Warpedia updated

[magian]

+4 stack movement is always nice, and it is a more generally useful ability than the morale boost in forest. I also agree that giving the +4 move bonus to the unicorn won't make the Green Dragon less attractive. The Green Dragon is a front rank fighter (the unicorn is a support unit), the GD flies and is the finest mount a hero could ask for.

I doubt I would bother buying a 15 strength +20D mammoth. The best defense is a good offense after all. It might be useful in the endgame, when you already have lots of strength boosting units and powerful heroes (but I'm not entirely convinced). What role do you envision the mammoth playing? Late game city defense vs powerful hero stacks? Don't see it being able to fulfill that role, even with 35 strength and 4 wounds (at least not without significant support).

[kenc80]

Jeremy wrote: I'd love to keep units with more than 2 hits a real rarity. It's unexpectedly powerful, so that will confuse beginners. And it messes with the mental calculations of us experts.

So, by all means use it, but use it very sparingly. Kraken, Mammoths, Green Dragon. I'd say Red Dragon, but that unit is already insanely hard to kill -- it doesn't need more bonuses. NOT Unicorn, Griffon, etc. Keep 3 hits for things than are physically massive.

I really agree here. More than two wound units makes the math in my head even harder to calculate

Granted, thats not saying much since unlike some of you guys I was not a math major. I can barely work a calculator!

[SharesLoot]

I\\\'d prefer the eagle to be 15 +15AA. Its is currently a little too good against fliers.\r\n----\r\nEagles are well balanced at 10+26AA, or even 12+22AA. They are meant to be killers in the air and weak on land! Changing them to 15+15AA changes their mission. I don\\\'t like your suggestion. A few eagles should be able to take out a dragon. Dragons are good allround attackers, Eagles cost a lot and are weak on land... this distribution makes it fun. My 0.02$.

[LichKing]

The problem is that eagles are rather crappy right now, at least for me. As an attacking unit I see them useful only to attack neutral towns with flying units, and in that case I'd buy elves that are much more useful. Flying units stay usually behind in stacks and it's difficult to kill them with eagles. If they were 15+15AA I wouldn't buy them either (maybe I would at 20+15AA).

[piranha]

Magian: the mammoth.. like you say I buy attack units too because that is what I need to win.
I sometimes use pikeman as a shield for my good units if I'm on open terrain. If I have a stack that is slow and I want to attack with it, not defend. I might have a catapult making it slow, I might have a valkyria or elementals, it could be a army with city terrain bonus and I'm worried about light cavalry stacks.
I envision the same type of use for the mammoth but something that works in every terrain. I don't buy pikemen to use for a shield, only when I find them and perhaps that would be the thing with mammoth too. That even if its useful its not something anyone will put their money on.

Perhaps its better to make something else out of the mammoth.


Eagles, I agree with sharesloot that anti air is their specific use, but I don't buy them except a few times. I thought for a while about a bonus that would allow eagles to always target a air unit skipping the land units. But that would complicate and be hard to balance I guess. But it seems a bit more realistic. Eagles can at least deal with green dragons (that are not very common in my games) and gryphons (that might be more common in B5) since they are on the front line. Perhaps eagles could get something else to make them more attractive?
Perhaps a small swarm bonus?

[magian]

My issue with eagles is not so much that they aren't useful. I think they are too specialized and too strong in their specific role. Why bother building demons, green dragons and gryphons if the eagle (and the elf) are such effective countermeasures, while being cheaper to build, and faster to produce? I think that the elf and eagle are nice ideas, but they are simply too good at what they do.

As far as the mammoth goes, I suspect that the current incarnation would be fairly effective in the role you envision for it. I could see myself buying mammoth production next to a temple (20 strength and 4 wounds is pretty decent for a 3 turn unit).

