Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Race & Unit Balance Thread

  1. #11
    Arcane Candidate
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorfindel7 View Post
    Well, I have not played as humans so my view of spearmen is largely that I can take out a few spearmen with an archer and a druid with little or no risk, seldom even taking any damage. For human (and dwarven cities), I always supplement the base garrisons with a couple of archers. Archers make everyone better. In my conquered human cities, I almost never build swordsmen - so I agree with that part of it. However, spearmen remain 'arrow fodder' against elves.
    True. The sooner you can get ranged units, the better. I mostly am concerned with the early game anyway, since I've seen that even without any AI, when they had the builds with the swarming neutral armies, you could easily lose the game quickly if you had no summoning spells. The chief threats were, Ranged units, Flying units, and werewolves, in that order. An army of a dozen elven archers could capture any city, simply because defense is harder than attack in this game, and because ranged units are overly powerful. No one can afford to have more than 2 or 3 defenders per city in the early game, if even that (generally, for the first 60 or so turns, it's not easy to have even one defender per city, other than the natural city defenses). Granted, a summoning wizard can do better on defense. But as I've pointed out on the steam forums, not every wizard gets a summoning spell, nor should they have to in order to be viable (if the only wizards that are viable in the game have summoning spells, then every wizard should have summoning by default).

  2. #12
    Mage of the Lesser Tower
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    253
    I think ranged magical units should be making 'ranged touch attack' rolls - are they currently?

  3. #13
    Developer Hoverdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Boat City
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Yco View Post
    I think ranged magical units should be making 'ranged touch attack' rolls - are they currently?
    No, but they ignore penalties for distance.

  4. #14
    Mage’s Assistant
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    113
    I've always had magical tools to deal with ranged units (namely summoned Zombies), and I could at least have units that could retaliate against flying units when attacked and win the day. Ranged units may be strong, but the chief threat for me has been Werewolves without contest.

    I'm personally less scared of a dozen elven archers than a single unit of Werewolves.

  5. #15
    Sorcerer of the Lesser Tower
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    76
    my response to ranged units is traditionally to cast walking bomb on a central unit, and then focus fire it. of course I tend to take elves.

  6. #16
    Arcane Candidate
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1
    So, both of my starts (Draconian and High Men) are being wiped out by huge wandering 'neutral' armies larger than my economy could support, equiped with magic far beyond the capacity of my own Mage. This is a little like street people driving M1s. The only AI 'player' I've encountered refuses to talk to me and is also being wiped out by huge neutral armies. I sense a problem...

    ... well, I sense a 'I really don't want to play this game' issue.

  7. #17
    This was mentioned on the STEAM forums: Golems (the dwarven unit) should get a Reach attack. It makes sense since they're so big, and honestly, the unit is a little on the weak side anyway. I give this idea a strong +1.
    My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/

  8. #18
    I'd like to see the Javelineer and Tracker switched for the Draconians as far as which is the lower tier unit. This would make Javelineers the militia unit and thus, it would be a littler harder IMO to take Draconian cities. I don't want WoM to fall into the trap where a single super stack of units can easily run over all the cities of the world. If the Draconians got a range unit for their militia, I feel their cities would pose a steeper challenge to players, and that's a good thing! I also feel this would make battles in Draconian cities more interactive, which again, is a good thing.

    I'd also like to see Cold Immunity added to constructs and Fire Vulnerability and Acid Vulnerability added to all siege engines.
    Last edited by Troy_Costisick; 02-08-2015 at 11:18 PM.
    My RPG Design and Theory Blog: http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/

  9. #19
    Archmage of the Central Tower Happerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,770
    I'd say only the wooden siege engines. I don't think Bombardier Beetles are going to be weaker then normal to fire and acid, for example. And Rune Cannons are made out of Steel, so again, no real reason for those weaknesses. But I can see it for Rams and Catapults.
    The Wiki.

