[mainline] Loyalist Bowman

[Shinobody]

What I mean is that there are other units that are only useful in certain situations and not others. You clearly don't want the Bowman to be one of those units, but why shouldn't he be?

Flavour, probably? Story-wise it doesn't make lot of sense to magic-users being common in armies, but simple archers being rare specialists.

[Temuchin Khan]

What I mean is that there are other units that are only useful in certain situations and not others. You clearly don't want the Bowman to be one of those units, but why shouldn't he be?

Flavour, probably? Story-wise it doesn't make lot of sense to magic-users being common in armies, but simple archers being rare specialists.

That may be a legitimate reason. I'm not arguing this one way or the other, just trying to get people to address the underlying issue.

[IPS]

+1 mele dammage sounds a bit rasonable. It should make the loyalist unit a curius range unit, mainly to counter other archer units atacking them with their mele instead of the ranged in an archer duel and it must make them an interesting important terrain protector.

Adding +1 dammage per mele strike in the loyalist archer must do enough changes to be considered, like dealing aproximally an average of 2 at 6 more dammage in their individual job, should increase the offensive againist ulfs in a 25%, making them a 25% more harder to kill by ulfserkers than right now how they do.

Another important stuff we must remmember about the loyalist archer is, they can deal less dammage than a spearman, but they recive less dammage per turn too, making them more durable than the spearmen becuase -3 hp is not that much compared with saving the counter of some units like 3-2 (if a spearman atacks an orcish archer) but if an archer atacks an orcish grunt, it will not take dammage and will deal an average of 12 dammage in most times.

Loyalist archers are a way underated because people have no idea of how much dammage they can prevent by using their ranged. Of course, like any loyalist player I preffer spending in more spearmen than in archers, but not as many players in the proportion of 5 spearmen and 1 archer.

Loyalist archer is a way a bit underated agianist undead matchups, why Im telling this? well, at a difference of the loyalist spearman, they can dammage ghould without being poisoned in the counter, they can deal TRUE dammage to ghosts instead of some draining chances in the dammage calculation and their counter to skeletons is a bit lower than with spearmen. Bowmen if strong they deal 3-2 to skeleton in neutral time of day, loyalist spearman in counter do 2-3 if he is not strong. In this case, againsit undead matchup Im right with the +1 dammage buffing.


So in average, againist neutral ressistance factions per each 5 spearmen I get 2 bowmen or 7 spearmen and 3 bowmen (depending the units and the situation) because they as I said SAVE lots of dammage in retalation. Generally, when Im atacking with bowmen, I protect them to they can be very often be atacked only by that mele unit it did atack before, doing that it really is aproving their function in my mainline: decreasing the dammage taken by only decrease the dammage a bit.

Bowmen are for me, enough balanced to go on in a game, they are not made to make the same account of dammage than a spearman, but they are made to take less dammage than a spearman unit and if they are used rightly, they are the same powerful than a spearman.


Opinion: +1 mele dammage is not needed. It needs more a price decreasing to 13 to make them more atractive for most players. +1 mele dammage at the price of 14 is for me more useful than original mele base atack in 1.8 version and 13 price, that aditional offensive againist some kind of units is so really useful, mostly in ulfsekers (you may deal about +4 at +7 dammage per archer to an ulf because of this!), counter againist skeletons would be 3-2 in neutral time ALWAYS and the same than a not strong spearman! and if the archer is strong, it should deal 4-2 to skeletons in neutral time of day... only 1 less dammage than a strong spearman (3-3 vs 4-2), like I have read, agianist saurians if the archer is strong it should be really strong ... a way too overpowered againist saurians because 7-2 mele dammage instead of 5-2 from a strong bowman is much difference.


Conclution
6-3 ranged pierce and 5-2 mele blade with 33 hp for 14 coins > 6-3 ranged pierce and 4-2 mele blade with 33 hp for 13 coins.

Also, we must remmbember about almost any loyalist player has troubles at countering the saurians and the skeletons, +1 blade dammage from archers would make them a lot more popular, inclusive more than decreasing the price to 13. Also, Im right about bowman needs a kind of buff, but +1 mele dammage is a lot more strong than the author did spect.

[Temuchin Khan]

This is a very interesting post. I'm still not coming down on either side, just evaluating the arguments.

+1 mele dammage sounds a bit rasonable. It should make the loyalist unit a curius range unit, mainly to counter other archer units atacking them with their mele instead of the ranged in an archer duel and it must make them an interesting important terrain protector.

This is an interesting point. Increasing the archer's melee would cause it to be used less as an archer and more as a melee unit. So it would be used more, but not for its intended purpose. A change like that would be a little weird.

Adding +1 dammage per mele strike in the loyalist archer must do enough changes to be considered, like dealing aproximally an average of 2 at 6 more dammage in their individual job, should increase the offensive againist ulfs in a 25%, making them a 25% more harder to kill by ulfserkers than right now how they do.

Another important stuff we must remmember about the loyalist archer is, they can deal less dammage than a spearman, but they recive less dammage per turn too, making them more durable than the spearmen becuase -3 hp is not that much compared with saving the counter of some units like 3-2 (if a spearman atacks an orcish archer) but if an archer atacks an orcish grunt, it will not take dammage and will deal an average of 12 dammage in most times.

