[FOLLOWED] WARLORD Balance Discussion

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 Balance Suggestions [FOLLOWED] WARLORD Balance Discussion

This topic contains 375 replies, has 42 voices, and was last updated by  Mourioche 6 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 181 through 210 (of 376 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #125171

    Ahh Chrys and I were thinking along similar lines regarding using mana for the sentry posts, but I do like his eternal flames idea. You could even put a mana upkeep on eternal flames, so it’s a mana sink maintaining these beacons :).

    #125296

    ExNihil
    Member

    Fellas,

    Your proposal will keep the warlord with the same crappy scouting situation – relaying on racial irregulars which are horrible scouts, which have also been substantially nerfed with the upgrade to roaming units. This has been the point of departure for this discussion, and you guys keep ignoring it.

    In a weird way it basically a way to toggle extra vision on an irregular at the cost of mana, so mana to get the irregular, then mana to get it’s vision up, or think of it as toggleable watchtowers lol. It also means each sentry position/beacon has innate defence.

    This is just plain bad m8. You will have to travel and explore the map with your racial irregular (see above), then make a building that can easily be destroyed by roaming units that costs you extra mana, and you will be defending it with a now passive unit that costs you gold maintenance.

    Furthermore, all of my other criticism still stands and has not been actually address. so I will reiterate my position: The WL has a very weak early game and an awkward mid-game due to the scouting situation, heavy research costs and extreme mana dependency. This is then “Compensated” by a hugely powerful late-game, which is a very bad balance solution IMO. I therefore call for a rebalance that will shift SOME of this power from the late game to earlier stages and to a substantial reinforcement of the early game through the introduction of a scout and, as I suggested earlier on, an upgrade to Authority of the Sword.

    Following your discussion, I still see no reason or really an alternative to the introduction of a scout. The only viable solutions using existing content are to change the Monster Hunter into a t1 unit or modify the Raise Militia spell in a way that will make Racial Irregulars into viable scouting units. Since both of these are not particularly ‘sexy’ ideas, I think the best and really only solution here is the introduction of a new scouting unit (a walking one). Here I suggested a mounted and perhaps also ‘racial’ scout, which would be an interesting addition.

    #125308

    We are all well aware of your position without you needing to reiterate it again (and again.)

    We’re exploring ways to assymetrise WL scouting but all you want is basically a Scout summons lite unit for the WL. That is making it far too similar to other classes for alot of people.

    Also, the idea of a light cavalry type scout first got touted back in April or May, and got bandied about for a while before evolving in several ways, in other words it’s a very old idea and most of us are looking for new ways. We’re thinking around the problem, but you (as usual) are looking at the most obvious and direct solution.

    Why give every class something so similar? We have the opportunity here to make the WL scouting situation really unique, in keeping with the way the classes in general work, in that they are all pretty unique, so why simplify and, dare I say it, homogenize things for the sake of convenience? That does seem to be your preferred solution, e.g. earlier heal for machines, earlier heal for Sorcerers, heal for Rogues etc.

    With regards to the sentry position, I think Drax had the greater idea of eternal flame beacons, because the WL would use mana for these, and it would fit the WL style better than just another scout unit.

    Combine with innate defenders on pickups and we reduce the early game scouting issue to simply that – scouting, i.e. the economic disadvantage is nullified to a degree (which is the biggest drawback to playing WL ceteris paribus in the early game).

    Those 2 together means the WL works to get his vision up, but he can do so, in an assymetric way (in fact, he could easily get himself a ring of vision) and his economy won’t be horribly inferior until he can get out his dedicated anti/scout unit, i.e. Monster Hunters by which point everyone should be able to get hold of the freebies with more or less the same efficiency.

    Roaming independents are a risk regardless right now for irregular scouting for WL, so not an added risk or downside to using irregulars to build vision towers.

    Anyway, as you are so fond of reiterating, here is some reiterating for you:

    assymetry

    not everything has to be the same, or even similar

    assymetry

    #125320

    Anublet90
    Member

    Since both of these are not particularly ‘sexy’ ideas

    Whoa there, I think modifying Raise Militia is an absolute bomb-shell idea. Not only am I all for diversity between classes, I think we should actively try to avoid homogenization, so, in my mind, giving a “vanilla” dedicated scout is one of the worse solutions. <Climate> Walking (possibly a Medal and/or Movement?) sounds like the easiest way. Not sure how to implement, but asymmetry is definitely something I like.

    The heavy emphasis on late-game should be smoothed out, though. Global Assault is absolutely nuts, especially so with Wild Magic, but I ain’t gonna touch that spell with a 10-foot polearm.

    #125331

    Morty
    Member

    One could consider making those watchtowers/beacons the warlord puts up project a zone through which other players’ and independent units move more slowly. Thus they’d also be a way to interfere with enemy scouting. Of course, this is something the vanilla watchtowers could use too.

    I’m not enamored with the idea of giving defenders to the treasure piles, though… feels a bit too harsh.

    #125424

    With regards to the sentry position, I think Drax had the greater idea of eternal flame beacons, because the WL would use mana for these, and it would fit the WL style better than just another scout unit.

    well me, but yeah: the idea is the warlord thinks “hey, I’ve got mana to burn”. Whereas a rouge uses it to make their units trickier, a theocrat more holy, a dreadnought to power machines, and the sorcerer/archdruid to make more troops, the warlord thinks “huh, burning it sounds pretty good” and uses it as magical coal.