  10. #20
    Arcane Candidate
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1
    Came here to voice an opinion on race balance, but Glorfindel hit the nail on the head. So, instead, going to focus on adding my opinions to his.
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorfindel7 View Post
    - Draconians are in general overpowered, simply because the AI doesn't deal with flying units very well. They are pretty fragile if you actually have to attack anything and their ranged unit sucks. But early on, Draconian neutrals are the biggest threat (speed kills). And their high end unit is actually good. In general, Trackers are too similar to Hunters and Javelineers (sp?) should be a bit better but value/cost/performance are pretty well balanced
    Haven't played with these guys much, so not as sure on how the AI handles flying, but I agree 100% that their early units are very boring (similar to each other).
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorfindel7 View Post
    - Humans: just so darn vanilla. Pikemen have value, Paladins are good, spearmen are 'cannon' fodder, swordsmen are slightly better/less useless - but only slightly, crossbowmen hardly ever hit anything and don't do much damage when they do, clerics are OK. Use them as garrison troops because their more useful early units are slow and not that good. Do have Paladins in later mobile armies. The 'internal' cost/value balance is OK but they are by far the weakest army in the game - and least fun to play.
    I personally think Spearmen are in a good spot, but could probably use a slight boost (perhaps First Strike, since they have freaking spears?). I find Swordsmen useless as a second unit. Sure, they're generally better than Spearmen, but early in the game, they aren't "enough" better to be worth building at the cost of the higher upkeep. They're just too similar, honestly. They should be even more focused into a "tank" role (raise the AC a bit more or something).
    Clerics are really useful for the Heal, in terms of keeping an army doing useful stuff. But if you look at their other spells, they're useless. But that's a problem with the spells in the game. Giving two units small bonuses is flat out worse than having another Swordsman in the army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorfindel7 View Post
    - Dwarves: rock hard, good range of units, no real weaknesses (the arbalasteers aren't a great ranged unit but better than crossbowmen or javelineers), really slow but they play/feel like a dwarven army should. Engineers really good at building useless roads.
    I was ready to kill myself the first time I tried Dwarves. They are in DIRE need of a 3 speed "scout" type unit (I don't think that relying on the Magic Spirit makes sense). Their 2 speed units are also really punished by the 2/1/2/1 diagonal movement, since they never get the "discount" unless moving over roads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorfindel7 View Post
    - Elves: the best all round army if only because archers are the most cost effective unit in the game by a very large margin. Druids are not very good; glaive guards are a nice intermediate H2H unit but almost never get made by me (by the time I can make them, I can also make much better units and I dislike building 40 point units in cities with significantly higher production capacity). Faradrax, whatever they may be, are a darn good H2H units who can turn werewolves into dog food. Rangers are hugely overpriced, pathfinder is nice but they are no better a ranged unit than archers (at a huge production and maintenance cost hit) and ranged units who are also good at H2H are generally overpriced - because that is a capability that should seldom be exercised. One Ranger per mobile army, then grit my teeth and produce archers in cities with the capacity to turn out 4per turn, if the game allowed that.Unicorn riders are a really nice tactical unit, especially against ranged units plus charge is nice. But they are pretty fargile against any tough opponent. Pegasi fly and fly fast. Best scouts in the game as neutrals tend not to attack them and higher level ones can hold their own in combat. But they are very pricey for waht they do. Grey mages are a nice magic unit. Their higher movement capability and devastating ranged units make then my mobile lair/neutral conquering mobile armies even if I started with dwarves (because the Prime Plane terrain generator sucks so badly).
    Absolutely agree about the archers. I can accomplish much harder fights with elves than any other race simply because of the dirt cheap (1 food, 0 gold) upkeep on archers (plus they get reflexes!).
    Druid's Acid Arrow is really powerful as well, and they get access to heal. This unit is what human clerics wish they were! The only weakness is that they don't scale with level (if they just gained 2 mana per level, they'd stay somewhat more relevant).
    Rangers are total crap. First off, they do the same damage per member, but have fewer members. So right off, they're worse at range. They get +2 to hit, +2 AC, +5/2/1 saves. And much better starting hp per member. And the one good reason to use them is Pathfinder. But all that together, I'd never put more than 1 of them in any army. They need a 4th squad member so that they actually are *improvements* on Archers - or they need to fill a different role. Currently, they aren't your best range, they aren't your best melee, and they aren't cheap.[/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorfindel7 View Post
    I don't summon, except in desperation, so no real opinion on those units.
    Power/mana is too hard to get to validate most summons, outside in-battle disposable usage.
    For example, spending 5/turn on a Hill Giant is the mana equivilent of 2-3 spells EVERY battle (my exploring/conquering armies rarely fight more than every 3rd turn, simply due to having to walk between locations). And that's before counting the up-front cost to summon it.
    I'd contrast this to Warlock or Warlock 2 (not shining examples of balance, but the summoning works well). Mana is truly a 3rd currency alongside Gold and Food. If you don't use it, you end up with tons of it just laying around. So spell casting and summons fill a very useful role. You've got the mana, might as well make use of it.
    However, in WoM, mana upkeep is effectively dropping your research. If you didn't summon that Hill Giant, you could be gaining an extra 5 research per turn.

    The easiest solution here would be the addition of buildings/units that generate mana (also, some that generate spellcraft directly), akin to the buildings that generate Research. Or changing the +power buildings to generate +mana instead. This would only be a partial solution though, as the mana resource would still be somewhat rare compared to the upkeep and up-front cost of being a summoner.
    My gut instinct would be to have 1 power create 2 mana. And suddenly mana becomes much more common, and sustaining a summoned army becomes viable.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
footer