Crow updates

[KGB]

Kenc80,

Well if Dragons are meant to be super powerful and thus need a +12 bonus then you'll have to live with the fact that they can turn Crows into powerful units. So the blessed Crow + Dragon reaches 22 strength argument doesn't make sense as to why Crows need to drop down to 3.

Dragons with +3 HP? You mean Dragons now have 3 HP instead of 2? I didn't realize they did as I haven't looked closely. If they do have 3 HP instead of 2 then the 1800 Cost is far too cheap and should be more like 2500. Right now with the extra money in Beta4 I see a lot of people buying Dragons because of the 1800 cost and the massive bonus they give that's very hard to counter.

Incidentally, I think the Temple Bless giving +5 strength could be changed. Right now that +5 isn't linear as it favors units with low strength. For example a 1 strength unit vs a 2 strength unit is 1/2 as good (1 vs 2). If both bless then you end up with a 2 v 3 which is now 2/3 as good. This means the 1 strength unit benefited more from the bless than the 2 strength did. The same holds with a 2v3 (2/3) going to 3v4) (3/4). Now that Beta4 changed to a 100 point system the argument could be made to change the Temple from giving +5 strength to +20% strength. Thus a 5 strength Crow would go to 6 (5+5*.2=1). A 10 strength Lt Infantry would go to 12 (10+10*.2=2). This preserves the strength ratios between units (5v10 to 6v12) and no longer favors weaker units. Further more it opens up the possibility of having another Temple type give +40% strength instead of +20% OR allow for multiple temple upgrades of 20% per unique temple visited.

This would mean Crows could go back to their 5 strength and only be able to reach 6 when blessed and 18 when grouped with the Dragon. Otherwise the Crow cost of 125 is too much and should be dropped to 50 gold if it has only 3 strength (Elves are still way too pricey at 325 and should be more like 225 since they barely better than Hv Infantry if they even are).

KGB

[Jeremy]

KBG,

Nicely explained argument as to the relative benefits of a temple blessing. It helps weak units more.

Personally, however, I like it this way. And I'd hate to see something at strength 35 get +7 rather than +5. I'm a big fan of not having uber units or stacks running around. I'd rather this be a game of 'how do I use all my armies' rather than 'how to I make one uber-stack.'

[KGB]

Jeremy,

I'm a big fan of not having uber units or stacks running around. I'd rather this be a game of 'how do I use all my armies' rather than 'how to I make one uber-stack.'

The thing is, the game *needs* Uber units/stacks.

Otherwise the game is basically a city race and whomever gets the most cities in the initial expansion wins since a 15 city to 10 city advantage means the other player is building 5 more units a turn than you are and in 5 turns has 25 more units = 3 full stacks and will eventually overwhelm you with sheer masses. This means maps have to be very well balanced (which at least half aren't).

Uber units/stacks compensates for not having equal cities/armies and allows a player with 10 cities to beat one who has 20. Furthermore being able to make such things allows players to chose to pursue that strategy. If there is only one path (city race + hordes of armies) to follow to win, the game is very boring and isn't really a strategy game. Part of the learning curve is learning how to recognize when someone is pursuing that strategy and knowing how to counter it.

KGB

[magian]

I'm with KGB on this one. Late game warlords has always been about uber stacks led by powerful heroes. I think it makes the game more interesting because hordes of weak units are really effective in the early game, but lose some of their glory in the later stages of the game.

Not sure if this holds true for warbarons yet. My heroes are having difficulty surviving ruins and the items I have found haven't been very awe inspiring.

On a side note, the whole +5 strength at temples thing could work well IF higher quality units had more wounds. If the crow had only 1 wound it would pose far less of a threat. If giants and other 'biggies' had 3 wounds, they would get more benefit from the temple blessing.

[LichKing]

KGB: Incidentally, I think the Temple Bless giving +5 strength could be changed. Right now that +5 isn't linear as it favors units with low strength.

If you make blessing strength dependent, with a lower effect on weaker units, you could eliminate temples because they wouldn't be worth the travel anymore. Their importance is that they can boost weak units, not already strong ones, and in maps where there are only a couple of temples they become places to conquer and defend. Who would lose 3-4 or more turns to make a crow or light infantry gain 2 STR? And what would you do with temples that give movement? It's the same.

magian: If the crow had only 1 wound it would pose far less of a threat. If giants and other 'biggies' had 3 wounds, they would get more benefit from the temple blessing.