    Also, the idea of a light cavalry type scout first got touted back in April or May, and got bandied about for a while before evolving in several ways, in other words it’s a very old idea

    yeah, it was discussed, and no suitable solution was found. My first idea was essentially to give the warlord what the halfling adventurer is: a very light but three shot scout. That was not appreciated (since I proposed moving the horse archer from the heavy to the light position as the easiest way to do this).

    other ideas were “mountain men” or variations of that sort, but nothing really worked. The problem is that the Warlord’s lineup was developed for the faster research situation in the original game: you could get a t-3 rush/very quickly get monster hunters, so the warlord’s scouting deficit was very short. The warlord needs a stop gap for the very beginning, so that disadvantage doesn’t mushroom.

    One of the warlord’s operating principles is that whereas all the other classes have explicitly magical and/or underhanded things, the warlord has excellent logistics (supplemented with a little eugenics and magical creature breeding).

    This idea would match that: the warlord would be slightly slower at scouting, but better at where they did scout, and able to more efficiently sweep up the stuff that they did mark once monster hunters were up (not to mention their ability to make sentry posts).

    and you will be defending it with a now passive unit that costs you gold maintenance.

    not necessarily: a encamped/bivouacking unit could receive lower upkeep, since it is camped out/living off the land. And irregulars are quite cheap already, so that shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

    The more I think about it, I think that should be an irregular only thing: warlord irregulars can construct sentry posts where they have lower upkeep, but have to use all their mp to get the bonus.

    So then, you have some irregulars traveling, and you build a sentry post in a useful place. If you see nothing really useful, you move on, and leave it undefended (an eternal flame thing ought to burn constantly for mana upkeep).

    However, if you want to defend it, you have to leave one irregular there that turn, and the next turn they have to bivouac there, but you get lower upkeep in return.

    This would make monster hunters valuable even in the late game, because you could have very cost effective stacks.

    #125428

    ExNihil
    Member

    @BBB,

    You have again succeeded in not actually discussing my criticism or all of my suggestions, as you do again and again. Also, I thank you for explaining that the Mounted Scout idea was already proposed – this though doesn’t make it into a bad idea, instead it makes it into a less original one. Obviously this is supposed to bother me in some regard that other people also considered this before, but it actually fortifies the case for it. I try to have these discussions without so much ego, but whatever.

    As for asymmetry – you keep saying that, as well as homogenization, as some buzz word that is supposed to be some sort of uber argument or perhaps incite Bouh into action. I have no problem with asymmetrical solution, I have a problem with half baked solutions, and a lot of the discussions in the last few pages have been characterized by a rather shallow consideration of the issues at hand, and then by some rather off topic rhetoric which replaced actual discussion. If you wander, this is addressed at you – in case indirect speech and irony are not obvious enough (as in some previous posts).

    Finally, I reiterate my position not for your sake – you are prone to selectively reply to posts and handle your own discussions, but it is addressed to the other participants in this thread who not necessarily read all of it and who might actually be interested in having a discussion of these issues.

    not necessarily: a encamped/bivouacking unit could receive lower upkeep, since it is camped out/living off the land. And irregulars are quite cheap already, so that shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

    The more I think about it, I think that should be an irregular only thing: warlord irregulars can construct sentry posts where they have lower upkeep, but have to use all their mp to get the bonus.

    So then, you have some irregulars traveling, and you build a sentry post in a useful place. If you see nothing really useful, you move on, and leave it undefended (an eternal flame thing ought to burn constantly for mana upkeep).

    However, if you want to defend it, you have to leave one irregular there that turn, and the next turn they have to bivouac there, but you get lower upkeep in return.

    This would make monster hunters valuable even in the late game, because you could have very cost effective stacks.

    Yes, so as I was saying before – now you have a shit load of roaming units on the map. So you are camping out irregular units, leaving them out to die and to reduce your empire’s morale.

    This is an over complicated solution that requires multiple adjustments and the end result doesn’t in fact solve the problem.

    EDIT: I don’t understand what is the problem with the Mounted scout proposal and why it is a bad idea or not a good and unique contribution. If you guys want to explain that it would be good.

    #125433

    jb
    Member

    I’m all for asymmetry, but the idea of an irregular building a watchtower is a bit silly. At that point just build a builder and use it as your scout. If you want to give warlords a 10g discount for watchtowers, fine.

    Honestly, the best idea I’ve seen in this thread is to put 1 or 2 irregular units guarding the gold/mana free pickups. This solves a major balance problem of free collects and preserves the uniqueness of poor warlord scouting.

    #125446

    alf978
    Member

    Candidly, I’m not too terribly keen on the watchtower idea either.
    Primarily, because they could be hijacked and used against the WL (unlike the Scanner ability). NO other scout unit has such an obvious Achilles heel. Plus I think the WL would spend exorbitant amount of resources to just marginally compete with the flexibility and vision range of a regular scout (static vs dynamic). Then there’s the manpower issue if you do want to defend this beacons… I don’t know…

    Then add into to the mix that, as I’ve previously tried to point out, that concealment is much more prevalent now, it just adds up to yet another crippling weakness to the WL. Add injury to insult, AD and Rouge get concealment with their early T1’s, and I’m suppose to build these beacons, ripe for the taking for my opponent with nothing but racial irregulars being my main source of initial defense?

    It just doesn’t add up for me personally. Perhaps I’m not fully understanding the proposal as it has been outlined so far?

