Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

[Caladbolg]

I'd be ok with the Spearguard line losing their ranged attack. Visually, and from their resistances, they seem more like palace guards or tanky melee fighters, as opposed to loyalist Spearmen/Javelineers. Not a unit I'd expect to be throwing spears. But I don't have much of an issue with keeping the ranged either.
Giving the Raider line a fire attack, whether on melee or ranged, could also be interesting and fit the theme.

I don't have complaints about Herbalist's RIPLIB. It's just a rule of thumb anyways, and it's broken by Spearman -> Swordsman and Shaman -> Sorceress at the very least. You could argue that in those cases there's at least one advancement that doesn't lose any abilities, but then again, they only have one ability to lose.

The whole point of splitting the line was to keep Herbalist as the best lvl1 healer while stopping him from becoming too OP. With two good abilities to begin with, an advancement that keeps them both and even gets better at one of them would probably be OP.

Though I guess holius's proposal doesn't seem too bad. It might also be interesting in that cure is split from heal, whereas usually the unit with heal +8 also gets cure. So I wouldn't mind that, but I also don't think it's necessary. (Keep in mind though, that in that case Poisoner loses BOTH of his lvl 1 abilities, which would make it the most severe RIPLIB case in mainline, if your standard for RIPLIB-ness is the loss of abilities.)

[sergey]

It sounds cool to split healer and poisoner advancements, but splitting heals and cures abilities is a bad idea in my opinion.

1) heals+8 and cures usually go together. Splitting them will confuse players. It will definitely confuse novice players.

2) What about regeneration (self-heal)? Currently regeneration removes poison. If you will try to split healer and poisoner, then healer must not be able to remove the poison from itself. And poisoner must be able to remove the poison from itself. It results in even more separated abilities and even more confusion.

My proposal:
- Herbalist lvl 1 heals+4
- Apothecary lvl 2 heals+8, cures
- Apothecary lvl 3 heals+8, cures, regen+8
- Alchemist lvl 2 regen+8, poison

That doesn't require new abilities. Apothecary is specialized in removing poison, while Alchemist is specialized in damaging with poison. Alchemist doesn't heal friendly units anymore and focused on healing itself. Apothecary needs more time (3 levels) to be skilled enough to heal friendly units and to heal itself as well.

UPDATE.
Since healing is so important ability, I think it would be even more interesting to have only 2 levels for healer and 3 levels for poisoner. For example:
- Herbalist lvl 1 heals+4
- Apothecary lvl 2 heals+8, cures
- Alchemist lvl 2 regen+8, poison
- Alchemist lvl 3 regen+8, poison, increased stats, possibly marksman for poison

[sergey]

All Rider advancements have different alignments. Sunderer lawful, Raider chaotic, Swiftrider liminal.

1) that is not clear why all 3 have different alignments
2) that is harder to remember
3) that is harder to play

I think it is better to have melee oriented and ranged oriented to be liminal. And mixed fighter to be chaotic.

[ghype]

My proposal:
- Herbalist lvl 1 heals+4
- Apothecary lvl 2 heals+8, cures
- Apothecary lvl 3 heals+8, cures, regen+8
- Alchemist lvl 2 regen+8, poison

UPDATE.
Since healing is so important ability, I think it would be even more interesting to have only 2 levels for healer and 3 levels for poisoner. For example:
- Herbalist lvl 1 heals+4
- Apothecary lvl 2 heals+8, cures
- Alchemist lvl 2 regen+8, poison
- Alchemist lvl 3 regen+8, poison, increased stats, possibly marksman for poison

We appreciate your thoughts on that but there are fundamental reasons why a herbalist heals+4 won't cut it.

