We need to discuss leader picks, before anything else. I have been discussing picks with Qgqqqq through PMs, Serdoa, which I'll post here for you to read. The short version of it, though, is the following pick list:
1. Khazad - not sure about which leader, there's a FIN/AGG/Inegnuity and a IND/ORG/Ingenuity
2. Doviello - Mahala
3. Sheaim - Os Gabella (subject to change)
I was the one supporting the Khazad pick, because I want to try again with them. The problem with the Khazad is that they are not suited for any kind of victory condition. ToM is out of the question, domination is nerfed due to the Vault mechanics, Conquest has much of the same drawbacks of Domination. Altar is a possibility, albeit they don't have anything pointing to it (no spiritual, no philosophical). Culture and Religious aren't even considered victory conditions by many.
So, it'll be a big challenge to win a game with them, but a challenge I'm willing to take. The settings actually help us a bit, since high difficulty means lower rates of expansions (that's good, since we don't want to expand that much). The main thing about the game will be: let's do our best, even if that's not enough to win.
That being said, here's the PMs I exchanged with Qgqqqq:
Ichabod:
Quote:I'm thinking of:
1. Khazad - not sure yet about what leader. Industrious received a powerful buff and Financial a nerf, somewhat. But I really like agressive. I'll have to think about it.
2. Sheaim - Os Gabella (I prefer Spiritual over Arcane)
3. Doviello - Mahala
These are not power picks, I just think they'd be fun to play. And I want to revisit the Khazad after I lost with them on FfH VI. Do you have any preferences?
Qg:
Quote:Cool.
Of them all I probably enjoy mahala the most, as I like the traits and some of the Civ stuff is cool (I love not need ing buildings).
Khazad I don't play well as I'm too inclined to rexing and os gabella feels too anti synergy to me.
Also as Maddox mentioned somewhere in 25 its the one trait without any help to economy/direct military (it needs mage to work).
Ichabod:
Quote:Ok, so I'll change orders and place Mahala in teh second spot. I still want to get the Khazad, it's more of a personal thing than anything else. I feel like I own them a better game. And this game actually seems to be decent for them, with high maintenance and all that. I feel like going tall make actually work here. Besides, point is to have fun, not winning at all costs.
So, we could do a quick expansion to 2 or 3 cities, than we go for cash + some wonders. After that, we expand a bit more.
Ah, I think we can go for Fellowship of the Leaves as our religion, now that we can build lumbermills on ancient forests. smile And after that, Dwarven Druids!
Qg:
Quote:Don't feel the need to change for me!
Yeah I think khazad will be fun - I'll try them (sp) next.
I will say that the strength of khazad is weighted by the capital - if its like '14 wed have a disadvantage - not worth changing a bout but something worth considering if we get to see the cap early.
Ichabod:
Quote:Regarding picks, what Khazad leader do you think is best? I'm leaning more towards Kandros Fir (AGG/FIN/ING), not Arthurus (ORG/IND/ING).
My thinking is the following: we are not going to expand that much, since the difficulty will be high and our civ doesn't like it that much. So, ORG won't help that much economically. Meanwhile, financial, even if nerfed, would allow us to spend less time on 100% gold for the vaults (which we'll have to do sometime, either way).
IND, while helpful, also has smaller bonuses than usual for the Khazad. The forge bonus would be negated if we get the Guild of Hammers (free forge on every city), which we likely want (well, you could say that, if we are going to have just a few cities, it isn't worth it - it's a good argument, but I think we'd want it for denial either way). The Wonder bonus is nice, but not needed with our extra production. And the worker bonus isn't so significant in FfH, seeing as there's no slavery and we'll need less workers in general.
Agressive will also help a lot with what I think is our main way of winning the game: conquest. The Khazad aren't really suited for any kind of victory, not even domination/conquest, but that's probably the best we can do. It also helps a lot in the early game, to fend of the barbarian invasions (the first warrior combat against a barb is very important, because after you get some xp, the powerful promotions make you get very high odds). ORG actually has a impact in late game possible conquest, though, since it enables Command Posts to be built freely.
In the end, both leaders would be very good and I'm having difficulty deciding between them (to the point of almost just throwing a coin to choose). Kandros was way better than Arthurus in the original FfH, but there have been a lot of changes lately. In the end, though, we need to get in this game with the spirit of having fun and trying our best, because the Khazad are a Civ designed to lose, it seems. So it doesn't really matter how powerful our leader is, we just need to make use of his traits.
It's either that or picking Mahala and the Doviello. neenerneener (yeah, I'm a fairly indecisive person).
What do you think?