    @Chrys: I think the T2 Monster Hunter has great viability in the end game. Give him back Elemental Slayer, and you have a very versatile unit. (again with Elementals now much more prevalent with GR) Speaking from my personal playstyle experience, I’ve kept MH in my stacks until the very end of almost all my WL games. Champion Ranks alone, make that a much more attractive option to me.

    I thought building on the Logistical aspect, as @Chrys pointed out, of the WL, with my suggestion of additional terrain movement, as a temporary spell for irregulars and infantry, greatly opened up new avenues for not just scouting (in conjunction with scanner ability) but differentiating the class further, especially from the DN.
    (I.e. you could take a racial irregualr, Beserker, or MH, and give them the temp. movement ability to reach resources, kill the weak defenders of pick-ups, etc. and finally have the WL not just compete, but actually be good at something during the early game…)

    It also should translate well into the latter stages of the game, as you would now have to worry about a blitzkrieg like strikes from WL infantry & irregulars, adding a new strategic facet to the WL. At the very least they can for short durations keep up with Cavalry and flying/floating going cross country. But nobody except ExNihil, even commented on it.

    #125487

    Ayenara
    Member

    How about the irregulars build a sentry post – the difference being that it doesn’t give any vision on its own – but activates when a unit stands on it, giving some extra vision.

    #125492

    ExNihil
    Member

    I don’t see a reason why the irregulars would be able to do so rather than a builder. In that case it could be a cool addition for all classes, and I don’t see a reason why the WL should receive this especially. Also and this is much more important -> this really wouldn’t solve the WL’s scouting issues at all even if it were a unique thing.

    I am not, in principal, against giving the WL something like this, but as a special skill for the Monster Hunter. I would then give it to the Hunter as well.

    #125501

    ExNihil
    Member

    P.S.

    One could just give the MH a special ability – which makes it concealed, gives it temporary true sight and extends its range of vision by +2. When pressing this ability, available only on the strategic map, the MH will lost of its MP but receive the above benefits. This will stay like this until this unit is moved and acts like the guard option.

    I think this will be a very cool ability to use. It will answer something of the true sight problem. Make MHs into sort of semi-stealth commando units, and give the WL some ways of boosting its monitoring and spying abilities.

    This can be combined with the following idea: The WL’s buildings will each give a special buff to irregular units – the first building will give them to t1 irregular units, and the 2nd and 3rd buildings will give them to all irregular units produced in a city, that is, to MH and racial irregulars. These buildings will at the same time become a precondition for casting the Raise Militia spell, so it could only be casted on a city with these buildings in. So this will also limit the production of racial irregulars with buffs. I suggest the following:

    Warlord Command: Racial Irregulars receive +4MP, Mountaineering, Forestry and +1 Vision Range.
    Gladiator Pit: Irregular Units receive some combat buff, perhaps some elemental damage!
    Great-beast Lair: Monster Hunters receive extra slayer traits and perhaps some nice combat buffs as well – I’d like some blight resistance on ’em.

    If you guys have suggestions i’d be happy to discuss ’em.

    #125505

    EDIT: I don’t understand what is the problem with the Mounted scout proposal and why it is a bad idea or not a good and unique contribution. If you guys want to explain that it would be good

    well, because the warlord already has a unique mounted option, the mounted archer, and it would just be “more of the same” to have them also have a mounted scout unit.

    My initial idea was to make the mounted archer the scout, but people preferred them in the heavy mounted archer role. Everything else sort of felt like either a junior monster hunter, which the warlord already has in full form, or kind of covered the same territory that the spear-man does (since they are a good fighting but only physical basic irregular unit).

    Yes, so as I was saying before – now you have a shit load of roaming units on the map. So you are camping out irregular units, leaving them out to die and to reduce your empire’s morale.

    I’m like 90% sure that is being looked at for something, since it does make scouting much more high stakes than it should be.

    this really wouldn’t solve the WL’s scouting issues at all even if it were a unique thing.

    you keep saying this, but I don’t see it. The problem with the warlord’s scouting is three fold: 1). terrain: they don’t have a cheap early unit that can easily go through forests/mountains/swamp/water, 2). their unit that does this comes too late in the game/is too expensive, and 3). scouts picking up stuff gives the other classes a resource boost.

    placing guards would solve 3)., leaving 1 and 2. The easiest way to solve 2). would be to switch the monster hunter and berserker in the lineup. However, I think that would be kind of boring, and too similar to the Archdruid lineup.

    Thus we have 1)., but that isn’t the most basic expression of the problem. It essentially is that other classes can uncover more territory than the warlord because they can move better over non normal terrain.

    sentry posts would functionally accomplish the same thing, if they had the right vision range, with the added benefit of having permanent vision (or not, if a garrison is needed), but the downside of becoming a double edged sword.

    How about the irregulars build a sentry post – the difference being that it doesn’t give any vision on its own – but activates when a unit stands on it, giving some extra vision

    that was one of the ideas, yeah. That would actually be a very good system, as you could have a single irregular running back and forth as a patrol unit.

    Primarily, because they could be hijacked and used against the WL

    that would be your own fault for placing a sentry post in an area with forest or whatever. A clever player would use this to set a trap, as Garresh found out the other day….. And water concealment is probably going to go on the human hunters/assassins, because that is unbalanced.

    Anyway, crows and the archdruid scouts are animals, and hunters have animal slaying, cherubs have less hp, and wisps have poison weakness.

    #125506

    ExNihil
    Member

    sentry posts would functionally accomplish the same thing, if they had the right vision range, with the added benefit of having permanent vision (or not, if a garrison is needed), but the downside of becoming a double edged sword.