There would be two ways we could have handled this:
make it weak healer like the other two healers
make it a battle healer (not battle mage)
If we go with the first option then we would have to create a unit that is either useless in dealing damage or is dying in one turn in combat against most default units. Dunefolk and mp Wesnoth doesn't need another unit such as that. Now we could make it a battle healer, a unit that is capable of fighting in the front rows. For that it has to deal some sort of damage, be resilient enough to not deal in its first combat and of course to heal it's allies. If that herbalist would have an ability like ... let's say
"self-heal" (or regenrate +4) then it could be considered somewhat resilient.
The shaman can slow enemy units and disrupt enemy rushes and retreat. The augur has strong magic special and attack type which becomes more then useful in it's faction. Both of these healers have also really good defences. Both have something special to it. "Self-heal" is what the herbalist could stand out. And that's also what we are using in our published version.

If it stays heals+4 only it would have to get some buffs and then it would take on the places of other units in DF. with heals+4 and regen+4 it will be weaker but special enough to support combats - just like shammy and augurs.

At the moment, we don't see how a heal+4 only can work. But you are welcome to expand the ideas regarding the herbalist with heals+4 and regen+4

1) that is not clear why all 3 have different alignments
2) that is harder to remember
3) that is harder to play

I think it is better to have melee oriented and ranged oriented to be liminal. And mixed fighter to be chaotic.

many actually supported this new concept for the riders so far. it makes sense lore-wise and neither is hard to remember nor is harder to play. If anythign it gives you more option and opens up new strategies. The reason why it could be hard to remember is because they are all variants of a blade/bow combination. That will change once we add back the old concept for the sunderer/CTP

About the alignments... swiftrider always has been liminal and sunderer always has been lawful. the reason why raider could be chaotic have been elaborated already.

[Celtic_Minstrel]

I don't have complaints about Herbalist's RIPLIB. It's just a rule of thumb anyways, and it's broken by Spearman -> Swordsman and Shaman -> Sorceress at the very least. You could argue that in those cases there's at least one advancement that doesn't lose any abilities, but then again, they only have one ability to lose.

Those are not RIPLIB violations, entirely because of the presence of the other advancement. Reduction in power leveling is bad when you have no choice in the matter. If you have a choice and intentionally choose the reduced-power advancement for its special characteristics, that's not a RIPLIB violation.

[ghype]

Since we deal with a herbalist with heals+4 and regen+4, the only lv up set-ups i can think of are the following:

- Herbaslit: heals+4 and regen+4
- Apthecary: heals+8 and regen+4
- Lv3 Healer: heals+8, cure and regen+4
- Alchemist: poison, regen+8

would there still be any RIPLIB ?

[The_Gnat]

(sorry for the really long post)
ABOUT THE RIDER LINE

Spoiler:

A flaming bow could indeed fit the Dunefolk theme; ... It does make fire less exclusive to the burner line, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it's only on a L3 unit. Would it replace the unlit bow or (as with orcish archers) complement it?

Giving the Raider line a fire attack, whether on melee or ranged, could also be interesting and fit the theme.

Yes I agree. I would propose giving the marauder (lvl 3 only) a third attack which is a flaming bow. Slightly weaker, or perhaps less strikes because of its fire damage type. And yes, I agree it would be a benefit to spread out the fire damage for the faction. It would a very fun thing to have I can definitely envision a desert rider brandishing a bow and launching flaming arrows out of the dark of night.

Regarding the mounted units. Having only one chaotic unit is really controversial. But since it is mixed non-specialized unit, I think we can give it a try. The other rider advancements have the same alignment?

Well that is true. But the chaotic alignment is only on the Rider's advancement and so does not actually throw off the alignments of the base default faction (we would not consider adding a chaotic unit to the default units). Also the chaotic advancement is only 1 of 3 options so it certainly isn't as if your choices are restricted and you are forced to gain an alignment you don't want.

What do other people think about having the Rider advance to 3 different alignments? I personally think it is a unique and cool idea, but it might be too eccentric?

I think it is better to have melee oriented and ranged oriented to be liminal. And mixed fighter to be chaotic.

Thanks for the comments. While I agree it can add complexity I don't believe it should be too much of an issue. Currently in the mainline game I don't believe many units switch alignment (i think) but if we are going to have a unit change alignment then it makes equally as much sense for all the units to be different alignments.

