[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, 11 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 211 through 240 (of 376 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #125781

    ExNihil
    Member

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

    Nope. I have called some other ideas shallowly thought and half baked. That is exactly what they are IMO – it was a sincere and in my opinion precise analysis which was worded in this blunt fashion after my attempts to explain myself using subtler and rather softer language were replied with off topic and occasionally also somewhat offensive replies that ignored the substance and content of my valid and on topic criticisms.

    you rubbished my idea and others

    I did not “Rubbish” “Your” ideas, I criticized them relative to the matter at hand and was always discussing the subject of this topic and issues, for some reason you are taking this as if these criticisms was a personal insult. My criticisms of these idea(s) are still as valid as they were before and these ideas will all offer a rather poor and inadequate solution to the scouting issue, with some (ideas) also being problematic in other respects as well.

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

    Well, I see significant differences beyond the ideas proposed by you and others and these ideas. I have already enumerated why. I will not though argue this with you; the readers of this thread can read it up and decide for themselves what each of us is doing here and what are the similarities and differences between our different proposals, positions and so forth. I intend to follow @Sorex’s request that we remain on topic, so I ask you for a third time that we return to the topic at hand.

    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.

    The suggestion the WL receive true sight on some units was not your own. @alf978 suggested (see page 3 of this thread) giving the Monster Hunter true sight and the direction my proposal was based, when someone (not you) pointed out that the WL has no way of dealing with concealed units except 2nd tier support units:

    What if the Monster Hunter would receive True Sight as an medal upgrade or inherent bonus? And IF it were to change position with the Bezerker, still as a T2, it could act as quasi anti-scout unit earlier on. Not quite capable as a true scout, but rather with integrated scout/concealment defense for the WL?

    You suggested that irregular sacrifice mp for vision, I adopted this idea. I then made a proposal that the Monster Hunter will receive +2 vision, concealment and true sight by sacrificing all of his MP and staying in a semi-guard position, rather than by giving it a watchtower like structure that will cost it mana to maintain. I have made a ‘proposal’ and that is what I was saying. Now note the following bits:

    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.

    As you can see from the above I am offering this as a solution to the True Sight issue, not claiming this will solve the scouting problems of the WL, I think it appears at the right stage of the game for this ability to be introduced.

    I was also addressing the following concern I have discussed at some length earlier and which is still an issue IMO:

    Berserkers become stronger as the game progresses- they have great level scaling and benefit from Martial Arts Training, which makes them up to par with quite a bit of t3 units in melee. Switching them with Monster Hunters will not greatly slow down their accumulation. Yet I understand your worry from a 1v1 perspective as the Berserker is pretty much the best WL unit until Manticore-Riders per its respective tier, whereby the Monster Hunter is substantially less powerful in all-round PvP situations. That is why the Monster Hunter needs to both appear earlier and be buffed – in the Early phases of the game its mobility advantage is potentially decisive for the WL but ATM it really has a rather small window of effectiveness and this is a great shame for a unit that is meant to be one of the best creepers in the game, thus accumulating a lot of the valuable resource XP.

    I will repeat- the proposal I made regarding the Monster Hunter is meant to make this unit much more relevant- making it into a stealth commando unit with excellent spying abilities, and an assassin detector type of unit that can find invisible units in the *bush* so to speak. It thus addresses the True Sight issue.

    I then proposed a solution to the SCOUT ISSUE by building on @alf978‘s proposal to buff the irregulars using Raise Militia – which I said was viable since he made it, but was not enthusiastic about as it was formulated, by offering a new solution that I think will work great and which @alf978 himself liked:

    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.

    I think the Monster Hunter proposal can synergize with this proposal to solve the WH’s scouting issue in a satisfactory way: The WL will have a better scouting unit than some t1 animals (not Penguin!) the AD can summon, but worse than all other qua scout, which will be compensated by having access to a unique scouting enhancement on a t2 unit. This will be asymmetrical and be elegant. Saying this, anyone of these proposals can interface with other solutions. For instance- a new scouting unit is created, either a navajo-like mounted scout as I proposed, what you once proposed as a “pathfinder,” or some other unit, and the MH can work as well. I do not think they are mutually inclusive or exclusive.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by  President.
    #125792

    This discussion has gotten far too out of hand and has become about you and me, which is useful to precisely no-one.

