the item description say the air shield effect is because the item is shiny? It seems more like they just, you know, give an air shield.

[MaxWilson]

Who says the shield of gleaming gold is better at parrying arrows because it's shiny? It's just that it's a magic shield.


The description strongly implies that the shininess is what gives it its high parry. You'll see the same thing for other high-parry shields like the Shield of the Accursed (?). High parry also gives good missile protection.

-Max

[KissBlade]

Bah, regardless, the whole point of this post was to say that that theme should not overtake balance.

[Redeyes]

How fun is a discussion when everyone agrees ;)?
Que someone who disagrees:

[vfb]

Who says the shield of gleaming gold is better at parrying arrows because it's shiny? It's just that it's a magic shield.


The description strongly implies that the shininess is what gives it its high parry. You'll see the same thing for other high-parry shields like the Shield of the Accursed (?). High parry also gives good missile protection.

-Max

But that's not at all how they should affect missile defense, if the mechanism is through interfering with the archer's vision. The shield should reduce the precision of any archer targeting the square the Gold/Accursed-Shielded unit is in. The shield should not be more effective against arrows coincidentally falling into the space where the unit is standing.

[JimMorrison]

Who says the shield of gleaming gold is better at parrying arrows because it's shiny? It's just that it's a magic shield.


The description strongly implies that the shininess is what gives it its high parry. You'll see the same thing for other high-parry shields like the Shield of the Accursed (?). High parry also gives good missile protection.

-Max

But that's not at all how they should affect missile defense, if the mechanism is through interfering with the archer's vision. The shield should reduce the precision of any archer targeting the square the Gold/Accursed-Shielded unit is in. The shield should not be more effective against arrows coincidentally falling into the space where the unit is standing.

Shield of Gleaming Gold is not a specifically anti-missile shield, it's is just fast, and heavily enchanted. The "shiny" part of this description is for the Awe effect, causing melee attackers to "avert their eyes" and miss the opportunity to strike.

Silver Hauberk "distracts the eyes of the enemy", such that missiles rarely hit - this is a bit odd to me, for reasons you describe.

Shield of Valor says "Symbols of power are inscribed on the surface of this shield to protect the bearer from missiles". So, totally unshiny reason for deflection there.

Interestingly, Valor is 8 Parry + 80% Air Shield, while Gleaming Gold is simply 9 Parry. You are virtually immune to missile fire with Shield of Valor..... simply well protected by Gleaming Gold, because it's a good shield.

[MaxWilson]

Well shields don't actually give defence (or I guess they might, but not through parry), it's just the misleading way it displays on the unit screen. Actually I think several shields reduce defence.

I know, but for our purposes it doesn't matter. The fact that the shield of gleaming gold is better at deflecting *arrows* because it's shiny is actually even weirder than if it boosted defense directly.

-Max

But that's not at all how they should affect missile defense, if the mechanism is through interfering with the archer's vision. The shield should reduce the precision of any archer targeting the square the Gold/Accursed-Shielded unit is in. The shield should not be more effective against arrows coincidentally falling into the space where the unit is standing.

Precisely, vfb.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

The description strongly implies that the shininess is what gives it its high parry.


Shield of Gleaming Gold is not a specifically anti-missile shield, it's is just fast, and heavily enchanted. The "shiny" part of this description is for the Awe effect, causing melee attackers to "avert their eyes" and miss the opportunity to strike.


Other high-parry shields like Aegis and the Shield of the Accursed have similar notation about how they're hard to look at, in addition to their other effects. It appears to me that they're trying to explain why they get such an insanely good Parry.

But okay, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not KO or JO or anything.

-Max

[JimMorrison]

The description strongly implies that the shininess is what gives it its high parry.


Shield of Gleaming Gold is not a specifically anti-missile shield, it's is just fast, and heavily enchanted. The "shiny" part of this description is for the Awe effect, causing melee attackers to "avert their eyes" and miss the opportunity to strike.


