Missing units

[Pillager]

There seem to be a few fairly obvious holes in the current unit roster, that the new beta 4 units won't fill..here are the ones that seem obvious to me...

Forest domination unit

Odd that we don't have any unit with either a large strength bonus in forest (+2 or more) or a stack bonus of +2 in forest. Forest seems to be the second most common terrain (after open), so can we have a forest specialist please? Hills and open have gotten all the love for some reason.

Siege 3 unit

Cities can give a wall bonus of +3, so why no siege units that reduce this bonus all the way to 0? It isn't like this will make cities a pushover, since the ability to have a stack of 32 units is the really scary aspect of a city.

Defender

We have a couple of units with attack bonuses, but no defense bonus unit. I'm not hugely excited by the idea of a dedicated defender, but it does seem a little odd that none exist.

[KGB]

Pillager,

Elves have forest stack move of 2. They also get a +1 bonus when fighting there. Wolfriders grant a +1 stack bonus in the forest. So we do have Forests covered as far as I am concerned. I think the Unicorn might also get a combat bonus in the woods and have forest move +2 (I don't ever build Unicorns so I don't know and I've never ever seen one in a neutral city). As far as hills go, Dwarves and Giants get +2 combat bonus and grant better hills movement. But there is no hills unit granting a stack bonus (Wolfrider got changed to Swamp stack bonus). So I'd say forest gets the same love as hills does.

I also asked for the Mammoth to have Siege +3 rather than group move +4. Makes more sense to have Elephants battering down walls.

A dedicated defender unit would be nice. Ironically, the Pikeman is the perfect unit for such a bonus instead of his +2 in the open since Pikes were traditionally defensive units. The problem with giving a defensive bonus to a unit is it will end up filling cities and getting a defense bonus plus a city wall bonus making cities even harder to take. The only way a dedicated defense unit makes sense is if it gets it's bonus *only* when not in a city.

KGB

[Moonknight]

I think the Unicorn might only be +movement in the forest, but I could be wrong.

I think there should be a Treant which would be a slow moving unit but around 6 strength with +2 movement and +2 strength in the forest. Should be around 250 more than the Giant.

I like making the Mammoth a +3 siege unit...it should have slow movement, don't understand the suggested movement bonus on it.

[KGB]

Moonknight,

I don't think there is any need for a Treant that just has +2 strength in the forest like the Giant has in the hills. It would need to have more use that than to be worth adding. Thematically if such a unit were to be created I'd prefer it to be a 4 turn, siege +3 unit that moved 12 (Think Treebeard and his pals destroying the city (not tower) of Isengard with their bare hands).

As for the Mammoth, I suggested 4 turns, 14 moves (same as a regular Elephant) for the Siege +3.

KGB

[Moonknight]

KGB, yeah, siege would work for the Treants too.

Since Treants aren't in the works, I like your definition for the Mammoth. It should probably provide a stack movement bonus in the snow.

[Pillager]

KGB,

I don't think the elf could possibly be considered a 'forest domination unit'. Its base strength of 2 and a +1 in forest, gives it a grand total of 3 strength in the forest..hardly a dominating advantage. Scary against fliers perhaps, but that's about it.

The wolfrider is as much a swamp unit as it is a forest unit...and even swamp has a +2 strength unit (Orc).

You forgot to mention the giant (another +2 strength in hills unit). So, the hills have two strong units with a +2 bonus, and the dwarf using hills as roads.

The hills are a far scarier place for non-native units to get stuck. Being ambushed by giants or dwarves in the hills can spell doom. Being attacked by a bunch of elves in the woods doesn't pose the same kind of threat.

Not sure how I feel about siege on the mammoth. I like the idea of the move bonus (unless move bonuses are cumulative).

Siege for the treant is certainly in theme. I would give it +2 strength in forest as well. Two birds with one stone.

The DLR unit system was to limit a unit to one special power plus a terrain specific strength bonus..and movement bonus(es). This seemed to work pretty well.

[KGB]

Pillager,

Go back and look, I did mention the Giant as having a +2 bonus in the hills.

I don't think the game needs a true dominating unit in every terrain. I don't consider Orcs dominating in the Swamp even though they end up as 4 strength. Dwarves/Pikemen end up dominant in the hills/open simply because they already start off as 4 strength then get 2 more added to that. But they are handicapped by really slow movement.

So you get Open/Hills having scary units (Pikemen and Hv Cavalary/Dwarves and Giant). Then the terrains of Woods/Swamp don't have scary units though I'd argue that Wolfrider + Orcs or Wolfrider + Elves is scarier than you think in Swamp/Woods. Desert and the upcoming Snow/Lava don't have dominant units either. And I don't think they need them.

Anyway, Treants being 4 turn units even with +2 forest combat wouldn't be dominating because there would be so few of them due to the 4 turn build time.

To me, movement bonus needs to be cumulative to make it worth while. Plus all other Warlords versions from 2-4 used cumulative move bonus so I don't see a reason to change that.

KGB

[Pillager]

Have the yeti's stats and abilities been decided on? I was hoping it would be the snow bully unit.

[KGB]

Not that I know of.

It was the one unit I had no idea what to do with because no skill fits. Your invisible in snow skill made lots of sense to me but might be a bit too complex for many players to deal with.

So it could be yet another of the '2 turn, 5 strength, +2 in terrain' variety of unit like the Giant/Heavy Cavalry.

KGB

[LPhillips]

It's great to have variety, but I don't see it being detrimental to have a version of the Giant (for example) for different terrains.

Certainly not a priority when creating units. But it would be nice to be able to balance themed maps better. I played a map divided into four themed territories, and the player on Hills had a gigantic advantage because his one-turn units were strength four. The player in the Swamp (me) was screwed by his thematic strength two units, because most battles are fought in Cities.