    It has become:

    but you said

    no you said

    no you said this

    and I personally find it tiring and childish and frankly beneath me.

    At the end of it, we all want the same thing which is a better Warlord.

    If you think you can keep ontopic and refrain from inflammatory commentary then I shall endeavour to do the same.

    I have gone through the last few pages off this discussion and am summarising the ideas presented from all sides together with pros and cons in a google doc, in an effort to rejig the discussion.

    #125798

    OKay, I have gone through the last 5 pages of this and collated the ideas and the various pros and cons for all who are interested in viewing them.

    I have tried to be as succinct as possible, so if you feel your pet idea hasn’t been given much attention, my defence is that it is indeed a summary, designed so one can read it relatively quickly and if they so choose they can use the hyperlinks to get the relevant threads.

    The intent was/is to explain the ideas so far, specific to which problems they address.

    I’ve also tried to control my tendency to elaborate in detail any particular idea.

    I hope this helps as an overview.

    #125856

    Ayenara
    Member

    I’d like to tell you about a game I played yesterday. It might give some perspective on how WL works out in practice right now.

    It was a 4p FFA with me playing Draconian WL, and one Goblin/Rogue, one Draconian/Rogue, and one Human/Warlord. We played on a medium continents map with underground. Treasure pickups were few, as well as the amount of cities and dwellings. There were supposed to be many treasure sites, but in the game it felt a bit empty still. Empire quests and seals were turned on.

    Right from the start I tried to work a bit on the scouting. I found a watchtower, and built two more quite fast, so I had a good view around my Throne City located in the southwest part of the map. Clearing Rogue Encampments were also a focus of my early turns, but mostly because I couldn’t find any cities close to me. Turns out there was one a bit further away, but I wasted like 7-8 turn going from clearing one Rogue Encampment that I thought was closer than it was, and then having to backtrack. If I had scouted better I would have gone for the city (a hostile village) earlier.

    My research went into Warfare I from the start, and let me pump out a lot of Hatchlings with Raise Militia that I used to guard me Watchtowers and scout the roads. This meant that I quickly used up all my gold for upkeep, which didn’t get fixed until I captured that village.

    The mana however wasn’t being used that much, and I had a Mana Node in my throne to help me, and I built a Shrine early on. So the next item of research was Summon Lesser Elemental. Around turn 15 I managed to finish that research and I also found a small outpost near the village that I had captured. I then moved east to clear some sites for forts south of my Throne.

    The two Rogues were fighting a bit at a city near the Draconians homeland, so I made a plan to attack the Goblin in the underground. I had three stacks consisting of some Lesser Elementals, Berserkers, two Rams (I had a Dreadnaught hero also), an Elder, a Dwarf Hunter, some Hatchlings, as well as my leader and heroes. There was a big fight at the underground Throne but I managed to vanquish the player, but with heavy losses.

    By now my economy had really started rolling. I cast the Inspire Loyalty spell I started out with, and teched Training Regime and War Effort. I could build one turn Flamers in the village I had captured. Resurfacing from the underground I cleared some more sites south of my Throne.

    After having rebuilt my armies I started to march northwest towards a Fey Dwelling that the Draconian Rogue had made his Throne. But I was interrupted by the other Warlord capturing 2-3 seals and quickly accumulating points. Turning around, I met him with 4 stacks to his three, but the pre-battle maneuvering left us in a fight with two stacks each.

    He had some Warbreeds, a gold Knight, two Champions (human Archer and Priest), his Leader and an AD both with Seeker and Regrowth items. I had my Leader and 3 more heroes, some Berserkers, two Earth Elementals (one of them Gold), and a Blight Elemental. We started out buffing out troops, and even though I attacked him, I was afraid of charging into all those Warbreeds. He cast Last Stand, I cast Warp Equiment on him (doesn’t work on Warbreeds though), and some Lion’s Courage. Together with Blood Brothers, this meant that most of my army had Strong Will.