Other high-parry shields like Aegis and the Shield of the Accursed have similar notation about how they're hard to look at, in addition to their other effects. It appears to me that they're trying to explain why they get such an insanely good Parry.

But okay, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not KO or JO or anything.

-Max


Aegis does not say that. Only other shield IIRC that says any such thing, is the Shield of the Accursed, which DOES have absurdly high Parry, and states that it is "painful to look upon". But again, I don't think that is intended to allude to missile blocking, but rather melee parries. I'm having a hard time believing that the runes are SO painful to "look in the general direction of" that they are really intended to be affecting archers at 100 yards. :p

[MaxWilson]

I'm AFC so I can't check/quote the Aegis description. Oh well, such is life.

We agree, though, that the fact that the Shield of the Accursed gives good protection against missiles is an unintended side-effect of its thematically good "defense" (in the form of melee parry). Ergo, stat bonuses don't always correlate perfectly with thematic intent and that's okay; so a defense bonus to Jomon armor doesn't strictly-speaking have to denote better mobility. It could denote spikes or something that the enemy would try to avoid impaling itself on, etc., and even if that gave you more ability to avoid an Earthquake it would be okay--even canonical items have problems.

And KissBlade is right that this is *still* massively OT from his original post. Fine. I propose that all cap-only mages should become recruitable-anywhere. Hmmm. I should mod that into my game. It would certainly make me more willing to play 80% of the nations out there.

-Max

[Sombre]

How is that supposed to be moving things back on topic?

And wouldn't that just reduce the variety in the game and the distinction between nations?

[JimMorrison]

I wouldn't mind if a bit of extra attention were given to those nations who had strong cap only mages. Basically to either reduce the cost of those slightly, or to somehow slightly (I mean -slightly-) improve the non-cap mages. Of course, only for those who can use such a change in the name of balance/realism. For example, T'ien Ch'i already has adequate non-cap mages for their price, to offset their amazing cap only mages, whereas EA Agartha and the 'Heims (aside from Niefel) have very poor cost/effect choices outside of their capital.

I'm having trouble finding ways to balance out the giants in general terms, without completely gutting their thematic essence..... The only thing I can think of, other than the types of nerfs we mostly see (mostly increased costs?), is to just reduce them in size a bit. I mean, in realistic terms, we consider anyone above 7' to be a giant in the real world, so I'm not sure if in game terms, a Niefel Giant absolutely must be size 6. If most giants dropped a size category (with a small reduction in hp/str to coincide), it might go a fair way towards the balance between thematic power, and overall game viability.

[thejeff]

If most giants dropped a size category, it would be nice boost.
Neifels are already size 5.
Dropping the other giants from 4 to 3 would let 2 of them fit in a square and drastically reduce their swarming issues. Obviously, dropping hp/str might compensate for this.
I don't think the size/hp/str is really the problem with giants. If anything, their troops are usually consider poor already. The cold aura combined with staying power from E9N9 bless is the only real strength of the Neifel Giants.

Both Jotunheim and Utgard also have excellent mages outside their capital. Skratti are excellent mages and thugs in any age. Vaetti hags are cheap and so useful. Seithkonar are also cost-effective and very nice. Cheap Nether Dart spammers, if nothing else.

[JimMorrison]

Pardon, Niefel Giants are indeed size 5 currently, I meant to say Niefel Jarls didn't necessarily need to be size 6. :p


And I think you downplay the effect a bit. Yes, it would make their line troops a bit better if they dropped to size 3, which of course would be nicely balanced by a slight reduction in stats. However, one of the cornerstones of the power of the giant nations, is the incredible benefits that they get from Nature blesses. Any reduction in base HP will be reflected by a commensurate reduction in regen rates, and that is a very big deal, even in the case of the aforementioned Skratti thugs. As an aside, I don't think too many people would argue if Niefel Jarl Chill auras were reduced a bit, each one is about 3x as potent as the aura from an Ice Devil (the Lords and Generals of Kokytos!), who could probably use a slight increase as well. Perhaps Ice Devils AND Niefel Jarls could both compromise at Chill (10).