Qg:
Quote:Yeah I definitely am leaning Kandros Fir (I've never played a game as them tho) for two reasons:
Firstly financial is going to be big for amassing gold, an advantage that I think trumps ORG for the small khazad empires, while the military function of ORG id put as inferior to aggressive - especially when we'll have less cities, and thus less needingCP.
Secondly I feel that IND primary advantage is the fast start which disappears relatively quickly before the others, and requires hammer working yo be put to its advantage - which is generally weaker in the farm based early game. IND also loses out a bit in FFH as they're aren't the same awesome wonders in the early game (late game tech matters more).
Its definitely tough though. I agree about the weakness of khazad (there was a discussion about it in one of the 26 threads that I'll forward to you). I think that they're actually a case where raw financial is appropriate tbh.
Still I think they'll be fun to play.
On which note, what eco do you want?
I get the feeling we'll want to go cottage economy, but it depends on the situation I suppose.
---
Of course, after I've sent the messages to Qg I did a quick test with Arthurus and he seemed really powerful. Let's see:
1. Industrious bonus on workers is easier to get, since the Palace gives 1 hammer in FfH.
2. Industrious gives bonus to National Wonders, which means the Brewing House can be built earlier
3. Smelting is way cheaper in EitB, which means we can get to Dwarven forges earlier in the game.
So, I'm completely undecided regarding leaders yet again.
I'm thinking about a cottage economy, yes. A cottage + hammer economy, not so much a food + aristocracy. But I'll do a more complete post later today.
Okay discussion so far:
Edit: spoilered for x post
Q Wrote:What Civ you thinking.of for '27?
Also: how involved do you want me to be? I can be as much (short of playing the saves regularly) or as little as you want (basically check mardocs 25 for as little, or pb9 for as much.)
Ichabod Wrote:I'm thinking of:
1. Khazad - not sure yet about what leader. Industrious received a powerful buff and Financia a nerf, somewhat. But I really like agressive. I'll have to think about it.
2. Sheaim - Os Gabella (I prefer Spiritual over Arcane)
3. Doviello - Mahala
These are not power picks, I just think they'd be fun to play. And I want to revisit the Khazad after lost with them on FfH VI. Do you have any preferences?
I'd say you should be involved as much as you want. I think my game improves when I have someone to bounce ideas with, because I tend to lose focus pretty easily. Besides, if you don't chim in regularly, there's a chance I won't keep up with the updates. So I'd prefer an active ded-lurker rather than a more quiet one.
Ichabod Wrote:Ok, so I'll change orders and place Mahala in teh second spot. I still want to get the Khazad, it's more of a personal thing than anything else. I feel like I own them a better game. And this game actually seems to be decent for them, with high maintenance and all that. I feel like going tall make actually work here. Besides, point is to have fun, not winning at all costs.
So, we could do a quick expansion to 2 or 3 cities, than we go for cash + some wonders. After that, we expand a bit more.
Ah, I think we can go for Fellowship of the Leaves as our religion, now that we can build lumbermills on ancient forests. And after that, Dwarven Druids!
Q Wrote:Yeah I think khazad will be fun - I'll try them (sp) next. I will say that the strength of khazad is weighted by the capital - if its like '14 wed have a disadvantage - not worth changing a bout but something worth considering if we get to see the cap early.
Why do you want 5 so much?
Maps are soooo much easier to do for 4 IMO (I didn't realise this until I started making '26), and turn pace should be more constant, and blitzes easier. I mean the one more player factor means id never say no to 5, but Id definitely be satisfies with 4.
ichabod Wrote:Well, I think 5 makes up for a better game, it's not so symmetrical like a 4 player game. But that's just a matter of opinion, of course.
Regarding picks, what Khazad leader do you think is best? I'm leaning more towards Kandros Fir (AGG/FIN/ING), not Arthurus (ORG/IND/ING).
My thinking is the following: we are not going to expand that much, since the difficulty will be high and our civ doesn't like it that much. So, ORG won't help that much economically. Meanwhile, financial, even if nerfed, would allow us to spend less time on 100% gold for the vaults (which we'll have to do sometime, either way).
IND, while helpful, also has smaller bonuses than usual for the Khazad. The forge bonus would be negated if we get the Guild of Hammers (free forge on every city), which we likely want (well, you could say that, if we are going to have just a few cities, it isn't worth it - it's a good argument, but I think we'd want it for denial either way). The Wonder bonus is nice, but not needed with our extra production. And the worker bonus isn't so significant in FfH, seeing as there's no slavery and we'll need less workers in general.