    Anyway, eventually I moved my Earth Elementals next to his Warbreeds and the fight was on. The Earth Elementals and some Muskets managed to take out three warbreeds the next turn, after his counterattack killed my Blight Elemental and did some damage. I lost some Berserkers and a Hero, but the fight was pretty much over after I managed to Petrify Touch his Leader (who also had Static Shield!).

    He retreated with the rest of his troops towards his throne and I followed, eventually vanquishing him in another big fight, while I lost my Throne to the Rogue. By this time we were really tired so we adjourned the game.

    Some thoughts:

    Yes, the scouting is a problem, but in this game I think I could’ve scouted a bit better as well. Call militia is pretty cheap and you’re usually starved for upkeep anyway early on, so losing a few scouts isn’t that big of a deal. Later on WL has a couple of different ways to get really good scouting (Adept Air Zephyr Birds, Explorer Call Militia and Monster Hunters, the new Wild Magic Lesser Elementals, or racial T3 units). But unless you really like taking risks, early aggression is very difficult, since you’ll be striking at darkness.

    Warlord has probably the best gold economy in the game with Inspire Loyalty, Training Regime, and War Effort. With 5 cities I was netting around +200 a turn even with 30+ units on the map.

    Physical Protection is a real problem. The other Warlord in the game had almost nothing to stop my Strong Will Earth Elementals. But Wild Magic is exactly what Warlord needs. A good source of mobile troops that also have Elemental Damage. And they are a good way to spend your mana!

    Concealed units are a bit difficult to handle as a WL. The rogue player managed to get my throne using his leaders forest concealment command.

    The challenge in balancing WL is that when it’s good, it’s really good, but when it’s bad, it’s really bad. For example, one hex water tiles in your cities are really bad since early on other players can park a scout there and you can’t remove it. Or when you are building 1-turn Berserkers, or 2-turn Flyers, with all the gold to support that buildup, it’s really good.

    #125866

    Bouh
    Member

    Interesting example Ayenara. And it confirm what I thought : to me the warlord doesn’t need much, or he will quickly become overpowered. That’s why I think the simplest and best change would be to buff racial irregular speed, and this for three reasons : it would make them more interesting versus regular infantry, thus giving them a niche ; it fit irregular more to be faster ; it would help the warlord scouting by providing him cheap and fastish units very early.

    On top of that, swaping MH with berzerker in the tree may solve most other problems if it is even still required.

    Lastly, guarding treasure is the best idea I saw in this thread as currently this treasures gives good scouting classes a drastic economical advantage. This alone might fix warlord early game problem IMO.

    I don’t think the warlord should ever become good at scouting. This and physical protection are his only weaknesses. He should keep them.

    #125867

    Ayenara, your experience confirms mine in every respect.

    The most pressing problem imho the early game, namely:

    But unless you really like taking risks, early aggression is very difficult, since you’ll be striking at darkness.

    which is why the solutions I propose and favour are all about that early game.

    Let’s take the idea of a beacon or building that generates vision, at mana cost, in the early game, before you got to lesser Elementals and Monster Hunters. Being able to switch one of these on to gain vision would have been very useful for you I imagine.

    Basically, I don’t think giving the WL a dedicated Scout unit is the best solution.

    When the stars align for the WL, it’s very competitive. Ofcourse the same is true of any class, but other classes can align themselves much better imho.

    #125869

    I don’t think the warlord should ever become good at scouting.

    I agree with this, with the addendum that they shouldn’t become good at scouting the way others scout.

    I think that if you basically take the explorer upgrades and make that the default on militia, then you make explorer irrelevant surely? This is my principle opposition to just making irregulars faster. I’d rather give them the ability to make a beacon, or to go into a stance, so instead of increasing their base stats, just make them more all round useful.

    In the early game it’s all about your vision radius imho. As Ayenara points out

    Turns out there was one a bit further away, but I wasted like 7-8 turn going from clearing one Rogue Encampment that I thought was closer than it was, and then having to backtrack. If I had scouted better I would have gone for the city (a hostile village) earlier.

    Such a situation wouldn’t have arisen with either a dedicated scout, or a way to improve vision.

    For example, the idea by Chrys/Drax (you are both dragons and Dragons look the same to me guys so sorry if I misremember who said what here) of having the WL uncover the terrain would have been perfect here, as would have a scanner idea.

