Heavy Infantry

[magian]

Well, I suppose time will tell who is right about this (it's me though)

[KGB]

ROTFL.

My prediction is that Hv Inf will stay as they are, the cost of Lt Calv/Elves/Pike/Dwarf will come down (good) and more 2+ turn units will also become cheaper/better and 3+ turn units will become even better (more hits/strength).

If that's what comes of this it would be the best possible outcome for the game.

KGB

[LPhillips]

Well, I suppose time will tell who is right about this (it's me though)

If that's what comes of this it would be the best possible outcome for the game.

Pshaw. No, my opinions are best!

I'm not displeased with things as they are, but cheaper Pike/Dwarf would be welcome. Really not thrilled about buffing 2-turners more. At least we're not looking at 375 for an elf anymore (and without the antiair bonus at that).

Magian, I do find it very strange that you dislike the idea of some units being used more than others. Your argument about weight class is decent enough, but it's not backed up by the numbers. 20 strength when doing their job (at a premium upkeep too) is fine, especially considering that most other 1-turn units are 20-25 when doing theirs or even 30.
Also, most players using a unit isn't a good argument for saying it's overpowered. Using a unit successfully against good players is. Most people in Starcraft 2 make wads of marines as Terran, but it's because they lack the imagination and capability of the better players, not because marines are the best units.

Light Cavalry are very fast. It's natural that they should sometimes be weaker than other units. But I'm not pleased with their lack of desert bonus.

LAST WORD!

[strach]

I think it was better when HvI was 10 +5. 10+10 in a city with 10 walls makes them a bit to tough. we had a huge disscusion how to make 2 and 3 turners more valuable and I think this goal has been acquirred - and changing HvI to 10+10 is a step back.

the other thing is that I think the creators of the game implement all this refinements of units a bit too often. it takes time to test all these new features. I'm often confused to find that qualities of a unit have been chaged before I even started to use that unit on a larger scale. I think you should be a bit more considerate or chary with it. give our some time to see how those changes work and give you some mmore informed feedback. but that's just my opinion

[magian]

I agree with Strach.

KGB, it sounds like you think that the best thing for the game would be to keep Heavy Inf as they are and make everything else more powerful. Seems easier to just weaken the Heavy Inf.

Lphillips, I find your position at least a baffling as you find mine. Sure, many (but not all) lvl 1s can get up to 20 strength, but 20 strength whenever and wherever you are defending is going to come into play a lot more than 20 strength in swamp. Cities are the most important battlefields of the game. The only other 1 turn unit that can reach 20 strength (w/o blessing) in a city is a dwarf, and they are much slower, more expensive, and have a higher upkeep than the heavy inf. I also disagree with your claim that a defense bonus is inferior to a terrain bonus, that very much depends on the terrain. I would agree that a city bonus is better, but I'll take the defense over any other terrain bonus.

There is also the issue of the unicorn. There have been quite a few discussions on how it can be made more useful. But here's another idea: don't make a cheaply produced, overpowered lvl 1 unit whose bonuses are unaffected by the unicorn. Ding!

[KGB]

I agree with Strach that it seems every time I check the armies to build something has been changed that I wasn't aware of. It used to be that we got a posting about it. But that hasn't been the case lately. Like Strach, I'd like to see things settle for a bit so we have time to evaluate the relative merits of the units.

Magican, actually right now all I think is that Elves/Lt Cav/Pikemen/Dwarves cost too much. But then I thought that before the current beta started. That's the only real thing that needs to be done in my opinion. Changes to the 2+ turn units don't need to be made right now until we have more time to experiment with them. None of that has anything to do with Hv Inf. I merely speculated that we'll continue to see 2+ turn units get stronger/better over time just as DLR units were.

KGB

[LPhillips]

Yes, it would be good to not touch units until the next beta. When you are ready to release it, then it's time to have one final discussion regarding the units. I would be absolutely offended right now if I turned around to find Heavy Infantry at 10+5, as that would break my new Final Battle scenario and also ruin many players' Beta5 games.

Unless there is a serious problem (like the Kraken earlier) it is best to leave the units alone until the next beta version. I think it's important to wait and see what actually happens with units. As I said, I've yet to see anyone use Heavy Infantry to unbalance the game. Nor any other unit, in fact. Since Kraken was fixed, there are no balance issues.

