Knalgans and water

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
F50
Posts: 48
Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 9:59 pm

Knalgans and water

Post by F50 » April 24th, 2008, 11:39 pm

I feel somewhat intimidated by the Ideas introduction pages, so please, don't flame me.

I think the Knalgans are too underpowered in water (in MP), so I would like to ask why should they be *that* underpowered, and to propose a solution (new unit) that doesn't interfere with the Knalgan theme.

The main reason I think Knalgans are too underpowered in water (other than newbie experience, which isn't worth much around here, probably for good reason) is this:

"Water battles will be nearly pointless. Cheap Mermen with higher defense will easily rout your Gryphon(s). Avoid sea battles unless you can taunt a Merman within range of a ranged unit (who can stand on decent terrain)." http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/How_to_play_Knalgans from the section on loyalists.

Why make Knalgans that useless in water? It should make maps a lot harder to balance as every other faction except Knalgans can hold water and adding extra mountainous terrain could benefit Northerners unduly.


My proposed solution (both outlaws and thus chaotic) is to add a unit. They are based upon the existing bowman and poacher units Apologies again for not having artwork, but it would suck:

Fisherman:

fishing knife: blade 2 - 2 (melee)
Fishing spear: pierce 6 - 3 (ranged)

movement:
Cave 2 40%
Cave Wall 99 40%
Chasm 99 20%
Deep Water 2 30%
Forest 2 30%
Grassland 2 30%
Hills 2 30%
Mountains 3 30%
Mushroom Grove 2 30%
Sand 1 50%
Shallow Water 1 50%
Snow 3 20%
Swamp 1 40%
Village 1 60%

Whaler (lvl2 of fisherman):

fishing knife: blade 4 - 3 (melee)
Fishing spear: pierce 8 - 3 (ranged)

same movement.

The cost for these units should be the same as the poacher/trapper. Hp, move points, and XP should be enough to balance the unit.

If part of my solution doesn't make sense or is clearly idiotic/unbalancing don't flame, I would likely be happy to acquiesce.

User avatar
Neoskel
Art Contributor
Posts: 724
Joined: November 27th, 2007, 5:05 am

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by Neoskel » April 24th, 2008, 11:43 pm

Since when are there whales in the mountains? :|

AI
Developer
Posts: 2394
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 8:38 pm

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by AI » April 25th, 2008, 12:03 am

-Waterbattles are expensive for factions w/o fish (because they rely on expensive/weak flying units)
-Only half of the factions have fish
-The ones that do only have one type
-Maps based around waterbattles are inherently unbalanced in default (and they don't give you a whole lot of choice in strategy either)

So, you'd either have to fix all the factions or not play maps with a heavy focus on waterbattles.


PS:
Undead have the choice between the lvl0 bat, which has decent defence and drain, but awfully low hp and the ghost, which (though also having drain) moves awfully slow over water.
Drakes collectively have 20% defence over water (except for the sky and hurricane drakes (50%), but since the glider doesn't, this might be a bug), are slow over deep water and are probably in deep trouble if they run into a merman.

User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by Cuyo Quiz » April 25th, 2008, 12:18 am

I believe they say that everyone is bad in water. Those who aren't must pay a full unit's price to get a unit that only works in water or use costly options.

I believe ranged attacks can be a holding solution to water invaders.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004

User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by irrevenant » April 25th, 2008, 12:20 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always figured that a weakness over water was part of the Knalgan faction balance. They're spectacularly effective over land, after all...

mameluke
Posts: 175
Joined: January 4th, 2008, 12:37 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by mameluke » April 25th, 2008, 9:45 am

F50 wrote:Why make Knalgans that useless in water? It should make maps a lot harder to balance as every other faction except Knalgans can hold water and adding extra mountainous terrain could benefit Northerners unduly.
The factions have different strength, specially on terrain-types.
That is exactly why a good balanced map in MP needs to have various types of terrain.

Rebels are good in forests... they would win on a map with only forests.
Knalgans are weak on water... they would loose on a map full of water.

That's ok!
If you would like to change that: Just give all the factions the same units, with different themes but the same stats... would be a nice game, eh? ;)

[EDIT]
Ps:
Knalgans are ******* strong on mountains! Nobody can beat them up in the hills :P
Since mountains are the "opposite" of water, this makes sense... doesn't it? :)
[/EDIT]
I don't see any problems with an elf-woman hitting somebody with a mace...