I can understand an argument that all the advancements should be liminal (but I doubt anyone is going to make that argument because the DF have had a alignment shift with the Rider's advancement for years now and it adds to the thematic interest and value). And to be perfectly honest if 1 of the Rider's advancements becomes chaotic and 1 becomes liminal and 1 becomes lawful that it is just as easy to remember as if 1 of the advancements became liminal instead.


THOUGHTS ABOUT THE DF LVL 2 CAPTAIN

Soldier has high damage and 2 strikes, but its advancement with leadership has 4 strikes and low damage. That looks inconsistent. I would change 7-4 to 10-3 for lvl 2 and 7-5 to 9-4 for lvl 3.

That is an interesting idea. I think that for the leader unit (I will just call him the Dune Captain for now and see if it catches on ), I agree that only adding 1 extra strike would make more sense than 2 extra strikes. So something like 10-3 instead of 7-4.

However, I also wonder if the Dune Captain hitting 10-3 would be good enough, for example compared to the Elvish Captain.

I guess that should be possible only that from 10-3 to 9-4 is odd. if anything then it would be 10-4

Of course if the Dune Captain is changed then it shouldn't reduce damage on advancement.

ABOUT MARKSMAN

Spoiler:

Because there will be no more such sultan unit with marksman and there were many requests to get the soldier's marksman back.

Yes I agree that giving the marksman back for an advancement of the Soldier will be good.

Removal of marksman or a complete change of DF faction was necessary, it would be literally like creating a new faction from the scratch. I do not think it changes the impression of soldier too much.

True. I think the Soldier remains the same (except much better balanced). Though, if anything has changed, I now view the Soldier as a stronger and more powerful unit. He is no longer a specialist but instead a unit that strikes powerfully against everyone. That said I agree with Celtic's comment that adding a Marksman to the Lvl 3 Soldier really adds the "Master" feeling in the name "Blademaster".

The Soldier losing Marksman, I understand the reasons, but I wonder how the faction as a whole handles elusives (Hodor rush ?). Maybe it could get it back on an advancement line ?

That was actually carefully considered by our team. We decided that originally the existence of Marksman on such a key unit of the faction virtually nullified any elusive units that the DF faction combated. In short the fact that the DF was SO good against elusives was broken before and is better balanced now. Now the DF combat elusive units and Hodor rush similar to other faction's deployments against them (rather than with a broken special ability ). Also combined with the overall improvement in the faction in the Knalgan matchup it performs better than it did before even with this nerf.

ABOUT THE HERBALIST LINE

Spoiler:

Losing regen +4 is RIPL, a Reduction In Power on Leveling. And RIPL Is Bad.

Absolutely I agree.

The whole point of splitting the line was to keep Herbalist as the best lvl1 healer while stopping him from becoming too OP. With two good abilities to begin with, an advancement that keeps them both and even gets better at one of them would probably be OP.

Yes, this must be kept in mind when trying to fix the Riplib other wise we just break the balance of the Apothecary and we are no better off than when we begun.

It sounds cool to split healer and poisoner advancements, but splitting heals and cures abilities is a bad idea in my opinion.

I agree, and also 'unpoison' by itself really isn't that valuable... It might as well be given to the previous advancement.

heals+4 and regen+4

To be clear I agree with ghype. That the herbalist needs to not be changed too much or the balance will be messed up. It has already been nerfed from heals+8 so any further nerfing is definitely out of the question.

- Herbaslit: heals+4 and regen+4
- Apthecary: heals+8 and regen+4
- Lv3 Healer: heals+8, cure and regen+4
- Alchemist: poison, regen+8

That looks like a good idea. I support this.

ABOUT THE ROVER

Spoiler:

I understand the graphical and weapon problems, but the most mobile infantry gaining Skimishing special ability makes sense to me. The RIPL problem of Rover -> Skirmisher losing ranged attack could have been handled easily (with a weak ranged capability).

Actually, along with the many other reasons cited in the first post, the Rover is no longer 'the most mobile infantry' in the faction. He has been reduced to only 5 MP for balance and this further reduces the thematic value in giving it a Skirmishing advancement.

