Elf Gryphons unarmored?

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Update v1.5 – Open Beta General Feedback Elf Gryphons unarmored?

This topic contains 16 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  chrysophylax páuperem 7 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #173456

    Were Elf Gryphon Riders always unarmored? Looks odd since they are clearly wearing exactly the same armor as Unicorn Riders.

    #173458

    It was decided, after much discussion, that it didn’t really make sense for a few reasons.

    The first is that, relative to the rider, a gryphon is much bigger than a unicorn, so it would be odd for the unit to get armored when you were almost always attacking the mount animal (they weren’t going to change the animation).

    The second was that it would make high elf dreadnought too good: they would get a cheaper, more heavily defended flying unit.

    The third was that changes, like making the gryphon rider a slow flyer in return for armored, were too divisive.

    #173554

    Epaminondas
    Member

    It was decided, after much discussion, that it didn’t really make sense for a few reasons.

    The first is that, relative to the rider, a gryphon is much bigger than a unicorn, so it would be odd for the unit to get armored when you were almost always attacking the mount animal (they weren’t going to change the animation).

    The second was that it would make high elf dreadnought too good: they would get a cheaper, more heavily defended flying unit.

    The third was that changes, like making the gryphon rider a slow flyer in return for armored, were too divisive.

    Hmmm, okay; I guess this is reasonably persuasive.

    #173635

    Can’t say I buy the arguments considering

    1) It’s inconsistent with how armored Heroes are treated, and

    2) The dreadnought synergy is pretty spectacularly piddly compared to lots of other class/race synergies, especially the new ones being added in this patch. I suspect it’ll become even more piddly with the DLC, as specializations would grant high end flyers.

    I get the feeling though it’s one of those things that got (and will get) the forum in an uproar far beyond its actual importance, so thanks for the explanation.

    #173643

    Ericridge
    Member

    I remember there was a thread about gryphon riders and one of devs, tombles? Said it would get armored trait…. I can’t remember tbh. Maybe someone with good google-fu can find the thread again.

    #173652

    Quaranyr
    Member

    I think the first argument is funny considering Dwarven Manticore Rider has Shield ability. So, fully armored rider is not enough for Armored trait but a small shield is apparently enough to shield whole manticore.

    #173663

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Can’t say I buy the arguments considering

    1) It’s inconsistent with how armored Heroes are treated, and

    2) The dreadnought synergy is pretty spectacularly piddly compared to lots of other class/race synergies, especially the new ones being added in this patch. I suspect it’ll become even more piddly with the DLC, as specializations would grant high end flyers.

    I get the feeling though it’s one of those things that got (and will get) the forum in an uproar far beyond its actual importance, so thanks for the explanation.

    Ok, now you’ve persuaded me the other way – though I was not fully persuaded by Chrys’ explanation anyways.

    #173666

    Yeah, every cavalry with a shield is pretty hilarious if percentage of total unit + mount covered is supposed to be relevant to whether armored is supposed to apply, though certainly the new Dwarf Manticore is the most hilarious of them all.

    #173670

    1) It’s inconsistent with how armored Heroes are treated, and

    The default armored heroes have barded mounts, so it isn’t. If they gain it later from a magical item, well, they are heroes, so that works out due to magic.

    2) The dreadnought synergy is pretty spectacularly piddly compared to lots of other class/race synergies, especially the new ones being added in this patch. I suspect it’ll become even more piddly with the DLC, as specializations would grant high end flyers.

    not mass produceable, easily available, cheap ones. High Elves can’t be the best at everything, especially from a balance perspective. Dreadnoughts already get the best t-2 cavalry for less with more armor. For various nda reasons, High Elves are great enough as is to not need any more buffs at all.