[Garesch]

I\\\'ll throw in my two cents too...\r\nMost importantly, I think the red dragon needs increased cost (2300 is fine) & weakening too. Too many games hinge on who builds a red dragon first, and there should be more viable win strategies than that. I know one player who says he wishes the unit were never introduced at all, since it\\\'s so unbalancing. A higher cost is good, but I would also reduce it\\\'s morale bonus to +10 and give it a move of 18 or 19 (why should the most powerful unit in the game also be the fastest? - and dragons, mythologically, were never supposed to be great flyers). To compensate, give devils only 8 negate, but otherwise leave them unchanged.\r\nUnicorns: get rid of +4 group move (+2 if anything). They\\\'re powerful enough already, and +4 group move should remain the reason to buy green dragons.\r\nGreen dragons: Keep +4 group move, but give them only an 18 or 19 move - which with there own group move bonus is 22 or 23 (still the fastest flyer in the game, but no longer 8 faster than the next fastest flyer, the crows).\r\nElves: Give them back +10 in woods (or make it +10 defense, +5 attack). With +10 the terrain bonus becomes important (like for dwarves, orcs & giants), while at +5 it\\\'s less relevant, and less fun.\r\nScorpions: Their swarm bonus is too weak... Maxing out at 35 power after 10 turns building a stack of 5, you\\\'d be much better served just building giants or minotaurs. Make it +5 or even +6 and they become worth considering.\r\nArchons: The cost differential between Archons & Grand archons is much better, but I think Grand Archons are too powerful. Give them negate 12 instead of 16 (and maybe 1 extra move point) and they\\\'d still be invaluable (to compensate, maybe make Archons negate 7, but even 8 vs 12, I\\\'d still prefer to wait and buy a grand archon). Heroes are one of the best things about the game, and it would be much more enjoyable if my max level heroes were still slightly useful even against a stack with archons - otherwise leveling them up seems futile (they\\\'re just money earners so you can buy archons and red dragons).\r\nSpider: I agree with others that 20+20 makes them too powerful relative to minotaurs. Go back to +20+15, but up their move a bit (say to 13).\r\nMammoth: At 15 +20 defense they are just too weak, even with 4 HP. Maybe 20 & +15 defense would be more reasonable (then at least they\\\'d be of some use in attacks).\r\nGhost: Do you really mean for it to have +8 group ambush up from +6? That might be reasonable - but maybe decrease their base ambush to compensate?\r\nGryphon: They\\\'re already quite powerful, and 25 +20 in cities may be a bit too much. Maybe 25 +15, or +17?\r\nMedusa: 65% ambush is crazy. They\\\'re already the best fear unit in the game. Their greatest problem is their speed- maybe up it to 14?\r\n\r\nAll that said, you\\\'re clearly putting some good new ideas in beta 5. Thanks much for considering our comments!\r\n\r\n-Garesch

[LichKing]

A higher cost is good, but I would also reduce it\\\'s morale bonus to +10 and give it a move of 18 or 19 (why should the most powerful unit in the game also be the fastest? - and dragons, mythologically, were never supposed to be great flyers).

I agree on +10 and move (maybe 20)

To compensate, give devils only 8 negate, but otherwise leave them unchanged.

I'd rather see their fear removed. By the way, since they'll be 5-turns units they can stay as they are for me.

Unicorns: get rid of +4 group move (+2 if anything). They're powerful enough already, and +4 group move should remain the reason to buy green dragons.

Green dragons: Keep +4 group move, but give them only an 18 or 19 move

Agree 100% (on green dragons maybe 20 moves)

Elves: Give them back +10 in woods (or make it +10 defense, +5 attack). With +10 the terrain bonus becomes important (like for dwarves, orcs & giants), while at +5 it's less relevant, and less fun.

Elves are very fun. In forest they're strong as a 2-turn unit, in forest against flyers they're strong almost as wizards. I'd buy elves in half% of my towns right now. If elves and orcs were +5 in forest/swamp, you'd have a good reason to build wolf rider, much more than now. Also I'd like that dwarves were +5 on hills, and leave +10 for giants. Dwarves are already very powerful. I'd like terrain bonuses to be diversified, with some units (mostly 1-turn units) that have a terrain bonus of max +5, and stronger units with a bigger bonus, and an unit for morale/fear in that terrain, and no duplicate bonuses among units. It's almost like now, but more like:

Forest: Elf +5, Unicorn +10 (Wolf rider +5 morale)
Swamp: Orc +5, Sea Serpent +10 (Kraken 10 Fear)
Hills: Dwarves +5, Giants +10 (nothing)
Grassland: LtCav +5, HvCav +10 (Elephant +10 or +15)
Snow: HvInf +5, Yeti +10 (Mammoth +8)

Also, since there are units with progressively increasing bonuses of the same kind (Archon/Grand Archon, units with terrain bonuses, morale for crusader/Pegasus/Dragon), I'd like if there were a unit with Negate Aura 3. Maybe Mammoth or demon (if it is built in 3 turns), or maybe either the minotaur or the spider with Negate 2, since now they do more or less the same thing.