Furthermore, since the DF need the Shield Breaker for balance it doesn't make sense to have the Rover have a skirmishing advancement and have the Shield Breaker as well. Given the options I would choose balancing the default faction, even though I am fond of the Skirmisher and Harrier.

[ghype]

Of course if the Dune Captain is changed to 11-3 then it should have 11-4 on lvl 3. That would make more sense compared to the 9-4 , 7-3 ranged loyalist general and the 10-4, 8-3 ranged elvish marshal.

Just to remind all of you, the current "Dune Captain" as you might want to call him, he is not supposed to deal super much dmg. If you choose that path, the synergy with soldiers and other units is emphasised. Yes, it was capable of dealing dmg but it should be limited at some point as the "Dune Captain" maintains the resistance of the the Soldier. So technically it still act like an tank. The old 7-4 were the most best balanced, but only a single extra strikes seems more appropriate then two extra strike.

Point being, with a max dmg output of 7-4 = 28 dmg , the closes we can get is either with 9-3 or 10-3. So 11-3 is too much for this unit.

[Xalzar]

All these talks of adding abilities/specials/weapons to level 3s made me curious to see how it works in mainline units.

Generally, new abilities and specials (with "new" I mean not already present in level 1s) are gained on level 2 and mantained through all the advancements. No new abilities/specials on level 3, only things that improve are attacks, hps, sometimes resistances, rarely movetype (someone could argue that gaining the ability to fly is like gaining an ability but technically it is not).
Exceptions:

boring list:

-Dwarvish Lord (gains ranged blade): minor one-hit attack;
-Lich (gains submerge and drains, changes melee into arcane): honestly justified by the exceptional change of race (very unique);
-Necromancer (gains plague): a minor utility since it's on the less used melee attack, and justified by flavour and probably to balance the massive changes in the Lich branch;
-Paladin (gains heal+4): if not for the hps, this unit could be mistaken for a level 2 anyway;
-Silver Mage (gains teleport): the ability is so strong that needs to be introduced on a level 3;
-Mage of Light (gains illuminates): again the Loyalists are very strong with this bonus so let's put it on level 3;
-Assassin (gains poison): for flavour and to avoid giving poison to Humans too early;
-Fugitive (gains concealment): probably thought to be OP before level 3, but it would be interesting to see how it fares on level 2;
-Huntsman (gains marksman): this is because the branch is after level 2, honestly I don't see the point to pick the Ranger though (it has only slightly better mobility);
-Merman Hoplite (gains steadfast): IMO that ability should be reserved to Dwarves;
-Merman Triton (gains melee blade): to compensate for the Hoplite;
-Orcish Warlord (gains ranged pierce): never understood this one, bows are normally reserved to lesser Orcs;
-Direwolf Rider (gains poison on a new melee blade): probably to avoid too much poison in the hands of Orcs.

So, not few exceptions, and most are motivated by lore tempered by the necessity for balance. The question then is: do we want marksman on melee or fire arrows in multiplayer?
If we want the new abilities/specials/weapons to be really usable in multiplayer, we need to introduce them on level 2; if they are intended only for campaigns it's ok to put them on level 3.

Just my 2 cents, go buy a candy.

[ghype]

If we want the new abilities/specials/weapons to be really usable in multiplayer, we need to introduce them on level 2; if they are intended only for campaigns it's ok to put them on level 3.

Well, i think it should be a healthy mix of both. Our main priority ofc was to make DF work in mp games. But also wanted to improve this faction so it can last long and be the best possible material for future project which involve them - for example a mainline campaign.

[Celtic_Minstrel]

Thanks for the comments. While I agree it can add complexity I don't believe it should be too much of an issue. Currently in the mainline game I don't believe many units switch alignment (i think) but if we are going to have a unit change alignment then it makes equally as much sense for all the units to be different alignments.

I'm not entirely familar with all the factions, but off the top of my head, the only unit I know that changes alignment on levelling up is the mage. That means such units do already exist in mainline, though.

Actually, along with the many other reasons cited in the first post, the Rover is no longer 'the most mobile infantry' in the faction. He has been reduced to only 5 MP for balance and this further reduces the thematic value in giving it a Skirmishing advancement.