    #125877

    Bouh
    Member

    I think that if you basically take the explorer upgrades and make that the default on militia, then you make explorer irrelevant surely? This is my principle opposition to just making irregulars faster. I’d rather give them the ability to make a beacon, or to go into a stance, so instead of increasing their base stats, just make them more all round useful.

    By faster I think 4MP should be enough. They would have 32 instead of 28 which would make them faster both on strategic map and on battlefield. They would still be rather bad scout, but not as bad as currently, and more importantly better than *any other unit*. You wouldn’t feel flawed with your militia when “summon” it. And the explorer spe would still gives great advantages, allowing irregulars to become real good scouts with 40MP, all terrain movement bonuses and the vision radius bonus.

    To me, scouting should remain a clear disadvantage of the warlord. He should remain a kind of blind but unstopable beast. Kind of, because obviously no scouting at all is too harsh.

    #125896

    If this is to affect all militia then I don’t see how it helps the WL. Everyone would benefit and the WL would still be disadvantaged relative to the other classes.

    If it is a WL specific solution then you might as well create the pathfinder (forestry, swimming, 32 mp irregular unit), switch around MH and Berserkers, or create the janissary (forestry, no swimming, 36 mp, basically a mounted scout) which as discussed is very close to over homogenizing the WL. Simply adding the extra mp to the militia I feel wouldn’t solve the problem.

    I just finished playing a game against a Theocrat. Ordinarily this would be a total walkover for the Theocrat, but I made the player work for his victory.

    It was indeed a close run thing but I made some mistakes.

    I had air adept, and so had decent vision, but that can never compete with massed cherubs which are cheaper to recruit and maintain.

    I researched death march and seafaring a bit later, so my Dwarf opponent was able to use the waterways and mountains better than I was. Had I picked these up earlier I would have been able to avoid losing my 2nd city (the loss of which sent me into a spiral I didn’t quite get out of.)

    Basically, I feel the WL is very close to being in a good position.

    Give him a reliable way to generate vision at the start of the game and he will be set.

    In this game, there were pickups near my cap that I didn’t get until turn 12 + because I didn’t see them until turn 6 or 7 and then extra turns to get a unit there.

    I also didn’t get any Monster Hunters, and a stack of those would have been…useful…

    #125932

    For example, the idea by Chrys/Drax (you are both dragons and Dragons look the same to me guys so sorry if I misremember who said what here) of having the WL uncover the terrain would have been perfect here, as would have a scanner idea.

    what an anti dragonite statement! We will have to take it up at the next human feast….er, Dragons of the world united local 24 meeting.

    The more I think about it (thanks in part to Ayenara’s discussion), some kind of costly, but present, ability to have true sight ought to belong to the warlord.

    This would either be with a stance on the units, or a constructed sentry post, or perhaps the scanner. I think the occupied sentry post is the best idea, as you wouldn’t be able to build them everywhere, but would have a use for your irregular swarms.

    The warlord should be somewhat limited outside of their domain in the early game, but need not be totally blind inside or out.

    I cast Warp Equiment on him (doesn’t work on Warbreeds though

    I think that the Warbreed is the only production T-3 that is immune to warp equipment. And that is a powerful immunity.

    #125969

    what an anti dragonite statement! We will have to take it up at the next human feast….er, Dragons of the world united local 24 meeting.

    You can hardly expect us mere mortals to fathom the infinite variety of beings as infinitely powerful as you Dragons

    #125983

    Anublet90
    Member

    I’m about to go to sleep, so I’ll try to keep this short.

    – I really like the idea of buffing Irregulars (though I’d limit it to Raise Militia; if the issue is early scouting then we shouldn’t be buffing the Monster Hunter just because he’s super cool) via class-structures.

    – I also like the idea of Sentry Posts/Barricades, but the execution still seems a bit crude.

    – On the scanner: why not limit its usage to somewhere you can already see? It’d have to be a relatively large area to be useful, but it would make Irregular scouting relevant even without buffing. I’m thinking something like a Ward in <MOBA> that has True Seeing and lasts until end of turn.