    I think the first argument is funny considering Dwarven Manticore Rider has Shield ability. So, fully armored rider is not enough for Armored trait but a small shield is apparently enough to shield whole manticore.

    but it doesn’t. The shield only works when the rider is facing the attack, and can then use their/the mounts reflexes to pivot so the shield gets the blow (due to the rule of cool). Being in guard means that the unit will do this to an attack coming from any direction.

    armor, on the other hand, is totally passive, thus applying whether or not the unit is flanked, defending, attacking, or paralyzed.

    #173681

    not mass produceable, easily available, cheap ones. High Elves can’t be the best at everything, especially from a balance perspective. Dreadnoughts already get the best t-2 cavalry for less with more armor. For various nda reasons, High Elves are great enough as is to not need any more buffs at all.

    It’s pretty obvious that Warlord actually has the best T2, and T3, and T4 cavalry. My point is more that 10% less cost and plus 1 defense on a T3 is basically nothing as far as race/class synergies go, given the way production and defense mechanics work. It’s not going to shave a turn off production.

    Basically it feels like a silly place and way to take a stand if the real concern is elves are too good, one that also happens to be inconsistent with the entire rest of the game. That said, given its pretty obvious irrelevance, especially once the DLC hits, I’m certainly not concerned enough to push the matter further. Especially if, as it seems, it may induce a push for “countervailing nerfs.”

    #173682

    It’s pretty obvious that Warlord actually has the best T2, and T3, and T4 cavalry. My point is more that 10% less cost and plus 1 defense on a T3 is basically nothing as far as race/class synergies go, given the way production and defense mechanics work. It’s not going to shave a turn off production.

    of the racial variants, I mean, since the unicorn rider is a stand out favorite with armored, armor piercing, phase and extra resistance. If the gryphon rider were armored, then high elf dreadnoughts would be the best ones with two combat mobile, cheap, up armored cavalry.

    And how is it inconsistent?

    #173690

    Like I said, it’s not worth getting into a balance debate against strongly held positions on an irrelevancy.

    As for inconsistency, that would be because:

    1) it’s silly to argue that literally every shielded cavalry has the ninja kungfu skills to interpose the shield against every attack directed against the mount across 180 degrees, and beyond silly to argue that its even physically possible for the massive manticore;

    2) Heroes making it work through magic is a flat out admittance of inconsistency; and

    3) I seriously doubt any rigorous analysis has been done on relative armor coverage.

    This sort of thing comes up in tons of games, and it’s almost always ignored. Which is generally the proper thing to do in any game (like this) that doesn’t model all the factors affecting cavalry defense: the difficulty of attacking a mounted rider with most weapons, the effects of mobility and psychology on avoiding attacks against mounts, the ability of riders to survive being dismounted (or to intentionally do so), the possibility of being remounted after battle, etc.

    #173700

    1) it’s silly to argue that literally every shielded cavalry has the ninja kungfu skills to interpose the shield against every attack directed against the mount across 180 degrees, and beyond silly to argue that its even physically possible for the massive manticore;

    that is what defending means in the game for all units: it isn’t any more or less possible for armored cavalry vs. any other unit.

    2) Heroes making it work through magic is a flat out admittance of inconsistency; and

    no, a magical item isn’t inconsistent at all. It is just that the dev’s wanted the classes to have distinctive looks (since you spent so much time making your leader look the way it does/them on the heroes), so they didn’t have the appearance window change based on personal equipment (besides weapons). I would prefer if it did, but it wasn’t quite worth it.

    3) I seriously doubt any rigorous analysis has been done on relative armor coverage.

    In the game, every naturally armored unit has it on the image (even dwarf shaman have vambraces poking out of their cloaks).

    At the time, I wanted the image changed for a chain mail cloak on the gryphon (because it would look cool) in exchange for 3 mp, but that wasn’t an option.

    #174038

    Look, your previous argument is that because armor covers less of the Gryphon rider + mount than the Unicorn rider + mount, it’s justified visually that despite having exactly the same armor, the former is unarmored while the latter is armored. That’s a silly argument in light of shielded cavalry, since the shield covers vastly less of a Manticore rider + mount than a Knight + mount, much less than an infantryman alone, but yet there is no mechanical difference, and any argument that a Dwarf has Mr. Fantastic’s body stretching so as to be able to use his shield to protect his massive mount is plainly absurd.