Furthermore, since the DF need the Shield Breaker for balance it doesn't make sense to have the Rover have a skirmishing advancement and have the Shield Breaker as well. Given the options I would choose balancing the default faction, even though I am fond of the Skirmisher and Harrier.[/spoiler]

If the rover isn't very mobile, perhaps the current name no longer fits. The same may apply to the explorer and the ranger; all three names suggest a mobile unit to me. That said, if I read the opening post correctly, the explorer and ranger didn't get reduced MP, right? So maybe we should just find a different name for the rover.

It might actually make sense to use "rover" as the name for the L1 shieldbreaker, so the line would be rover -> ??? -> harrier? Not sure if that works though; rover doesn't particularly imply a skirmishing type unit to me.

Responses to Xalzar's boring list:

-Huntsman (gains marksman): this is because the branch is after level 2, honestly I don't see the point to pick the Ranger though (it has only slightly better mobility);

I wonder if there's demand for slightly buffing the ranger's mobility to make it more desirable, then.

-Merman Hoplite (gains steadfast): IMO that ability should be reserved to Dwarves;

Personally, I don't think any ability should be reserved for one race, so I don't mind a steadfast merman.

-Orcish Warlord (gains ranged pierce): never understood this one, bows are normally reserved to lesser Orcs;

Maybe they're just "enlightened" enough to realize that bows are actually quite useful?

I thought there was something with the sylph too, but it looks like that's only a name change, so I guess it doesn't count.

So, not few exceptions, and most are motivated by lore tempered by the necessity for balance. The question then is: do we want marksman on melee or fire arrows in multiplayer?
If we want the new abilities/specials/weapons to be really usable in multiplayer, we need to introduce them on level 2; if they are intended only for campaigns it's ok to put them on level 3.

My understanding was that marksman was unbalancing, so they didn't want it to show up much in MP. Thus, adding it only to L3, since you rarely get a unit to L3 in an MP game. Not sure on the fire arrows.

[Hejnewar]

So, not few exceptions, and most are motivated by lore tempered by the necessity for balance. The question then is: do we want marksman on melee or fire arrows in multiplayer?
If we want the new abilities/specials/weapons to be really usable in multiplayer, we need to introduce them on level 2; if they are intended only for campaigns it's ok to put them on level 3.

My understanding was that marksman was unbalancing, so they didn't want it to show up much in MP. Thus, adding it only to L3, since you rarely get a unit to L3 in an MP game. Not sure on the fire arrows.

My suggestion would be to not worry about attack types or resistances too much while creating or changing concept of lvl up. Lvl up is a reward and rare at that so why wouldnt we want to give players choice and allow them to pick what they think is the best for them (outside of lore reasons)? If balance were to be a problem then there's a lot of lvl ups that cover weaknesses of their predecessors in certain matchups (Spearman -> Swordsman and more).

[Caladbolg]

- Herbaslit: heals+4 and regen+4
- Apthecary: heals+8 and regen+4
- Lv3 Healer: heals+8, cure and regen+4
- Alchemist: poison, regen+8

Aye, I can get behind that.

[Pentarctagon]

Is the Shock special taken into account by damage calculations?

[Krogen]

Visually, the Swordsman line gave the faction a dose of that arabian nights feel, more adventurous; the new sprites are more bulky, with a military feel, and maybe some of the flavor was lost there. This is not purely art-related - it's also due to the new swordsman line having a more prominent shield attack while losing the marksman usually associated with finesse of some sort.

There is another problem with melee marksman that perhaps wasn't mentioned before. Giving any of the DF units from the soldier line marksman makes little sense in lore. DF units are just humans, and if they get melee marksman, why no other unit from default gets a similiar ability? Shouldn't say Royal Guards be just as skilled, or more skilled with a sword than DF swordsmen? But even if we accepted that say level 3 DF swordsman is more skilled with sword than a Royal Guard, elves are supposed to have the most skilled swordsmen in lore (albeit maybe not the strongest physically). Then why would a mere human be more skilled with a sword than an elf? It makes no sense in lore.