F50
Posts: 48
Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 9:59 pm

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by F50 » April 25th, 2008, 5:54 pm

Neoskel wrote:Since when are there whales in the mountains? :|
Hmmm, you're right, even outlaws don't live by the sea. However, then I need to find another name for that unit :|
Rebels are good in forests... they would win on a map with only forests.
Knalgans are weak on water... they would loose on a map full of water.
yes, but if there is one seaside village that cannot be held thanks to a complete lack of units mildly useful in water, then that is unbalancing.
If you would like to change that: Just give all the factions the same units, with different themes but the same stats... would be a nice game, eh? ;)
Straw man fallacy. I am not suggesting that Knalgans be capable in water (the movement type suggested doesn't allow for any deep-water operations), simply that they should have something to defend a small, critical (shallow) water area.
[EDIT]
Ps:
Knalgans are ******* strong on mountains! Nobody can beat them up in the hills :P
Since mountains are the "opposite" of water, this makes sense... doesn't it? :)
[/EDIT]
Straw man again. Knalgans =/= dwarves. Furthermore, this is a (fallacious) realism argument, not a gameplay one.
irrevenant wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always figured that a weakness over water was part of the Knalgan faction balance. They're spectacularly effective over land, after all...
Spectacularly effective in hills/mountains, decent on other land. Don't get me wrong, you are right that a weakness over water *should* be part of the Knalgan balance, but that shouldn't include an inability to exert influence over it. Particularly I am thinking of the former water village in blitz and the water villages in hornshark island, and any other exposed water villages in multiplayer maps. The fisherman unit shouldn't have much mp, hp, resistances and such. I don't want a unit quite as powerful as the Merman/Naga, I just want to be able to survive on a map with a small lake on it. It would also be nice to be able to see a small lake on a balanced map. The water village was fun in blitz, if only I could keep control of it.
Cuyo Quiz wrote:I believe they say that everyone is bad in water. Those who aren't must pay a full unit's price to get a unit that only works in water or use costly options.
Remember that "bad" is a relative word. If you think of being "bad" in water as relative to other units in your faction, then that is the case. However, factions are balanced against each other, not units, so factions must be "bad" in water relative to other factions. This would make the loyalists and northerners good in water, and the Knalgans bad in water (don't know enough about rebels and Drakes).
I believe ranged attacks can be a holding solution to water invaders.
as long as you have the luxury of shooting from land, yes. Most water villages don't grant you that luxury, though.

AI wrote:-Waterbattles are expensive for factions w/o fish (because they rely on expensive/weak flying units)
-Only half of the factions have fish
-The ones that do only have one type
-Maps based around waterbattles are inherently unbalanced in default (and they don't give you a whole lot of choice in strategy either)
So, you'd either have to fix all the factions or not play maps with a heavy focus on waterbattles.
I don't play maps with a heavy focus on water battles. I play maps where water battles influence the outcome of the war. Horshark Island and formerly Blitz can give certain factions serious problems here because a 4gp/turn difference is a big difference.
PS:
Undead have the choice between the lvl0 bat, which has decent defense and drain, but awfully low hp and the ghost, which (though also having drain) moves awfully slow over water.
Drakes collectively have 20% defence over water (except for the sky and hurricane drakes (50%), but since the glider doesn't, this might be a bug), are slow over deep water and are probably in deep trouble if they run into a merman.
I don't know enough about undead and drakes to say much here but bats and ghosts are rather cheap and the MP doesn't matter as much as the defense value which is decent for both. Drakes have a bigger problem here though. That said, all their units have the ability to move on water and can hit hard even if they get hit back. Drakes don't get high defenses in general but get high hp to compensate so 20% defense is not as radical for them as it is for some other factions.

If any of the outlaws had a decent defense in water I would be able to use them instead. MP doesn't matter nearly as much as survivability when you are trying to hold a small area of water.

User avatar
shadowm
Site Administrator
Posts: 6556
Joined: November 14th, 2006, 5:54 pm
Location: Chile
Contact:

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by shadowm » April 25th, 2008, 6:47 pm

F50 wrote:If any of the outlaws had a decent defense in water I would be able to use them instead. MP doesn't matter nearly as much as survivability when you are trying to hold a small area of water.
?