Making a unit with 1 HP means halving its STR. Crows with 1,5 STR? Orcs with 5 STR? Giving more HPs means all benefits from blessing/walls/bonuses are multiplied, I'd be careful with this as it would unbalance the game. If you simply give more HP to strong units and less to weak units, you make strong units unbeatable and weak units useless. E.g. if giants had 3 HP and you had a blessed giant behind walls +10, now it would be like having 3 giants with 40 STR and 1 HP each, total 120 STR; if light infantry had 1HP, the same blessed unit behind that wall would be 25 STR.

[KGB]

KGB

If you make blessing strength dependent, with a lower effect on weaker units, you could eliminate temples because they wouldn't be worth the travel anymore. Their importance is that they can boost weak units, not already strong ones, and in maps where there are only a couple of temples they become places to conquer and defend. Who would lose 3-4 or more turns to make a crow or light infantry gain 2 STR? And what would you do with temples that give movement? It's the same.

Personally unless a temple is *very* close by the only units I bless are those that move fast (Crows, Lt Cavalry, Wizards) or those that are very powerful (Dragons, Devils, Archons). The rest aren't worth the 3+ turns it takes to walk there and back when they could be fighting.

Also realize that there is still a maximum cap on strength of 45 (9 in the old system). So even though Dragons with 40 strength should go to 48 they would be capped out at 45. With the cap in place more powerful temples (40% in stead of 20% or allowing cumulative blesses from multiple temples) would still be worth while for weaker units since powerful ones eventually hit the cap.

And believe it or not, even 2 strength helps. A stack of 8 lt infantry with 12 strength beats a stack of 8 lt infantry with 10 strength about 75% of the time.

Again, I am not saying I want this. Just saying it's a possibility now with the new combat system being based on 100 and there being complaints about Crows + Bless + Dragons being too powerful (which I have to laugh at).

KGB

[ams16]

Wait, KGB. I'm confused.

First you say that temples benefit weak units more. (I agree - temples do benefit weak units, and I like this.) Then you propose a change that would make temples more linear in their blessing. (I don't really like your proposed change.)

Then, you say that you don't bother blessing slow units. I assume this is because you don't think the benefit is worth it.

Why do you care about temples, then?

[KGB]

Ams16,

I do care about temples as I used them to bless the fast moving units (Crows, Lt Calv etc) and my best units heroes. And I am perfectly fine with how blessing works now. The other reason I proposed a linear system is because a couple of months ago there were complaints from several warlords like Pillager than 2+ turn units like Giants/Hv Calv etc weren't worth making because of the fact they were getting killed so easy by 1 turn units (especially blessed ones) so their cost/time made them pointless. The linear scale bless would help to address that.

But I care more, if the reason the crow was dropped from 5 strength to 3 was because of temple blessings. That's not a good reason to drop the crow strength as temple blessing should not in any way change how units are balanced. Right now the crow has been rendered virtually useless at 3 strength since every other unit is at least 10 (scouts get +5 anti air). So to use crows to capture a city with +5 wall defense and 1 Lt infantry defender requires 6 crows just to reach >50% success rate and even 8 crows only get as high as 74%. If there is no wall bonus, 8 crows just barely reaches 90% (guaranteed) win against 1 Lt Infantry in a city with no wall bonus. That seems like they got overly nerfed for no reason other than they *might* bless and be used with Dragons.

KGB

[ams16]

Ok. Thanks for explaining.

I like the change in crows. I envision crows as aerial scouts, and I don't think they should be doing much fighting. In fact, I think that it would be great if crows could "see" a stack, without engaging. (The way that scouts are supposed to. I haven't actually gotten this to work, but I don't usually make scouts.) Obviously, they would be forced to engage if there are air units in a stack, or if there are anti-air units, such as elves.

I don't even like the fact that crows can take empty cities. But that's me.

I like the way temples are right now.

[kenc80]

Jumping back a few posts, I do also like having super stacks and heroes in late game. Thats what makes this different than say risk. I also agree that I think its super cool when a warlord doesnt expand as fast but instead builds super stacks, hangs around to mid-game and starts devastating people that expanded really fast (usually me). Its fun to counter and fight against. The different strategies are always cool to encounter throughout a game....as long as I win