Loyalist archers are a way underated because people have no idea of how much dammage they can prevent by using their ranged. Of course, like any loyalist player I preffer spending in more spearmen than in archers, but not as many players in the proportion of 5 spearmen and 1 archer.

Loyalist archer is a way a bit underated agianist undead matchups, why Im telling this? well, at a difference of the loyalist spearman, they can dammage ghould without being poisoned in the counter, they can deal TRUE dammage to ghosts instead of some draining chances in the dammage calculation and their counter to skeletons is a bit lower than with spearmen. Bowmen if strong they deal 3-2 to skeleton in neutral time of day, loyalist spearman in counter do 2-3 if he is not strong. In this case, againsit undead matchup Im right with the +1 dammage buffing.


So in average, againist neutral ressistance factions per each 5 spearmen I get 2 bowmen or 7 spearmen and 3 bowmen (depending the units and the situation) because they as I said SAVE lots of dammage in retalation. Generally, when Im atacking with bowmen, I protect them to they can be very often be atacked only by that mele unit it did atack before, doing that it really is aproving their function in my mainline: decreasing the dammage taken by only decrease the dammage a bit.

Bowmen are for me, enough balanced to go on in a game, they are not made to make the same account of dammage than a spearman, but they are made to take less dammage than a spearman unit and if they are used rightly, they are the same powerful than a spearman.

This seems like a good argument against making the change.

Opinion: +1 mele dammage is not needed. It needs more a price decreasing to 13 to make them more atractive for most players. +1 mele dammage at the price of 14 is for me more useful than original mele base atack in 1.8 version and 13 price, that aditional offensive againist some kind of units is so really useful, mostly in ulfsekers (you may deal about +4 at +7 dammage per archer to an ulf because of this!), counter againist skeletons would be 3-2 in neutral time ALWAYS and the same than a not strong spearman! and if the archer is strong, it should deal 4-2 to skeletons in neutral time of day... only 1 less dammage than a strong spearman (3-3 vs 4-2), like I have read, agianist saurians if the archer is strong it should be really strong ... a way too overpowered againist saurians because 7-2 mele dammage instead of 5-2 from a strong bowman is much difference.


Conclution
6-3 ranged pierce and 5-2 mele blade with 33 hp for 14 coins > 6-3 ranged pierce and 4-2 mele blade with 33 hp for 13 coins.

Also, we must remmbember about almost any loyalist player has troubles at countering the saurians and the skeletons, +1 blade dammage from archers would make them a lot more popular, inclusive more than decreasing the price to 13. Also, Im right about bowman needs a kind of buff, but +1 mele dammage is a lot more strong than the author did spect.

The idea of decreasing the Bowman's price to 13 gold sounds interesting. Perhaps that's all that's needed. I'm not sure if you're saying that you want the additional melee damage or just the decreased price, though.

[Cackfiend]

This is a very interesting post. I'm still not coming down on either side, just evaluating the arguments.

+1 mele dammage sounds a bit rasonable. It should make the loyalist unit a curius range unit, mainly to counter other archer units atacking them with their mele instead of the ranged in an archer duel and it must make them an interesting important terrain protector.

This is an interesting point. Increasing the archer's melee would cause it to be used less as an archer and more as a melee unit. So it would be used more, but not for its intended purpose. A change like that would be a little weird.

Adding +1 dammage per mele strike in the loyalist archer must do enough changes to be considered, like dealing aproximally an average of 2 at 6 more dammage in their individual job, should increase the offensive againist ulfs in a 25%, making them a 25% more harder to kill by ulfserkers than right now how they do.

Another important stuff we must remmember about the loyalist archer is, they can deal less dammage than a spearman, but they recive less dammage per turn too, making them more durable than the spearmen becuase -3 hp is not that much compared with saving the counter of some units like 3-2 (if a spearman atacks an orcish archer) but if an archer atacks an orcish grunt, it will not take dammage and will deal an average of 12 dammage in most times.

Loyalist archers are a way underated because people have no idea of how much dammage they can prevent by using their ranged. Of course, like any loyalist player I preffer spending in more spearmen than in archers, but not as many players in the proportion of 5 spearmen and 1 archer.

Loyalist archer is a way a bit underated agianist undead matchups, why Im telling this? well, at a difference of the loyalist spearman, they can dammage ghould without being poisoned in the counter, they can deal TRUE dammage to ghosts instead of some draining chances in the dammage calculation and their counter to skeletons is a bit lower than with spearmen. Bowmen if strong they deal 3-2 to skeleton in neutral time of day, loyalist spearman in counter do 2-3 if he is not strong. In this case, againsit undead matchup Im right with the +1 dammage buffing.


So in average, againist neutral ressistance factions per each 5 spearmen I get 2 bowmen or 7 spearmen and 3 bowmen (depending the units and the situation) because they as I said SAVE lots of dammage in retalation. Generally, when Im atacking with bowmen, I protect them to they can be very often be atacked only by that mele unit it did atack before, doing that it really is aproving their function in my mainline: decreasing the dammage taken by only decrease the dammage a bit.