Footpads, outlaws and fugitives have 40% defense on swamp/shallow water. That is decent enough, since footpads have great defense ratios on flat terrains and other units have usually 40% defense on them, compared to the usual 20% on water. And they are part of the Knalgan faction AFAIK.
Author of the unofficial UtBS sequels Invasion from the Unknown and After the Storm.

AI
Developer
Posts: 2394
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 8:38 pm

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by AI » April 25th, 2008, 6:50 pm

They also have negative resistances to compensate for this, besides their low HP.

User avatar
anakayub
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 518
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 12:44 pm
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by anakayub » April 25th, 2008, 6:57 pm

How about gryphons? (I know that they're expensive).

And I've never played Hornshark before, but if I remember correctly, aren't water units vulnerable from thunderers (from sand) +gryphons for zoc? I can't seem to recall other popular maps where villages are really deep and only accessible to gryphs (Cynsaun does I think).

And water isn't that big of a difference actually on Blitz (I'm cannot comment too much about Hornshark having only watched matches on it). As long as you can defend the bank villages (not necessarily by having units on them) you can continue your land assault; you're not going to attack through the channel anyways. And you negate a few recruits of your opponents rendering them useless. And if your opponent focuses too much on pursuing naval greatness, he is very vulnerable to land assault, and in my opinion even on Hornshark, as water units have to go generally "around" the island, while gryphons and other flyers etc can be mobilized through the island for a land blitz. 1 naga will not trouble a gryphon on a village, and seeing 2 trying to capture 1 village means that he's sacrificed land units. Remobilizing them forward to support your units already forward and go for an aggressive attack is difficult to defend against if he overcommits to the water.
Take a breath.

F50
Posts: 48
Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 9:59 pm

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by F50 » April 25th, 2008, 9:11 pm

Hornshark is probably not a great example then.

Water was a big difference on blitz with the village, and can still be quite nasty (swamp village and leader attack). Gryphons are a laughable defense against Mermen, however. I was unlucky attacking one during the day (yeah, not a good idea, I know) and the Merman almost killed it (another unit waded into the water and did so). Waste of 24gp.

40% defense is definitely not enough given their low hitpoints and -20 to pierce/blade. For them, 40%, sucks, just as 40% is good for Drakes. You're putting standards from regular units on to elusivefoot units, which is inappropriate, especially as an argument for saying that water is defensible. I know the outlaws (except thug) are Knalgan, that's why I mentioned them. Using the gryphon as a measure (for defense, not attack strength), one would need at least 60% defense or 50% defense and the ability to move in water with ease.
Last edited by F50 on April 26th, 2008, 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3984
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by Velensk » April 25th, 2008, 10:46 pm

Err, they have 50% defence, and they have only -20% to impact, not peirce, and they do move in the water with ease.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."

User avatar
anakayub
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 518
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 12:44 pm
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by anakayub » April 25th, 2008, 11:20 pm

F50, your 3rd paragraph is err, confusing.

And attacking a merman at day, regardless of unit, does not really constitute a defense. :? And regarding that swamp Weldyn Channel village, you can also defend with a guardsman/fighter/elusivefoot against up to at least 2 mermans. Such villages are even easier to defend than the water villages of Hornshark/Cynsaun. And defending by threats if you have sufficient range is also a reasonable idea. If a merman takes your swamp village, you have up to 4 hexes to attack and reclaim the village, reasonable enough to kill with range. It's all a lot of case-by-case according to available units and style.
Take a breath.

AI
Developer
Posts: 2394
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 8:38 pm

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by AI » April 26th, 2008, 12:22 am

Velensk wrote:Err, they have 50% defence, and they have only -20% to impact, not peirce, and they do move in the water with ease.
While the second paragraph was about gryphons, the third was about footpads and other elusivefoots.

It wasn't very clear though.

User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Re: Knalgans and water

Post by irrevenant » April 26th, 2008, 12:57 am

F50 wrote:
irrevenant wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always figured that a weakness over water was part of the Knalgan faction balance. They're spectacularly effective over land, after all...
Spectacularly effective in hills/mountains, decent on other land.
To clarify: You appear to be thinking purely of defence. Knalgans have a lot of HP and do a lot of damage, so they still have an edge even where their defence is merely decent. They're very powerful over all. Their low MP and their poor efficiency in water are their Achilles heels.

Post Reply