Polearms, Animal Slayer, Cavalry, Demolisher And Animals

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 Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Polearms, Animal Slayer, Cavalry, Demolisher And Animals

This topic contains 14 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Hatmage 7 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #194970

    Hatmage
    Member

    Hi. There are a lot of animals that can be ridden, and which, when ridden, are vulnerable to polearms. Perhaps some sort of “beast” tag for animals specifically crying out for a boar spear would be good.
    It would also be nice if animal slayer gave +1 or so against cavalry. Perhaps larger cavalry, like mammoth riders and gryphon riders, where the rider is largely an accesory to the mount (can the frostling rider even reach any foe shorter than a troll?), could suffer the full +3. Perhaps the beast tag could be reused here to give them this weakness without letting druidas and shaman (shaman is the plural of shaman) befriend them.
    A “light cavalry” tag that only allowed charge damage against flanked opponents could enable some interesting units and be a good way to nerf the excessively powerful unicorn rider.
    Lastly, having demolisher give a bonus versus chariots would make a lot of sense, though chariots might need some sort of compensation. I believe that historically, the use of heavy weapons to smash chariot wheels was also an issue, so weakness to overwhelm might also make sense but A: I know relatively little about warfare in the period when chariots were viable weapons, and may be misinformed, and B: That might make halberdiers too amazing.

    #194979

    GeorgiSR
    Member

    I will keep it short, since a wall of post would be inappropriate. These proposals would complicate things without much gain. The motto “Keep it simple unless otherwise needed is better”. It makes no sense demolisher to demolish chariots. Also dividing cavalry to light; beast and other – just makes the game a lot more confusing without much gain. I am against such “improvements”. The current system works fine. If you are on a mount then you can be treated as cavalry so polearms will benefit from it. The other tag is flying. No need to complicate things…

    #194981

    Hatmage
    Member

    It makes little sense that wargs are only vulnerable to polearms once goblins sit on them. Also, chariots are things of wood and iron, so why shouldn’t demolisher give any bonus against them? The current system works well for most racial troops, but deals with animals poorly. Complicating things is why there is more to this game than “have the biggest numbers”, and nothing I have proposed exceeds the normal scope of tag use in unit design.

    #194984

    GeorgiSR
    Member

    It makes little sense that wargs are only vulnerable to polearms once goblins sit on them

    Because you have a raider and a mount. When a cavalry charges you impale the raider and the mount is just plain animal. Basically you have advantage because there is a raider which can fall off the mount. So it makes sense

    #194992

    Hatmage
    Member

    Polearms are effective against animals because animals are scared of running at pointed sticks, to large to cost-effectively armour and have no reach. Spears are useful against cavalry because they are useful against horses, not because they are useful against riders. Outside of hooked weapons, nothing is more effective against a rider than his steed, and you don’t need to put a dwarf on a boar to kill it with a boar spear, as shown by the existence of boar spears in a world without dwarves.

    The only reason I don’t simply propose making animals weak to polearms outright is that serpents and spiders don’t fit the mold. So, no, the riders don’t make the animals weak to polearms. They actually offer a degree of protection from polearms, being able to parry and grab them, and with swords not being as badly outreached as claws, hooves and teeth.

    The animals make the riders weak to polearms by being squishy, fast and attached to their legs with stirrups – fall beneath your mount and you’re dead, barring mercy from your foes – and by limiting their ability to fight while stationary, as they cannot use effective footwork or fight in as close a formation as footmen can. Most of these weaknesses are still there when the rider gets off.

    #194997

    Meeky
    Member

    I won’t say a whole lot here. Put simply, my opinion is thus: these changes aren’t necessary, they’ll require a lot of rebalancing of units, and the only benefit is roleplay value. It’s not worth it.

    #194999

    GeorgiSR
    Member

    I won’t say a whole lot here. Put simply, my opinion is thus: these changes aren’t necessary, they’ll require a lot of rebalancing of units, and the only benefit is roleplay value. It’s not worth it.

    +1 For that. Unnecessary changes without anything to gain besides “Making sense” to some players

    #195016

    Gloweye
    Member

    I can definitely see the points, and I partially agree, but I also think it’s to much coding/clarity pain for to little game. New players already have trouble familiarizing with the game’s combat mechanics as is.

    #195050

    Khelle
    Member

    I disagree about polearm only being superior for fighting ridden animals. Polearms would be superior for all big and/or fast animals there, even if they don’t have rider on top of them.
    This is because polearm uses the force of enemy speed x weight against themselves.
    For examples when wolf attacks you he will leap at the last moment onto you, if you manage to stick spear the way he will land onto it instead of you then piercing power would be increased mainly by speed of his leap.
    When mammoth attack you, he will try to stomp you, if you manage to stick spear the way he will land onto it instead of yu then piercing power would be increased by his enormous weight.

    #195053

    GeorgiSR
    Member

    When mammoth attack you, he will try to stomp you, if you manage to stick spear the way he will land onto it instead of yu then piercing power would be increased by his enormous weight.

    Or you will be trampled by the same mass if you don’t kill it. Here weapon durability is not even considered (Pikes can broke by the same force). Indeed you may kill the beast but you will be smashed by the sheer size. Such changes would complicate the game too much imho.

    #195097

    NINJEW
    Member

    Balancing the game around role playing is silly

    #195150

    Yeah, this is also a massive boost to AD. It would make hunters more effective against the most common upper tier units and heroes. Not really necessary.

    Revive instinct and befriend animals alternate impact on cavalry is enough of a reference to their animal nature.

    #195269

    Hatmage
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Khelle wrote:</div>
    When mammoth attack you, he will try to stomp you, if you manage to stick spear the way he will land onto it instead of yu then piercing power would be increased by his enormous weight.

    Or you will be trampled by the same mass if you don’t kill it. Here weapon durability is not even considered (Pikes can broke by the same force). Indeed you may kill the beast but you will be smashed by the sheer size. Such changes would complicate the game too much imho.

    We don’t know if mammoths actually stomp on people, but we do know our ancestors had great success in hunting them with spears. And pikes are pretty hard to break, though the collapasible alexandrian pike may be an exception – The term “Pike-Breaker” refers to weapons, including the buckler, which could be used to get between the head of a pike and its’ wielder.

    #196877

    GeorgiSR
    Member

    We don’t know if mammoths actually stomp on people, but we do know our ancestors had great success in hunting them with spears. And pikes are pretty hard to break, though the collapasible alexandrian pike may be an exception – The term “Pike-Breaker” refers to weapons, including the buckler, which could be used to get between the head of a pike and its’ wielder.

    Ok I agree with you here. Those facts however doesn’t complement to the idea of changing a simple working mechanic to vastly complicated system. As Gloweye stated – New players have issue with this mechanic let alone further complicate things. The rock paper scissors with Infantry/Archer/Cavalry/Pikes (Support excluded for various reasons) is simple enough for fast grasping. Your idea indeed will bring more flavor and it will deepen the strategic value of player’s choices. The issue is price/cost and amount of time implanting such features.

    #196904

    Hatmage
    Member

    I suppose that any testing of these ideas will have to wait for mod tools then. Thank you all for your feedback!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.