My balance suggestions from experience thus far (only to increase the available tactical/strategic options, as there are no issues with broken balance atm) would be to reduce Dwarf to 350 (325?) and Pikeman to 250, give Light Cavalry 10+5/5 (open/desert), remove the desert bonus from Heavy Cavalry and give them +5 snow (accuracy/sensibility check), give Yeti +5 fear in snow (2 elsewhere), give 3 wounds to Red Dragons, remove fear from Devil and make it cheaper (or give it 10 negate without fear), allow +move to stack up to 10 (to test the concept), and introduce a higher-level fear ally. Maybe just a differently-colored dragon for now so it's not costly.

Heavy Infantry: If you're playing a defensive strategy, you're playing a losing strategy. Unless you already have a majority/plurality of the cities, in which case you've practically won and Heavy Infantry won't make/break the battle. That's the difference between our points of view, Magian: You're thinking defensively, I'm thinking offensively. And so is KGB. If my remarks seemed inconsiderate of the opposing point of view, that's why: a point of view primarily addressing defensive strength is a point of view that loses games. So is a point of view that fails to address the economic issues of the game, such as upkeep. As I said, play me: I won't use a single Heavy Infantry, you can use all you want, and if you do I'll win.
Even Heavy Infantry at +15 wouldn't break the game (though it would be uncomfortable), and Heavy Infantry at +5 would be utterly useless. I understand that you dislike a 1-turn unit with +10 defense, but it will never make sense to argue that a defensive unit breaks the game. There needs to be an alternative beside knocking them back to +5, making them completely bland and useless. A poll of "Do they need to change?" would be fine, and then if the majority desires a change we could figure out something that would still leave us with a unit worth using. I'm not too interested in Heavy Infantry one way or another beyond my scenario map (ie, I won't use them much even at +10 because playing defense is losing), but I hate to see any unit get knocked down to crap.

[magian]

Actually, my biggest issue with the heavy inf comes from me thinking offensively. I like that some units in the game are good at fighting in particular terrains and some are good at fighting in cities. Right now, the HI is good at fighting in both. So I can march a stack of them down through your swamps, forests, or plains and the terrain specialist units that you have built have no advantage when they intercept the HI stack. Sure my HI will be at a disadvantage if they attack your units. But why would I do that when I can just march towards your city and attack that. This just puts more focus on city battles (unnecessary, already too much focus on these) and makes a number of units far less valuable than they were.

That isn't defensive thinking, quite the opposite actually.

[LPhillips]

I have never seen them operate that way in practice. At 12 movement and no terrain abilities, good luck!
Please, I'm tired of repeating myself. It's discourteous not to directly answer someone else's comments in a conversation.

Watch: I'll directly address your comments with my own opinions and observations. Then, you can go back and do the same to any number of mine that remain uncontested. Here goes... You can't threaten anyone by moving Heavy Infantry into their territory, because the Heavy Infantry aren't capable of doing anything threatening (ie, attacking their cities). I've already stated that in response to the last time you said the same thing. Did you read my response? I'm reading yours, and I think that your opinion is worthy of my attention and consideration such that I'm actually answering what you say.
The only way to employ them effectively now in a semi-offensive manner is to march them in and plant towers, which cost money. Then you can extend your meager threat over a long period of time, at continuing cost to yourself. Again, you're up against economic infeasibility when attempting to use a defensive unit for offense. The only conclusion possible from your comment about Heavy Infantry (which no one has any reason to attack, another uncontested statement) being nearly as strong on defense as some units attacking them in their own native terrain, is that the cost of terrain-specific one-turn units ought to be reduced, reflective of their limited viability.

KGB skipped all of that explanation in favor of simply stating the logical conclusion: Some other one-turn units are too expensive given their limited viability.

[magian]

Lphillips, no need to get abrasive.

Actually (if you look back in the thread) you will find that I did address your claim that heavy inf is too weak to pose any possible threat. I mentioned that could be shielding more offensive units, such as catapults, worms, or elementals. I wasn't just thinking about heavy inf acting alone in a vacuum.

In any case, I wouldn't like to have a stack of heavy inf walking around in my backfield. That kind of thing makes me nervous, and there are usually some pretty vulnerable cities back there.

Honestly, I don't think you ever replied to that argument, except by saying that if KGB thought the Heavy Inf were okay, then they were okay. End of story.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for KGB. But, isn't he the same guy who didn't know catapults took 3 hits?