    #126048

    Bouh
    Member

    If this is to affect all militia then I don’t see how it helps the WL. Everyone would benefit and the WL would still be disadvantaged relative to the other classes.

    It’s the whole point. Warlord should not have any advantage versus other in scouting, or he would lose an achille’s heel. The point is to give everyone, and the warlord in particular, a not too bad scout. The others could use irregular to scout, but why do this when they have better summonable scout ? The point is to make basic scouting something not worthless, so the class who rely the most on it is relatively buffed a lot more than the others.

    The point is to raise the lowest scouting threshold so the warlord is less blind while the others are not affected and the warlord keep his scouting disadvantage so he does’nt become overpowered.

    And yes, a pathfinder would solve the problem just as much ; well, actualy quite more, but that’s why I’d rather buff irregulars : irregulars are seen as useless by most compared to infantry and archers so some more speed would differenciate them ; and a pathfinder would actualy make the warlord better at scouting than archdruid IMO, and about equal to sorcerer and dreadnaught, which is dangerous I think.

    But indeed only 32MP irregulars might not be enough. That’s why I talk about treasure guards and swapping berzerker and MH.

    And if I prefer these solutions, it’s because they are dirty simple and possibly very effective ones.

    The more I think about it (thanks in part to Ayenara’s discussion), some kind of costly, but present, ability to have true sight ought to belong to the warlord.

    There already is one : priests.

    #126058

    Taykor
    Member

    I actually like very much this Eternal Flames idea, because it helps WL with vision, makes additional use of mana for him, has connection to “warriors’ tradition” and hints at WL’s slight disregard of sorcery.
    Though, I suppose Eternal Flames is not a very fit name for these objects, as they would not really be a memorials and naturally would not be considered to be eternal (as a temporary military structure). War Shrines? Flames of War?
    Creating them with a spell seems a natural choice, though it could be overpowered. So maybe requiring a unit to do that could be reasonable.

    #126081

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Just plain ‘Signal Beacon’?

    If it could be programmed in so that they only appeared ‘lit’ when there was a hostile unit in range, then there’s no need for it to be anything more special than a watchpost with a beacon to light in case of danger (although the beacon may well be powered by mana because, well, why use a fuel source that could be used to build something else if you can avoid it?)

    #126148

    Though, I suppose Eternal Flames is not a very fit name for these objects, as they would not really be a memorials and naturally would not be considered to be eternal (as a temporary military structure). War Shrines? Flames of War?

    Well, couldn’t they? It would link with the warlords control over life and death: steadfast ward and phoenix warrior.

    The spirits of the victorious dead could, in return for a mana supply, warn their living comrades of oncoming danger and uncover concealed things.

    but I was using the name to more suggest that either they would burn without having people there, or that they burned mana and were supernatural.

    priests are too late to help the warlord in the early game, where concealed players (and independents) can run rampant.

    #126151

    Ericridge
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Taykor wrote:</div>
    Though, I suppose Eternal Flames is not a very fit name for these objects, as they would not really be a memorials and naturally would not be considered to be eternal (as a temporary military structure). War Shrines? Flames of War?

    Well, couldn’t they? It would link with the warlords control over life and death: steadfast ward and phoenix warrior.

    The spirits of the victorious dead could, in return for a mana supply, warn their living comrades of oncoming danger and uncover concealed things.

    but I was using the name to more suggest that either they would burn without having people there, or that they burned mana and were supernatural.

    priests are too late to help the warlord in the early game, where concealed players (and independents) can run rampant.

    Priests come to everyone late now with their nerf to temple requirement for recruitment. The Warlord is no exception.

    #126170

    Bouh
    Member

    priests are too late to help the warlord in the early game, where concealed players (and independents) can run rampant.

    Like Ericridge said, who does it better now ? I don’t see anyone.

    #126219

    It’s the whole point. Warlord should not have any advantage versus other in scouting,

    In that case I respectfully disagree. The general discussion here seems to be looking at ways for the WL to mitigate the effects of this Achilles heel, in a relatively inconvenient manner (e.g. the continually evolving beacon idea, the scanner idea – all focussed on alleviating, at cost and inconvenience, one of the disadvantages of no scout) because the advantages of scouting are vision, extra troops and resource pickup.