Agressive will also help a lot with what I think is our main way of winning the game: conquest. The Khazad aren't really suited for any kind of victory, not even domination/conquest, but that's probably the best we can do. It also helps a lot in the early game, to fend of the barbarian invasions (the first warrior combat against a barb is very important, because after you get some xp, the powerful promotions make you get very high odds). ORG actually has a impact in late game possible conquest, though, since it enables Command Posts to be built freely.
In the end, both leaders would be very good and I'm having difficulty deciding between them (to the point of almost just throwing a coin to choose). Kandros was way better than Arthurus in the original FfH, but there have been a lot of changes lately. In the end, though, we need to get in this game with the spirit of having fun and trying our best, because the Khazad are a Civ designed to lose, it seems. So it doesn't really matter how powerful our leader is, we just need to make use of his traits.
It's either that or picking Mahala and the Doviello. (yeah, I'm a fairly indecisive person).
What do you think?
Q Wrote:Yeah I definitely am leaning Kandro Fir (I've never played a game as the tho) for two reasons: Firstly financial is going to be big fo amassing gold, an advantage that I think trumps ORG for the small khazad empires, while the military function of ORG id put as inferior to aggressive - especially when we'll have less cities, and thus less needingCP. Secondly I feel that IND primary advantage is the fast start which disappears relatively quickly before the others, and requires hammer working yo be put to its advantage -which is generally weaker in the farm based early game. IND also loses out a bit in FFH as they're are the same awesome wonders in the early game (late game tech matters more).
Its definitely tough though. I agree about the weakness of khazad (ther was a discussion about it in one of the 26 threads that I'll forward to you). I think that they're actually a case where raw financial is appropriate tbh. Still I think they'll be fun to play.
On which note, what eco do you want? I get the feeling we'll want to go cottage economy, but it depends on the situation I suppose.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Khazad also get free magic resistance on all units, iirc.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
Thanks for post the conversation Ichabod. As for win conditions: I think culture is viable, but it does need a specialized approach which I think Khazad aren't the worst for. Not the best either (thats pretty certainly Sidar), but definitely doable. Issue is more or less though that it does take its time and if you can defend while doing your culture-push, you probably could attack and win Conquest as well. Biggest issue seems to be that there are not many buildings to push the culture-multiplier. Without the Lyre the probably in reality achievable seems to be ~200%. Thats unfortunately not very much. But I think 200 culture / turn in a city is doable, so you'd look at around 600 culture per turn. So with some pre-produced culture + 20 turns time + 4 GAs per city produced (probably trying to get at least 1 GA here to produce more of them) you can push 3 cities from ~1500 to 25000. I'd assume that most players pick it up at least within 3-5 turns of you starting it. And then it depends on their standing military and how long they take to reach you. I'd assume at least another 5 turns in most cases and then they have to slog through your culture hopefully. You only need to devote your 3 culture-cities to the approach, so you should be able to produce defenders all the time from other cities (thats now where Khazad do not shine, because they shouldn't have many). Well, and then you need to keep them from razing your culture-cities for 10 more turns.
And on a non-toroid, non-artificial map, chances are good that not everyone can reach you, so it is not like everyone can rush to stop you.
Anyhow, I would definitely agree with your first pick Khazad, no matter the victory condition. Probably the FIN-leader, ORG/IND really does not seem to offer much for the Khazad approach imo. INDs nice of course, but there are really not that many good wonders and as Khazad you should have good production and you should be able to earn a GE on the way to rush one or the other if necessary.
Sheaim I really dislike, I just don't see what they are actually supposed to be. Pyre Zombies were imo bad in FFH2 (against Humans) and are even worse now in EitB. And apart from those I don't see Sheaim offering anything that other races aren't offering as well, but just better (Calabim for example, which are not banned imo).
Doviello are a rush civ I think. Never tried to play with them, but I think they suffer in MP from the issue that their strenght is to attack early, but even if that attack succeeds, the might still find themselves behind those that simply expanded. Also if the map does have around 250 tiles / player, there is no point in rushing someone early on. But if you do not do that, whats the point of Doviello?
So that said, I am not certain if Calabim are banned, Sidar I do think are not (even though they really should have). Though I understand that you'd rather try one of the less played races. What about Grigori in that case? We still have to see those being played in a sensible way and culture would definitely be doable with them (heck, use Ardor after you produced the first 10 GAs to produce another 10 = 7 GA or 17500 culture per city. You'll only get 140%-modifier on your culture-production, but thats still 480 / turn and you'll only need around 6000 (assuming 1500 pre-push), so probably 13 turns, biggest issue is to get the GAs produced, you'd probably have to get some of them on the same turn, what is doable but needs to take into account which city is processed at which point if I remember correctly).