    No it wouldn’t. Scouting and exploration are about being able to move in the map. The only thing these will accomplish is monitoring a specific area of the map, which is a limited aspect of the Scout. I have already enumerated these functions before.

    #125507

    No it wouldn’t. Scouting and exploration are about being able to move in the map. The only thing these will accomplish is monitoring a specific area of the map, which is a limited aspect of the Scout. I have already enumerated these functions before.

    yes, but you have to think of the combined effort of the irregular and sentry posts: the sentry post wouldn’t move, but the irregular would, thus uncovering more territory (and building more posts if necessary). The irregular/sentry post is a scouting system with two parts, rather than one like the other classes.

    #125518

    alf978
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>alf978 wrote:</div>
    Primarily, because they could be hijacked and used against the WL

    that would be your own fault for placing a sentry post in an area with forest or whatever. A clever player would use this to set a trap, as Garresh found out the other day….. And water concealment is probably going to go on the human hunters/assassins, because that is unbalanced.

    Anyway, crows and the archdruid scouts are animals, and hunters have animal slaying, cherubs have less hp, and wisps have poison weakness.
    [/quote]

    Well, you sorta made my point with the human scoundrel/assassins portion of your reply, as dwarven hunter/scoundrels get Mountain concealment and Mountaineering, ditto elves and goblins, forestry/wetland respectively. So I shouldn’t be building these on Mountains, Swamps or Forests.
    Okay…

    Your solution further implies that I ought to take a irregular (movement impaired) unit to play zonal defense, and that there’s the potential to set up a trap for some of the most highly mobile units in the game?
    I don’t follow!
    And MH come out too late for scouting by your own admission, so there’s a definite disconnect. As in, if they’re too late to come out for scouting, they’re out too late to deter early scouts, wouldn’t you say? (btw, only goblin MH have blight damage, re.: whisps..)

    Garresh, by his own accounting, got caught in his ‘trap’ by Mounted Archers and Death March. How is that applicable to slow, stumble and tumble, irregulars with minimal hp?

    And if you truly set up a whole network of these, how am I gonna keep track of all these on turned timer? The larger the map, the more complex the system, right? Now, compare that to the freedom and flexibility of an individual scout…

    Like I said, I just don’t seem to able to follow your logic here.
    But maybe just it’s me!

    Fwiw, I liked ExNihil’s proposal of introducing movement benefits via the WL class building structure. I think that’s a very neat way of tying things to the WL without impacting any of the research tree, as I’ve tried to advocate for with the ‘mini-explorer’ type spell…

    #125522

    alf978
    Member

    Sorry couldn’t edit the original post:

    The other point I haven’t seen raised yet is, that with all the other scouts for the other classes, you can essentially “drop one in”, by your leader/hero.

    While the WL proposed beacon option is still tied back to your cities/irregulars/beacon-watchtower-sentry. In other words quickly producing meaningful intel on the run, is still strongly inhibited (not so with the scanner ability, I might note!)
    This was raised a while back in one of the other treads I believe.

    The network of beacons doesn’t really help in that regard, nor would the city building improvements. I.e. either way it’s still another nerf to the WL scouting ability no matter what.

    Just something else to ponder….

    #125548

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Not being able to ‘just drop one in’ is, I think, a deliberate aspect of the warlord – they have less ability to just invoke something with magic so they have to be a little more methodical about what they do.

    Regarding the beacon type idea – what if rather than being tied to a unit, it was treated in a similar manner to dreadnought spell disruptors: namely, able to be dropped in anywhere you have vision to, and built over the course of a turn? Depending on how you want to work it, it could either automatically disappear if taken by someone else (it’s set up so it can be quickly destroyed if it looks like it’s about to fall to the enemy) or it could generate a special map for battles on that tile so it can be used as a sort of impromptu fort. Possibly it could use something like the bandit camp map, so it can have a bit of a feeling of a Roman fortified camp to it.

    #125559

    ExNihil
    Member

    And there I was thinking that post #125501 would incite some more reactions here.

    #125562

    Ericridge
    Member

    And there I was thinking that post #125501 would incite some more reactions here.

    I’ve been staying somewhat out of this discussion. But, what you suggest is MASSIVE. Too much. Is too much. Other classes’ building can’t even do it at all.

    If Warlord wants truesight they must build the racial mages out of temples like everyone else. Basically you’re asking for partisan specialization added onto true sight and give it to monster hunters. But unlike partisan, it looks like you can have six monster hunters in a single stack doing that. Its huge.

    And then class buildings could turn monster hunters into armies of apocalypse lol Especially when you aim them at cities defended by tier 1s early in the game.

    And why are you suggesting that great beast lair add blight resistance onto monster hunters when I remember your complaints about Goblin Theocrat vs Dreadnought matchup very well. XD

    If this gets implemented, then I want the same for other classes buildings, I’d like for my engineers to do more 😛

    That is probably why your post didn’t get reactions as you hoped.

    #125565

    ExNihil
    Member

    I’ve been staying somewhat out of this discussion. But, what you suggest is MASSIVE. Too much. Is too much. Other classes’ building can’t even do it at all.

    Now, Now. This is ASSYMETRICAL, hence giving something unique to the WL.

    More Importantly – it LIMITS the casting of Raise Militia only to cities with class buildings, and thus also inherently limits the use of specially buffed racial irregular units.

    If Warlord wants truesight they must build the racial mages out of temples like everyone else. Basically you’re asking for partisan specialization added onto true sight and give it to monster hunters. But unlike partisan, it looks like you can have six monster hunters in a single stack doing that. Its huge.