    No resource pickups might actually be *enough* to tilt the balance back to where it was with the vanilla game re early game WL, the idea being that once the WL is up and running, he can compensate for generally worse scouts through having a better army etc.

    But vision is critically important imho.

    The more I think about it, the more I like the beacon and scanner ideas in their various forms, because it gives the WL the option to use it, but with drawbacks. If the scanner ability, for example, were tied to the 1st hero level up, well now the WL would have an interesting choice between field medic, which is awesome, the scanner ability, which would be useful (even as the innate passive that was discussed) or defence command, which is useful.

    Picking one means the other would have to wait a bit, which to me would be an interesting choice.

    If the beacons were passive, and required garrisoning to work, which was one idea, well that would be cool because it would be limited by the garrisoning unit (because in many case, you wouldn’t want a unit doing nothing) but you get the extra vision, i.e. a trade off.

    If the beacon burned mana then that would be pretty cool too imho, because if each one had, for example, 10 mana cost upkeep, they would still be much more inefficient than a simple scout summon, but presumably you could turn it off as the WL player, and a few of these would hurt your mana income.

    #126244

    well, if you have your own concealed troops, then you can sneak your own troops around, and the enemy player will have to be wary about being counter sneaked.

    and sorcerers can build their apprentices just from the class building.

    #126253

    alf978
    Member

    @bouh,

    I wholeheartedly disagree with you. EVERY class does it better than the WL, and here, imho, is why:

    Every Class that has a decent/great scout, has the option to utilize that scout offensively and/or defensively. If you’re playing another class with scouts, you can play ‘cat & mouse’, deter territory incursions by the opposing player, actually play zonal defense, etc.
    But the second you’re playing a WL, it’s a free-for-all for the scouting class, they can completely and 100% commit themselves to harassing, intel gathering, denying resources to the WL. Total offense without any great fear for repercussions until you get the MH out.

    Exact same thing holds true for concealment, only exacerbated. Low mobility and low vision handicapping the WL; what’s keeping the Rouge and the AD from exploiting that double whammy?
    Nothing much in the early game in my opinion. ..

    Also, tech’ing/building the Temple isn’t usually the ideal building path for a WL in the early game.
    Yes, I will get priests, but not until a bit later. Forcing the WL to diffuse or dilute the WL early game prerequisites, doesn’t exactly help him become more viable in the early game…

    I don’t mean to start an argument, I just don’t see it as clear cut as you do Bouh…

    EDIT: What @Chrys said… Lol

    #126264

    yeah, @ Bouh, the whole idea is to find ways to allow the WL to alleviate these weaknesses, but at the cost of either resources or other weaknesses, or even opportunity cost.

    For example, if the scanner ability were passive as was suggested, and tied to the WL, you could have that come at lvl 2, so now the choice would be between greater vision, field medic, or defence command, which are all useful and interesting abilities.

    #126280

    Bouh
    Member

    I’m very much against removing all warlord’s achille’s heels. The rogue for example have no way of having strong units. Summoning classes have no way of building armies of powerful units. The warlord does have strengths unmatched by other classes, whatever the time in the game. If you remove the weaknesses of the warlord, he will simply become overpowered.

    So I’m not against giving more scouting ability to the warlord because no scout at all is harsh, but I’m definitely against giving him any *good* scouting ability.

    Towers are a good idea BTW : it’s fixed and capturable/destroyable and cost money, so it’s fine.

    But the vision of invisible units, I’m against too, because nobody has these, and as scouting is a weakness of the warlord, there’s no reason he got any advantage in scouting invisible units. I mean, what would do a rogue or archdruid without invisible units in mid or late game ? Because that’s what giving true sight to a warlord regular arsenal would do : it would make concealment useless against him, because the oportunity cost of using the counter against a class you know will use concealed units is too cheap.

    #126281

    Morty
    Member

    On another note, what would you think about a global spell that gave the warlord a bit of research for every battle won/enemy defeated?