Apart from them Elohim, Amurites and Kuriotates are imo also all races that are definitely possible to play to a win (not necessarily culture) and do all add imo more than Doviello or Sheaim. But that might just be me disliking those 2
Doviello had some nice buffs in EitB. They can upgrade their units anywhere on the map and they don't require buildings to produce troops. Besides, Mahala has Ingenuity, further increasing the power of upgrades (and she was buffed with the Expansive trait, making an actually interesting leader). At any rate, I doubt someone will pick the Khazad, so all this discussion will end up being moot.
I'll change the Sheaim for the Amurites, I think, since they are yet to win a game or get a good display too. Both ded-lurkers don't like the Sheaim, so there's no point on choosing them. I prefer Dain as the leader, PHI beats ORG/Ingenuity, I think.
---
Culture is definetely a possibility with the Khazad. First, because I think we can manage to get the Lyre and other wonders we could want. And Khazad are a pretty defensive civ, with powerful catapults and a very defensive hero. + the Magic Resistant trait, which is actually pretty nice. They lack mobility in the attack, but that's not so bad with roads, when on the defensive.
Problem with culture is that you need to really commit to that early and base your plan around it. And culture is not that fun. Maybe use it as a contingency plan, if things aren't going our way.
---
Is difficult to decide between the traits, but I guess FIN/AGG ends up winning. ORG will have reduced value if we don't expand a lot and the 20% military will be overkill, if we get all the Khazad production bonuses. IND is very nice, but not a game changer either. Our workers are already faster (3 turns to build a farm, as opposed to 4 turns to other civs), so we actually have a bit of a faster start anyway.
FIN was nerfed, but if it helps one civ, that's probably the Khazad. And AGG is really powerful in FfH. Our units are stronger from the get go and they can easily get the "counter" promotions. Besides, we'll have it on almost every kind of troops. Fast Siege Workshops is not bad either.
My plan, as far as I went, is the following: expand normally (i.e. like if we weren't playing with the Khazad) until a reasonable number of cities, between 4 or 6, depending on good locations possible. Probably use the World Spell when possible to get the reasonable gold needed to expand (<50 gold per city gives us 2 unhappy faces per city, which is really bad), which would be 300g with 6 cities.
After we expand reasonably and we got some techs that enable good wonders and buildings that we want to build, we should probably go 100% gold (also, after we have gold multiplyers up, especially consuption and GK civics, moneychangers - which are doubled by financial) until we have the Khazad bonuses up.
After we reach the gold, enter full building mode, especially gunning for the Guild of Hammers, the wonder that gives free forges to cities. Meanwhile, start teching again at our break even ratio.
Finally, when we are done with all the building, start expanding again and getting rid of all the gold we accumulated, be it on a last push of research, unit upgrades, cash rushes... Trying to do a last push to win the game. Of course, if that's not possible, we can turtle up and start getting some culture :P .
*Interesting fact: Dwarven Cannons are a 10/7 collateral unit (+60% collateral max), with 60% withdrawal chance, can be promoted to mobility AND THEY CAN KILL A UNIT. That's really massive... Add some repair adepts and...
---
Of course, even after writing this plan, it's still kind of obvious that the Khazad bonus is not really worth its cost. Most of the times, it's just a hassle. But there's something... dragging me to the Khazad. I want to give them a go again.
What would have been your picks if you were playing, Serdoa?
By the way, my proposed picks:
Kandros Fir of the Khazad
Mahala of the Doviello
Dain of the Amurites
Khazad are really just needing some emphasis on gold-production. Plan for City of a Thousand Slums to get at least one city to a 3-tile radius. And plan for bigger cities instead of many. Apart from that I'd probably wait for what the others pick before deciding what is the best gameplan.
Btw: I think your tech-path is getting you very close to what you need for culture anyway. So if you ever feel in the game that you want to go that direction I am sure we can make it work.
If I had played I probably would have gone for CoE, Amurites, Grigori. Though there are a few others I could see interesting game-ideas for as well - and of course what you said about Doviello makes them interesting too. It is a shame that it is so hard to find out what the civs and leaders actually do. Was a real hassle in FFH2 already and it isn't better in EitB I feel. Or is there anywhere a complete list of all the specialities for every civ?
Don't think so.
There's the changelog, but precious little more.
Did a quick game - firstly I love aggressive dwarven warriors and dwarven workers
Secondly though, crafting start + deity/standard makes for a very slow start if there's no wines.
If I was picking I think id do some combo of amurites/malakim and sidar.
I agree with serdoa on sheaim - they're rushers and nothing else.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