[thejeff]

Just to continue to pick that nit, the Jarls are size 5 also.

I'd hate to see all the giants made less giant, for lack of a better term, just to reduce the bonus some of them get from regen. And while we may consider someone 7' a giant today, we also still consider them human. Giants of myth were always big.

I'd agree about the Chill aura. I'd forgotten it was that high. That would be the best nerf to Neifelhiem, weakening its early game without really changing its less impressive mid/late game or the much less feared later giant nations.

[Wrana]

The problem with chill aura is probably that it scales very good with cold Dominion. When Niefels attacked my Lanka in recent SP, for example, aura was closer to 3 iirc. So your own strong (hot) Dominion provides fair protection. At the same time, Ice Devils would probably have to operate in more temperate climate than Niefels. I am not sure whether their aura scales with temperature less than with Niefel. If so, it should be fixed, but probably main effect is due to Dominion difference...

[chrispedersen]

*If* giants existed in BC times?

Of course they did and do.. they just have absurdly high stealth values. Sheesh!

But where do you think sayings like.. he was a giant among men... come from???

[MaxWilson]

The problem with chill aura is probably that it scales very good with cold Dominion. When Niefels attacked my Lanka in recent SP, for example, aura was closer to 3 iirc. So your own strong (hot) Dominion provides fair protection. At the same time, Ice Devils would probably have to operate in more temperate climate than Niefels. I am not sure whether their aura scales with temperature less than with Niefel. If so, it should be fixed, but probably main effect is due to Dominion difference...

Even the base chill on Niefel Jarls is something like 17. On regular Niefels it's 15 or so. Your Lanka territory must have been *extremely* hot.

-Max

[JimMorrison]

The Chill on the Niefel Giants is much smaller than that, I believe it's 6 base, so in 3 Heat should be down to 3. That's not so much a problem, as the Jarls, though still painful when you meet them en masse.

[MaxWilson]

According to the recruitment screen, Niefel Jarls are Chill (18) and Niefel Giants are Chill (15). Their chill is pretty ferocious.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

The description strongly implies that the shininess is what gives it its high parry.


Shield of Gleaming Gold is not a specifically anti-missile shield, it's is just fast, and heavily enchanted. The "shiny" part of this description is for the Awe effect, causing melee attackers to "avert their eyes" and miss the opportunity to strike.


Other high-parry shields like Aegis and the Shield of the Accursed have similar notation about how they're hard to look at, in addition to their other effects. It appears to me that they're trying to explain why they get such an insanely good Parry.

But okay, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not KO or JO or anything.

-Max


Aegis does not say that. Only other shield IIRC that says any such thing, is the Shield of the Accursed, which DOES have absurdly high Parry, and states that it is "painful to look upon". But again, I don't think that is intended to allude to missile blocking, but rather melee parries. I'm having a hard time believing that the runes are SO painful to "look in the general direction of" that they are really intended to be affecting archers at 100 yards. :p

Aegis does say that.

"This is a round shield of hardened leather with tufts of goat hair surrounding its edge. Upon the leather surface, the unknown maker painted an extremely vivid image of the Medusa. The image is so vivid that anyone who meets the mad gaze of the painted eyes will be instantly petrified. Anyone fighting the Aegis-bearer will thus have trouble watching and predicting the Aegis-bearer's moves as he tries to avoid the leering face of the Medusa." Emphasis added.

-Max

[JimMorrison]

Dammit, this thread has me running around in circles. :p I specifically went and looked at the description for..... Barrier. :doh:

And I admit defeat on the subject of the Niefels as well (size and chill). I will endeavor to stop using crack to sweeten my coffee, they always said it would catch up to me. :o

Though I have to say, in the case of Aegis, it's not that it's painful to look at or some such, you simply can't or you will die. You would think the enemy army would keel over in droves as they gazed in the general direction of the Aegis (or a Gorgon).