    Having six or one doesn’t matter for the scouting. The limitation here is that they will receive these bonuses when not moving. As for the part about building tier 2 supports, amigo this is a balance discussion aimed at solving the WL’s scouting issue and having no answer to concealment from within the class, and the solution I propose here is limited to only a SINGLE unit that needs to be produced in cities (not a summon) with the right building.

    And then class buildings could turn monster hunters into armies of apocalypse lol Especially when you aim them at cities defended by tier 1s early in the game.

    Not at all. The MH has been indirectly nerfed with the introduction of the Elementals, and it was already weaker than the Berserker when all stages of the game are considered. Like the Warbreed it doesn’t receive the Martial Arts bonus and it’s level scaling is more problematic.

    The Solution I Propose will make buffing the MH contingent on class buildings rather than a tech and will thus limit the production of buffed units to the most developed cities. The Buffs I proposed are (a) not actually drawn out but rather tentative and (b) not OP at all, and yet you assume they will make these units grossly OP.

    And why are you suggesting that great beast lair add blight resistance onto monster hunters when I remember your complaints about Goblin Theocrat vs Dreadnought matchup very well. XD

    You are a funny guy. Is the WL the same as the Theocrat? Read previously in this thread- the MH should possess some Blight Resistance IMO as this is (a) the most common damage type, (b) the characteristic attack of monsters and (c) within the concept of a unit well versed with nature and poisions. Adding this on a t3 building will defintely not be overpowered- consider how expensive this building is and at what stage you build it, and this is a non-sequitur.

    Finally, as for the MH vs. t1 units. The MH is one of the shittiest units for siege warfare bar none. All of the changes I propose would not make it better at that, nor would they make it much stronger in a 1v1 matchup with t1 units- it is a t2 unit and will kill t1 units with the same impunity.

    That is probably why your post didn’t get reactions as you hoped.

    On the contrary, if that were the case I’m sure a big bunch of people would jump up and start shouting, this is just normal psychology.

    #125567

    Well, you sorta made my point with the human scoundrel/assassins portion of your reply, as dwarven hunter/scoundrels get Mountain concealment and Mountaineering, ditto elves and goblins, forestry/wetland respectively. So I shouldn’t be building these on Mountains, Swamps or Forests.
    Okay…

    hardly, I am just assuming that water concealment will be dropped from the human hunter/assassin: it is too powerful in connection with swimming.

    As for the other things, it depends: do you want a sentry post as a simple “warning indicator” that shows when enemies are coming, or do you want it to be a strongpoint?

    incidentally, the clever move with stealthed units is to just bypass such things, so the warlord has no idea you are coming. taking over one would be a mistake. Unless they were detectors, of course.

    Your solution further implies that I ought to take a irregular (movement impaired) unit to play zonal defense, and that there’s the potential to set up a trap for some of the most highly mobile units in the game?
    I don’t follow!
    And MH come out too late for scouting by your own admission, so there’s a definite disconnect. As in, if they’re too late to come out for scouting, they’re out too late to deter early scouts, wouldn’t you say? (btw, only goblin MH have blight damage, re.: whisps..)

    the trap idea is strategic: you either intentionally place an under defended/don’t place a sentry post in an area that you want the enemies to go into. It is like how the mongols intentionally left holes in their formations so people would escape and not fight as hard, or how horsemen of many cultures would have false retreats.

    as for wisps, rouges have the poison blades spell, and Archdruids have hornet swarm/baby reed serpents.

    I’m not sure what you are saying about monster hunters, but it is true that they aren’t out in time for the critical early scouting stuff, but they still are useful for later scouting and clearing.

    Regarding the beacon type idea – what if rather than being tied to a unit, it was treated in a similar manner to dreadnought spell disruptors: namely, able to be dropped in anywhere you have vision to, and built over the course of a turn? Depending on how you want to work it, it could either automatically disappear if taken by someone else (it’s set up so it can be quickly destroyed if it looks like it’s about to fall to the enemy) or it could generate a special map for battles on that tile so it can be used as a sort of impromptu fort. Possibly it could use something like the bandit camp map, so it can have a bit of a feeling of a Roman fortified camp to it.

    that would work also, although I think that your earlier point about not dropping in suggests that you should have to place it on an existing warlord unit (that would probably be an easier way to have units build them than give them a builder like option).

    It might also be useful to have the post give true sight to units stationed there. It would also help justify the structure using mana rather than gold.

    In other words quickly producing meaningful intel on the run, is still strongly inhibited (not so with the scanner ability, I might note!

    yeah, but a scanner is hard to square with the warlord lorewise: it is basically using a palantir, so it would seem to be a sorcerer thing, or possibly a rouge. It also would have to be tied to the warlord’s person, since that is where all the intelligence or whatever, would have to come in.

    #125568

    Rexnos
    Member

    What if we just weaponized the Warlord’s builder? Could be a terrible idea, but warlord puts legions in my mind, which means Roman legions, which means engineering corps, which means roads, encampments, and fortifications. Give the builder a weapon and movement buff and let him go to town.

    Sure, it won’t solve the warlord’s mana problems, but the delay on scouting might pay for itself in mid-game infrastructure.

    #125614

    That latter could be basically a stance for the irregular (or, in theory, any Warlord unit?) sacrificing mp but allowing them further vision, at a mana cost.