Bowmen are for me, enough balanced to go on in a game, they are not made to make the same account of dammage than a spearman, but they are made to take less dammage than a spearman unit and if they are used rightly, they are the same powerful than a spearman.

This seems like a good argument against making the change.

ugh

maybe if you're playing AI.

[alluton]

Conclution
6-3 ranged pierce and 5-2 mele blade with 33 hp for 14 coins > 6-3 ranged pierce and 4-2 mele blade with 33 hp for 13 coins.

.

Are you proposing to drop price by 1gold and drop melee damage whit 1 point or is that just miss-spelling?

[Battlecruiser_Venca]

I don't thnik, that loys need a buff vs Drakes. I think that Drakes do. So dropping cost to 13g will mostly affect MU where bowmen are most used and this is vs Drakes.

[IPS]

I don't thnik, that loys need a buff vs Drakes. I think that Drakes do. So dropping cost to 13g will mostly affect MU where bowmen are most used and this is vs Drakes.

-1 prince in loyalist archer may affect drakes as you said, but it must make more rasonable the bowmen againist northerners and againist other neutral ressistances factions. Mele is the main range atack in the game, cause of this the spearmen are that popular and that strong... comparing stats of the loyalist spearman againist the bowman its just a bit unfair for the poor bowman.

but yes, right now how bowmen are now, they are ok for me, but most players complains of them because they are underpowered... who is right here? there is not any proof to conclude who is right here. P

another stuff, bowmen level ups faster than spearman (thats probably why they cost the same than the spearmen), and their lv2 is so good... a way overpowered. 8-2 mele and 10-3 ranged isnt nice? it has 51 hp, its good for a ranged unit... skeleton archer at lv2 has worse mele (6-2) and less health (about 40 if Im right).

But, swordmen and pikemen are for me neat units too, 55 hp both and +40% mixed physical ressistances like 20% to impact and blade from swordmen and 40% to pierce from pikemen and javaliner... that compenses the no "8-2 ranged" that the swordmen and the pikemen should have to counter in quality the longbow archer.

The idea of decreasing the Bowman's price to 13 gold sounds interesting. Perhaps that's all that's needed. I'm not sure if you're saying that you want the additional melee damage or just the decreased price, though.

Honestly I find more fair the price decreasing, but if they buff their mele I would be more happy.


Another stuff, bowmen can atack well from water to mele units, instead of taking retalation. Look at this image.



Imagine, in the battlefield, only those 4 units atacked those 2 orcs between a fight of a loyal army againist a northerner one (both orcs were with full health, the same as both spearmen). Archers does not need higher defense when atacking a mele unit because they will not recive a retalation in your turn. I know the archer and the spearmen are in absurd positions, but its intentionally to you understand the point.

[Temuchin Khan]

....This seems like a good argument against making the change.

ugh

maybe if you're playing AI.

My point is that those of you who want the change need to prove that the change is needed. "I want the Loyalist Bowman to get used more" is not a good argument, because it says nothing about whether Wesnoth gameplay would be improved by buffing the Bowman.

Anyway, as I've said before, I'm not taking sides in this discussion, I'm just trying to get you to address the real issue: WHY should the Bowman be used more often? You assume that would be a good thing, but you haven't given any proof for it. Unless you can prove that it would be a good thing for the Bowman to be used more often, this whole thread is pointless. If you want this change to be made, please stop beating around the bush and prove that this idea matters.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just want everyone in this discussion to stop talking past each other.

[Doc Paterson]

Another stuff, bowmen can atack well from water to mele units, instead of taking retalation.

Bowmen in water= OVERPOWERED!

When I play with my friends, we agree to not put our Bowmen in the water, because AQUABOW = AUTOWIN.

Seriously, there is no known counter for a Bowman shooting at you from the water.

[Caphriel]

Are you sure? Landfish are a pretty devastating counter to most things, and I don't see why this should be any different:

On topic:
IPS, whether or not the bowman is underpowered is not what the poster you responded to was arguing. I think their point was the Loyalists in general are considered a little overpowered, so buffing any of their units is not necessarily a good idea.

[iLeeT_PeeP]

Another stuff, bowmen can atack well from water to mele units, instead of taking retalation.

Bowmen in water= OVERPOWERED!

When I play with my friends, we agree to not put our Bowmen in the water, because AQUABOW = AUTOWIN.

Seriously, there is no known counter for a Bowman shooting at you from the water.

I dont get it...

Why would a Bowmen be extra good in the water?

[Rigor]

easy. when you put any unit into a 20% loco location, you dont do it just for lolz but there is a meaning, a statement, you deliver a message. it means "cant touch this".

usually this is already enough of "showing balls" for a whole month, but when you THEN place archers into water, and even SHOOT FOR FREE at helpless ORCS, wow, dont do this, your oppnent will be totally exorcised and fall into a long-lasting wes-delirium, resulting in an automatic victory for the last man standing: you.

[Cackfiend]

bowman from water are OP because when they attack grunts the grunts cant attack back!!

[iLeeT_PeeP]

I dont get it...