Scorpions: Their swarm bonus is too weak... Maxing out at 35 power after 10 turns building a stack of 5, you'd be much better served just building giants or minotaurs. Make it +5 or even +6 and they become worth considering.

Maybe they'd just need 20 as base strength.

Archons: The cost differential between Archons & Grand archons is much better, but I think Grand Archons are too powerful. Give them negate 12 instead of 16 (and maybe 1 extra move point) and they'd still be invaluable (to compensate, maybe make Archons negate 7, but even 8 vs 12, I'd still prefer to wait and buy a grand archon).

I don't know, maybe Archons 7 and G.Archons 14. G.Archons will be built in 5 turns so Archons will be more valuable than now. Also, with items heroes can reach values that even a Grand Archon can't cancel.

Mammoth: At 15 +20 defense they are just too weak, even with 4 HP. Maybe 20 & +15 defense would be more reasonable (then at least they'd be of some use in attacks).

I agree.

Gryphon: They're already quite powerful, and 25 +20 in cities may be a bit too much. Maybe 25 +15, or +17?

Being a 3-turn units with nothing else than fighting power, they need to have a good punch, else who would keep them or even more buy them?

Medusa: 65% ambush is crazy. They're already the best fear unit in the game. Their greatest problem is their speed- maybe up it to 14?

I still feel Medusa are going to be weak like that, with reduced strength. Fear in a slow unit isn't such a great thing. A pegasus is already enough to counter it. Fear is very good if there are no morale units in the opponent's stack, but unless you accompany them with devils (who have fear on their own, so it wouldn't add much), it isn't going to happen often. Critical 65% isn't even enough to guarantee a kill on 1vs1 combat (something I would have liked), and with reduced strength and slow movement they don't look like a first choice to me. I'd rather buy Pegasi, who would cancel Medusae if they find them anyway.

[KGB]

LichKing,

Also, since there are units with progressively increasing bonuses of the same kind (Archon/Grand Archon, units with terrain bonuses, morale for crusader/Pegasus/Dragon), I'd like if there were a unit with Negate Aura 3.

Negate Aura? What is Aura? Did you mean Negate Terrain 3 since the Unicorn has Negate Terrain 10?

I don't know, maybe Archons 7 and G.Archons 14. G.Archons will be built in 5 turns so Archons will be more valuable than now. Also, with items heroes can reach values that even a Grand Archon can't cancel.

I think the Archon needs to remain at 8. Any lower and it won't be ever worth having since a L1 hero can cancel another L1 hero (DK cancels Paladin) so the Archon with 8 is really just a Cancel L1&L3 heroes (not even 100% of the Valkrie either at L3). So if it's going to only have Negate 7 then it should be a 3 turn unit.

I also think that the Grand Archon should remain at 16. It's meant to cancel L1-L9 heroes (or in Valkrie case L1-L7). I'd like it even more if the Archon's powers only canceled 8 (or 16) TOTAL and not 8-16 and 16-32 (ie 1 Grand Archon can cancel 32 points if the enemy stack has a DK with +16 Chaos and a Paladin with +16 Leadership).

An Archon's negate should *NEVER* cancel any item bonus but at the same time item bonus's should not ever stack (ie 2 items with +3 leadership should not give +6 leadership as they do now). That way we can have +5 leadership items without worrying about stacking making 2 of them +10.

I still feel Medusa are going to be weak like that, with reduced strength. Fear in a slow unit isn't such a great thing. A pegasus is already enough to counter it. Fear is very good if there are no morale units in the opponent's stack, but unless you accompany them with devils (who have fear on their own, so it wouldn't add much), it isn't going to happen often. Critical 65% isn't even enough to guarantee a kill on 1vs1 combat (something I would have liked), and with reduced strength and slow movement they don't look like a first choice to me. I'd rather buy Pegasi, who would cancel Medusae if they find them anyway.

I too wish the Medusa would go back to 35 strength and just add the 65% critical. The Pegasi with the extra movement, flight and slightly higher bonus (6v5) is a much better unit. The extra strength and critical would compensate for the less movement and flight.

KGB