    I.E. select unit, next to the camp icon that removes them from the movement queue there is another icon which is “form sentry position” which costs x mana, and requires full mp to use and then takes all mp away for that turn, or however many turns would be required to balance it.

    I have no problem with asymmetrical solution, I have a problem with half baked solutions, and a lot of the discussions in the last few pages have been characterized by a rather shallow consideration of the issues at hand, and then by some rather off topic rhetoric which replaced actual discussion. If you wander, this is addressed at you – in case indirect speech and irony are not obvious enough (as in some previous posts).

    One could just give the MH a special ability – which makes it concealed, gives it temporary true sight and extends its range of vision by +2.

    You seem confused. You claim certain ideas are shallow, then you take them and try and present them as your own.

    And in a thread like this I favour direct speech, if you want to carry on being passive aggressive be my guest. You can also carry on telling other people on Steam that I’m a c*nt (or did you think I wouldn’t hear about it?)

    OR, you can grow up and discuss the ideas like an adult.

    The WL scout weakness hurts in the early game, and it hurts more than it did at vanilla because of the research slowdown and the increase in the cost of military buildings.

    At release it was entirely viable to fast tech to Cavalry and use those as your scouts, now it isn’t.

    The problem is WL scouting in a very specific window. Once Monster Hunters come into play, WLs get a good Scout and a good anti-scout, so they can shut down cherub swarms etc.

    Now, in early game, that translates into several, key, disadvantages, as have been touched upon already:

    1. Easy access to the free stuff. WL relies much more on luck here and finding free stuff near him. Anything over mountains, or across a river, is effectively out of reach. WL has to jump through some hoops to even come close to competing here, i.e. death march + call militia + seafaring which everyone else covers with just their initial summon.

    2. Vision. It’s easy as a WL to be effectively blind and follow what might turn out to be the wrong road, whereas a Rogue gets a much better intel picture, much faster and make the choices of which towns to go towards.

    3. Anti-scout

    4. Additional troops to help clear.

    1 – is solved by making all the currently free stuff require more investment and effort to acquire, by putting 2 irregular defenders. If every pile of gold has 2 scoundrels on it, that would remove what is imho the single biggest disadvantage of the WL early game.

    2 – is what we’ve been focussing on for the last few pages. The scanner idea, the better passive scouting on the WL himself (i.e. topography scouting) or the irregulars create a Watchtower idea (in whatever form, e.g. have them inert and then activated by being occupied by irregulars, have them be a beacon of eternal flame and require mana, have them construct a zone of control, or have “sentry post” be a stance that the irregular uses) are all ways to increase WLs vision.

    The scanner idea had the drawback of being lorewise hard to explain (although, I have an idea there, you could rename the ability to “send runners” and it sends scouts out from the WL to the target destination and back) whereas the idea of the WL getting a better idea of the layout of the map is easier to understand, but as Alf points out, is a bit less dynamic.

    The watchtower/sentry post idea is, at it’s core (as I understand) simply a way to make the irregulars more useful. As a WL you’ll likely be churning these out non stop anyway, so why not give them more, WL specific, utility.

    3. In the early game the only direct anti scout unit would have to be another Scout, but whatever you design for the WL would have to be worse at it than dedicated Scouts, so my inclination is improve the general situation as outlined in 1 + 2 and maintain reliance on the Monster Hunter.

    4. WL clearing, until recently, was terrible. Now it is decent. I think that with everyone else needing to use their extra summons to get the freebies, it will equalise because Call militia is pretty cheap. 2 of those for every Wisp, and the WL would be able to (if #1 were implemented) amass a force quicker than other classes in order to clear, the drawback being it would be from the city.

    That is the problem facing WL at the moment so, contrary to your think Ex, the ideas bounced about here (1 and 2) actually stem from very careful thinking about the situation, not shallow half baked ideas.

    The reason I pointed out that mounted scouts were considered already was to show you that that line of thought had already been explored, and deemed unsatisfactory.

    Scouting and exploration are about being able to move in the map.

    I disagree. In game terms, specifically the early game I am talking about, it is about vision (so you can plan where to go next) and free pickups, both of which are addressed.

    What if we just weaponized the Warlord’s builder? Could be a terrible idea, but warlord puts legions in my mind, which means Roman legions, which means engineering corps, which means roads, encampments, and fortifications. Give the builder a weapon and movement buff and let him go to town.

    Sure, it won’t solve the warlord’s mana problems, but the delay on scouting might pay for itself in mid-game infrastructure.

    It’s not a bad idea at all. I do think however that the issue is with early game scouting. Weaponised, or sturdier builders, could be a cool thing to add into the “Expander” specialisation, along with a tech to increase the time it takes to raze your buildings, which I would call “Solid foundations.”

    #125636

    Sorax
    Keymaster

    You can also carry on telling other people on Steam that I’m a c*nt (or did you think I wouldn’t hear about it?)

    Hi BLOODYBATTLEBRAIN,

    Please have a look on our forum terms of use:

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/please-follow-our-terms-of-use/
    * Stay on-topic.

    Consider this post your second warning, 3rd one will come with consequences.

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/aow3-golden-realms-expansion-revealed/page/12/#post-118226

    Regards,
    Sorax

    ____________
    No value added in this statement, it has nothing to do with the actual discussion. Since I think you are the most active user of this forum, you really should know better. Please, just stop it. Add each other on Steam, don’t take this to the forum.
    Now, to keep things fair: I did not read all of the previous wall of texts, hence: In case I missed another flaming/off-topic statement (of another user), please let me know, I’ll have a look at it.