    #126282

    I mean, what would do a rogue or archdruid without invisible units in mid or late game ?

    well, if it were limited either to the warlord hero, some kind of overland spell, or sentry towers, you’d have to use your strategic advantage beyond those things to destroy them.

    for instance, as a High Elf Archdruid, you have your hunter stacks in the forests outside where the warlord has the sentry tower. At the opportune time, you swoop in from beyond the vision point, arrow the garrison to death, burn the tower, and then retreat to the forests.

    From the warlord’s perspective, it is about the placement of towers/leader location/where to reveal things: if you have proper garrisons/ nearby support, you can force the concealed player to attack at an inopportune time, or force them to invade where you want them to.

    Other classes have the opportunity to be both cat and mouse, as the situation requires, whereas the warlord would be a better cat with some of these proposals.

    #126284

    On another note, what would you think about a global spell that gave the warlord a bit of research for every battle won/enemy defeated?

    20% right as usual, Morty (I’ve always wanted to say that).

    Substantively, I think that knowledge spoliation is a good fit with the warlord, although you’d want it to relate to only research things.

    so it is sort of a combination of corpse looting and treasure raiding, in that it would give you a knowledge boost when clearing knowledge sites, and a little knowledge when you killed units.

    #126292

    alf978
    Member

    @bouh, as far as the weakness of Rouges against WL. I’m not totally buying it. The fact that the WL has very limited elemental damage, and as Garresh pointed out, Shadow Stalkers are a beast against WL units. Add to that now, with the addition of Lesser Shadow Stalkers evolving from scoundrels, which can sustain creeping much better, Swimming and concealed assassins,… I don’t know, but it would appear Rouges could do just fine.

    And on a whole, personally, I wouldn’t even mind if the WL would have ‘minimal’ scouting, if he had increased mobility (terrain-movement) to compensate, and the idea of weak defenders on pick-ups would be adopted!

    Nobody, except ExNihil, seemed to care much for the temporary ‘mini-explorer’ spell I tried to pitch, but oh well..

    #126304

    Morty
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Morty wrote:</div>
    On another note, what would you think about a global spell that gave the warlord a bit of research for every battle won/enemy defeated?

    20% right as usual, Morty (I’ve always wanted to say that).

    Substantively, I think that knowledge spoliation is a good fit with the warlord, although you’d want it to relate to only research things.

    so it is sort of a combination of corpse looting and treasure raiding, in that it would give you a knowledge boost when clearing knowledge sites, and a little knowledge when you killed units.

    The idea is to make the warlord able to finish the essential early upgrades quicker while playing aggressively and keeping their momentum. Thematically, warlords learn from studying and observing their opponents as much as they do from scholars pushing paper somewhere.

    #126305

    he temporary ‘mini-explorer’ spell I tried to pitch, but oh well..

    Did I miss it in the summary doc I made?

    Thematically, warlords learn from studying and observing their opponents as much as they do from scholars pushing paper somewhere.

    Like the Mongols going out of their way to capture personnel with particular knowledge, like siege knowledge?

    #126317

    Bouh
    Member

    @Bouh, as far as the weakness of Rouges against WL. I’m not totally buying it. The fact that the WL has very limited elemental damage, and as Garresh pointed out, Shadow Stalkers are a beast against WL units. Add to that now, with the addition of Lesser Shadow Stalkers evolving from scoundrels, which can sustain creeping much better, Swimming and concealed assassins,… I don’t know, but it would appear Rouges could do just fine.

    The thing is that against a rogue the warlord is enticed to make priests to get true sight and fight the shadow stalkers. What is wrong with this ? Why do people ask for the warlord to not need priests when they are appropriate ? Not to mention that before shadow stalkers the warlord will simply roll over any equivalent rogue army, it will not even be a fight. The rogue direly needs his scouts and his concealment, and he will need them more than ever if the scout weakness of warlord is reduced. Giving the warlord true sight is not fitting and not appropriate in my mind. It’s a buff for the sake of it.

    IMO, just guarding the treasures might fix the warlord completely. Identifying warlord weakness is needed to fix his performances problems, but removing each and any one of them is wrong for balance and will kill his identity.

    Ok, I’m probably making a bit much of what you are asking, but still. Being mostly blind and only physical damage are the two only weaknesses of the warlord. You can’t remove them.

Viewing 30 posts - 211 through 240 (of 376 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.