    The latter approach is how this game treats literally everything except gryphons, and also how almost all non simulationist games treat cavalry. You have an, in my opinion, poor balance argument that somehow saving a single turn’s worth of upkeep and most likely no other cost benefit and 1 point of extra defense will overpower Elf Dreadnoughts. I’m willing to accept that simply from the fact it’s not worth getting into this kind of debate. However, don’t try to argue that this is a reasoned and consistent way all units are assigned attributes. Balance plus lack of resources to do graphical change, fine.

    #174883

    Astraflame
    Member

    We’re talking about Gryphons, what is problably the most well rounded T3 in the game. Why would we add armored and synergies with Enchanted armory making him unstoppable? It’s for balance reasons flyers in general shouldn’t be armored since their advantage is already huge given their ability to fly.

    #175007

    Prodigal Sun
    Member

    The latter approach is how this game treats literally everything except gryphons, and also how almost all non simulationist games treat cavalry. You have an, in my opinion, poor balance argument that somehow saving a single turn’s worth of upkeep and most likely no other cost benefit and 1 point of extra defense will overpower Elf Dreadnoughts. I’m willing to accept that simply from the fact it’s not worth getting into this kind of debate. However, don’t try to argue that this is a reasoned and consistent way all units are assigned attributes. Balance plus lack of resources to do graphical change, fine.

    It isn’t as much about being overpowered as being the strongest race to combine with a class. Elves being the best Warlord, the best Arch Druid and possibly the best Dreadnought is not good for the game. The main reason the race is considered balanced is lack of healing, which really only is a problem early in the game.

    #175664

    Look, your previous argument is that because armor covers less of the Gryphon rider + mount than the Unicorn rider + mount, it’s justified visually that despite having exactly the same armor, the former is unarmored while the latter is armored. That’s a silly argument in light of shielded cavalry, since the shield covers vastly less of a Manticore rider + mount than a Knight + mount, much less than an infantryman alone, but yet there is no mechanical difference, and any argument that a Dwarf has Mr. Fantastic’s body stretching so as to be able to use his shield to protect his massive mount is plainly absurd.

    No it is not, because shield and armored are on two different representative systems. Shield is a semi passive ability that represents how you can’t have the shield everywhere with flanking (since it is not triggered except in a direct attack). It then chooses to simplify the differences between a buckler and Pavise shield and say that all shields only trigger when the unit faces the enemy. It then makes the more substantial shields (in the pre made items) have better stats, or projectile resistance.

    Armored, on the other hand, is an entirely passive system: it is something independent of whether the unit is paying attention, or even able to move. Therefore, it is something that goes all around the whole unit, and visual bits of armor represent that fact (which is why the dev’s put vambraces on the dwarf supports, and won’t armor up the succubi).

    Of course, there is still a simplification here. There are actually three classes of unit (especially cavalry) unarmored (light or no armor at all besides cloth) armored (where the rider has anything from leather to full plate, and the mount has little or none) and then super heavily armored (where the rider and mount are covered in plate or mail or both). The game has made it just a two thing, so you’ve got to make a call.

    The unicorn rider fits best as armored, because the rider is a much more visually impressive part of the system than the lone gryphon rider, and would be considered an armored cavalryman in a medieval army. With the gryphon, on the other hand, most of the attacks are going to be against it, since it is so large, and it has not a scrap of armor.

    The historical distinction between armored and not armored for large animals, like camels and elephants, referred to the barding on the animal, not the presence (or absence) on the rider, as it did for horse cavalry.

    So I think it fits thematically. You also then have Astraflame and Prodigal suns points: the latter is especially important with the already good unicorn rider buff and the new and improved concealed musketeers.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.