    Now, please please please can we stop this kindergarten?

    Regards,
    Sorax

    #125696

    ExNihil
    Member

    [Removed Off-topic here] Back to the subject of the Warlord!

    I have made two recent proposals:

    1.

    One could just give the MH a special ability – which makes it concealed, gives it temporary true sight and extends its range of vision by +2. When pressing this ability, available only on the strategic map, the MH will lost of its MP but receive the above benefits. This will stay like this until this unit is moved and acts like the guard option.

    And 2.

    This can be combined with the following idea: The WL’s buildings will each give a special buff to irregular units – the first building will give them to t1 irregular units, and the 2nd and 3rd buildings will give them to all irregular units produced in a city, that is, to MH and racial irregulars. These buildings will at the same time become a precondition for casting the Raise Militia spell, so it could only be casted on a city with these buildings in. So this will also limit the production of racial irregulars with buffs. I suggest the following:

    Warlord Command: Racial Irregulars receive +4MP, Mountaineering, Forestry and +1 Vision Range.
    Gladiator Pit: Irregular Units receive some combat buff, perhaps some elemental damage!
    Great-beast Lair: Monster Hunters receive extra slayer traits and perhaps some nice combat buffs as well – I’d like some blight resistance on ‘em.

    The first of these has been offered as an alternative solution that uses something of the general idea of stuff that has been discussed here, hence the word JUST in the phrasing. I am unaware of anyone proposing this solution before, and if it was than I think it is excellent (if I may say so myself), either way I have not “stolen” this idea from anyone and the allegation is preposterous given the terms of use of this forum and the purpose of this thread as well. Be that as it may, I posted it for the purpose of discussing it as a possible solution, and I still think it’s viable. If anyone wants to give some substantive input I’d be happy to discuss it.

    As for the second solution, this builds on an idea by @alf978 in a way that makes the WL more interesting and unique, while solving multiple issues. I think it is an excellent solution, but am of course open and actually invite discussion.

    As for Drax’s latest proposal regard “Beacons” and such like. I think it might be possible to introduce a beacon like spell for the WL, and that it might be an intriguing option in some situations. I also think though that it might very easily become OP in one regard, while not solving the scouting problem in the other.

    I would therefore rather consider introducing this as part of a magic sphere available to all classes, perhaps as part of the Explorer specialization which I always felt was a bit too much niche (someone mentioned this, no?).

    Now there are also some idea’s I proposed earlier I would like to continue a discussion of (they have been sidelined by the scout issue):

    3.

    Make Authority of the Sword castable on Forts as well while changing the spell’s cost to scale in accordance with the domain giving structure’s type (settlement/fort/domain) and size (outpost/village/town/city/metropolis), something along the lines of: Outpost/Fort – 4 mana/turn, Village – 8mana/turn, Town/Dwelling – 12 mana/turn, City – 16mana/turn, Metropolis – 20mana/turn (or any other equivalent scaling scheme). It should also give a gold bonus on buildings that can be “taxed” for “protection” such as Great Farm, Trading Post and Inn (Great Farm now gives a gold bonus for Dreadnought with Steam Powered, which I think is wrong).

    4. Give the WL a specific version of Corpse Looting that lends extra research points in accordance with the amount and tier of enemies killed – I have made such a suggestion regarding the Rogue which I think can apply here very nicely. Basically every type of will have a certain probability of giving out research bonus upon being killed – Animals will have a low chance, Undead/Monster will have a medium chance, and Machine/Magical Origin/Elementals will have a high chance. Thus it is not guaranteed that every unit killed will give out RP but is rather dependent on a successful roll. This will also put the Warlord in a situation in which he has to fight those units with which he has the most problem of contending with in order to receive the highest benefit. The amount of RP can also be effected by the creature type in conjunction with the creature’s tier. Thus a t2 animal will lend substantially less RP than a t2 elemental.

    I think of all of these as relative to the rebalance of the WL in terms of making its earlier game, which is too weak and too slow, stronger and making its late-game (or very late-game), which is OP, more balanced by spreading some of this power in earlier stages and decreasing Global Assault a bit.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by  President.
    #125699

    I am unaware of anyone proposing this solution before, and if it was than I think it is excellent (if I may say so myself), either way I have not “stolen” this idea from anyone and the allegation is preposterous given the terms of use of this forum and the purpose of this thread as well.

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/warlord-balance-discussion/page/6/#post-125147

    specifically:

    That latter could be basically a stance for the irregular (or, in theory, any Warlord unit?) sacrificing mp but allowing them further vision

    Right there, the idea of irregulars/other units sacrificing movement for vision. [Removed off-topic here]

    As for Drax’s latest proposal regard “Beacons” and such like. I think it might be possible to introduce a beacon like spell for the WL, and that it might be an intriguing option in some situations

    This is exactly the sort of thing we are discussing, the concept and execution, and this is one of the very ideas you derided as shallow and half baked.

    Taken as a package, i.e.

    1. defenders on free stuff

    2. ways to increase vision on Warlord units (beacons either manned or structure like the Dreadnought’s mana inhibitor/unit stance/Hero based scanner or even weaponised builders for later etc.)

    I believe those would be more than sufficient to redress the balance in the early game, which is the area that is of most concern, at least to me.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by  President.
    #125701

    And the very next post is

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/warlord-balance-discussion/page/6/#post-125160

    which is Chrys’ elaboration of that idea.

    It beggars belief that you managed to miss 2 posts on this.

    #125704

    ExNihil
    Member

    [removed off-topic]

    Lets look at what you wrote:

    One way you could get around that is by making the beacons/sentry posts considerably worse than watchtowers and making them mana based, and in turn making them have true sight, OR, require them to have an irregular in the beacon in order to work.

    That latter could be basically a stance for the irregular (or, in theory, any Warlord unit?) sacrificing mp but allowing them further vision, at a mana cost.

    I.E. select unit, next to the camp icon that removes them from the movement queue there is another icon which is “form sentry position” which costs x mana, and requires full mp to use and then takes all mp away for that turn, or however many turns would be required to balance it.

    In a weird way it basically a way to toggle extra vision on an irregular at the cost of mana, so mana to get the irregular, then mana to get it’s vision up, or think of it as toggleable watchtowers lol. It also means each sentry position/beacon has innate defence.

    You could put out a screen of sentry positions if you wanted.

    Obvious synergy with partisan here…

    The tech to do that could be called Overwatch or something and be the same that unlocks Chrys’ hero abilities.

    This option would attach greater importance to units.

    So you are proposing here, in continuation of the previous discussion, that Irregular units (all irregular units) build a sentry position using mana in return for full MP. This is NOT what I have proposed:

    1. I have proposed an innate ability that doesn’t use any resources but rather costs merely MP.

    2. This ability does not build any kind of watchtower like structure.

    3. I proposed this specifically for the Monster Hunter.

    Now, @Chrysophylax wrote the following:

    That is rather interesting. So you’d send a batch of irregulars, one would “construct” the sentry post at various points, and the others would occupy them to make them permanent, if necessary.

    If you didn’t, you would still have revealed cities and sites and whatnot, so there would be some benefit.

    linking this to a hero upgrade for the warlord, it would be nice to give them a somewhat better version, since you would have to both research and unlock it (presumably after field medic).

    Lets call it “bivouac”, and have it just make a sentry post for the irregular, but for the warlord, they get both a vision boost and the little palisade spikes, plus a small defense bonus.

    rather than costing mana or making a permanent structure, it would cost mp, and be mobile: every time the warlord moved, it would vanish, but they could rebuild it if they had enough strategic mp.

    This would give the Warlord some interesting options: they could either move normally, move a little more slowly but with the extra vision/defense, or use death march to take damage, but move far and have the bonus.

    This is again an idea around (A) a structure and (B) all irregular units. Furthermore, I proposed an ability that gives extra vision range, concealment and true sight – a new combination that is also distinct.

    My suggestion was a reply to @ayenara who made a proposal based on other materials. I have neither claimed this came to me in as some sort of original epiphany nor tried to patent it, so I don’t see why you are accusing me of sinning against you or anyone else here at all.

    As for Drax’s proposal – this is the first time it was proposed as a spell that can be casted on every hex within vision range 0 not tied to some Irregular unit. I explicitly say it is intriguing in SOME situations and that I think it would fit better in a specialization. I don’t think it’s shallow, but Drax didn’t posit this as an all encompassing solution for the WL but rather as a way to make this a useful ability in face of my previous criticisms of the other proposals – all of which tie it to an irregular unit. I also said what I think of this as a solution for the WL and I suggest you guys take a look in my previous post.

    Now, I would like us to stay on the subject. I have made some concrete proposals – be they my “own” or influenced by others, and I would like to discuss them with whoever is willing and interested in actually doing so.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by  President.
    #125731

    @ Ex, what you did was call these very ideas shallow and half baked, and said they didn’t address the issues.

    I have shown exactly which issues they address.

    You then take these ideas and repackage them and try and pass them off as something new and original.

    The idea of taking mp from an irregular and giving it vision is right there, whether or not that results in an actual building as was proposed, or is simply a stance.

    This is what I object to and find a bit hypocritical – the criticising then adopting.

    I have explained what I perceive to be the issue and also suggested very concrete ideas, and shown why your critique is invalid (namely that they don’t address the WL early game).

    I proposed an ability that gives extra vision range, concealment and true sight – a new combination that is also distinct.

    All there in some form or another in the post I made – burning beacons to give true sight, irregulars to sacrifice mp for vision (i.e. make an actual sentry post) all you’ve done is fuse it and limit it to a single unit which imho doesn’t need help at all – the Monster Hunter, and which currently comes out too late to affect the early game which is what I am talking about.

    If you don’t understand why I am pissed off then there it is:

    1. you rubbished my idea and others, which was a critique I feel has been addressed

    2. then took it and them, and tried to make it and them sound new and unique.

    I’m looking at this as an issue with how to help the WL from early game until MH become a realistic force, therefore the solution cannot be making a better MH, no matter how nice that might be.

    Now, I would like us to stay on the subject. I have made some concrete proposals – be they my “own” or influenced by others, and I would like to discuss them with whoever is willing and interested in actually doing so.

    Welcome to the party. That’s what we’ve been doing the last few pages before you show up with this:

    As for asymmetry – you keep saying that, as well as homogenization, as some buzz word that is supposed to be some sort of uber argument or perhaps incite Bouh into action. I have no problem with asymmetrical solution, I have a problem with half baked solutions, and a lot of the discussions in the last few pages have been characterized by a rather shallow consideration of the issues at hand, and then by some rather off topic rhetoric which replaced actual discussion. If you wander, this is addressed at you – in case indirect speech and irony are not obvious enough (as in some previous posts).

    And now ironically you condone some of these very same ideas.

Viewing 30 posts - 181 through 210 (of 376 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.