Use or balance of Dwarven Defenders In Expanded Era Question

[Qes]

Ok, I love the idea of the dwarven defender, but never find a use for the fella. He's 3 more gold than a fighter, has the same resistances, has worse defense than a fighter and only 4 or 5 more hp.

Why am I ever to use him? He's got peircing damage and steadfast - is that really worth 3 gold?


I mean, he's NOT a more defensible version of the fighter. His "steadfast" does NOT make up for the 10% less defense in most terrain. Yes, he's the same crappy defense as a fighter in non-dwarven happy terrain, but = crappy defense with potentially higher resistances isnt much to write home about.

Speficially, it seems to me that unless resistances are above 50%, then generally you want Defence. 70% Defense lasts a hell of a lot longer than 20 or even 40% resistance and even 50% more hp.


Am I wrong? Am I using the poor blaggards incorrectly? I'm just not sure why his expense is ever worth it. If I need a unit that can take hits, I can get the same thing in a fighter for 3 less gold. If I need something to hurt the enemy, the fighter fills that role too. The defenders token ranged attack does make him have at least some minor answered ranged damage, but the fighter makes up for that in raw offense.

I feel as if the dwarven defender had one of the following, suddenly his existence in my dwarven armies would be justified:

-Same defenses as fighter.

-30% Resistance in all physical forms (60% on defense)

-Higher Defenses in non-dwarven terrain (as opposed to same as fighter)


Baring that, if someone could tell me how I'm supposed to use the poor [censored] in the Expanded Era, I'd be most appreciative.

-Qes

[Weeksy]

one, he's pierce damage, so he's about the same if not better v. cavalrymen. Two, steadfast really does help. Put him on hills and he takes quite a lot more to kill than a dwarf fighter. If you can level him, especially by plinking away using that ranged attack of his at the melee units trying to kill him, he gets an extra 10% defense on forest and grass. You don't want many of these, but in non-survival situations, they can be extremely annoying to your enemy, and quite hard to kill. They don't deal much damage, but they don't have to. They just have to hold a line until reinforcements can arrive, and sometimes footpads can't do that. Besides, he's in default era as well as Extended Era. There are few matchups where I wouldn't want at least one guardsman, but never ever more than two. (for a normal 1v1 size map)

[TL]

His "steadfast" does NOT make up for the 10% less defense in most terrain.

Yes it does, actually. Dwarvish fighters have 70% defense in mountains vs. 60% for dwarvish guardsmen, so dwarvish fighters get hit 25% less often (40% of the time vs. 30% of the time). Dwarvish guardsmen have 40% resistance (defending) vs. 20% resistance for fighters, so dwarvish guardsmen take 25% less damage (80% damage vs. 60% damage). So they're equal in mountains, barring rounding errors in damage taken (which will sometimes benefit guardsmen and sometimes not).

(This assumes physical attacks only. For fire/cold/arcane attacks steadfast isn't worth as much and the favor tilts towards the fighter, except that many fire/cold/arcane attacks are magic attacks which don't care if the fighter has higher defense, so they'd favor guardsmen).

In hills it's 60% vs. 50% defense. Dwarvish guardsmen get hit 20% more often but take 25% less damage. Slight advantage to guardsmen.

Everywhere else guardsmen have the same defense as fighters, so guardsmen are a lot tougher.

The advantage of having a ranged attack is not to be underestimated either, even if it's a very weak one. Many archers will take back almost as much damage as they manage to inflict to a guardsman, and little bits of damage add up. Plus they can score free XP off of enemy melee units, which does add up over time--guardsmen live for a long time, so the XP piles up eventually.

[Qes]

His "steadfast" does NOT make up for the 10% less defense in most terrain.

Yes it does, actually. Dwarvish fighters have 70% defense in mountains vs. 60% for dwarvish guardsmen, so dwarvish fighters get hit 25% less often (40% of the time vs. 30% of the time). Dwarvish guardsmen have 40% resistance (defending) vs. 20% resistance for fighters, so dwarvish guardsmen take 25% less damage (80% damage vs. 60% damage). So they're equal in mountains, barring rounding errors in damage taken (which will sometimes benefit guardsmen and sometimes not).

(This assumes physical attacks only. For fire/cold/arcane attacks steadfast isn't worth as much and the favor tilts towards the fighter, except that many fire/cold/arcane attacks are magic attacks which don't care if the fighter has higher defense, so they'd favor guardsmen).

In hills it's 60% vs. 50% defense. Dwarvish guardsmen get hit 20% more often but take 25% less damage. Slight advantage to guardsmen.

Everywhere else guardsmen have the same defense as fighters, so guardsmen are a lot tougher.

The advantage of having a ranged attack is not to be underestimated either, even if it's a very weak one. Many archers will take back almost as much damage as they manage to inflict to a guardsman, and little bits of damage add up. Plus they can score free XP off of enemy melee units, which does add up over time--guardsmen live for a long time, so the XP piles up eventually.

Thank you both for your excellent answers.

My question is in regards (continuing) to the hit vs damage taken


If my poor guardsman gets "hit" a single "hit" is more than 25% of damage, its 100% damage.

Say something with a damage of 10 for a given round attacks my poor beleaguered dwarves. The fighter with 20% resistance, and the guardsman with 40%

A guardsman being hit 20% more often, would mean 6 hits instead of 5 for the fighter. 60 damage vs 50 base.

The guardsman would take 36, the fighter 40.

As is, our poor fighter is dead if average (38) hp. Where as our guardsman is still alive with 5-6 hp (average).

So the guardsman wins, right?

Maybe - but not for 3 gold.

A 5-6 hp unit is a unit begging to die on the battlefield. Since "not fighting fair" is a principle tactic in the game, units always gang up on other units with damage well in excess of killing it. Meaning that whatever would be used to gang-kill my fighter, would likely be the SAME mixture of units sent to kill my poor guardsman.


This means, essentially, that for the same result (a dead unit, costing the enemy X amount of unit actions (perhaps four) i've paid 3 extra gold.


Now I'm not great at the game, and am willing to believe my play style is heavily responcible - but the results are hard to deny. When I lose a unit, losing a guardsman hurts more than losing a fighter. And tactically the guardsman doesnt last much longer. (i've seen more units survive because the gang-killers miss - which requires additional actions, gang-killers that hit, always arrive in sufficent damage numbers to kill it regardless - hence the despairty.)


I know units should never be alone - but as those are the only units that ever seem to get attacked en masse - it becomes noticable that my guardsman, all alone, fare worse than my meager yet awesome fighter.


Any all suggestions are welcome thanks!

-Qes

[lu_zero]

usually you use ZoC to make hard to attack your unit...

[Weeksy]

There's also the fact that many attacks are using higher amounts of damage. Vs. such heavy hitters as spearmen or HI at day, gryphons, or Dwarf Fighters, much more damage is taken by the allied dwarf fighter than the guardsman would take. Yes, guardsmen can die. They can also hold an area long enough and take enough effort to kill that reinforcements can arrive and take out the half-hp units that were trying to kill your guardsman. They may have done so, but 19+upkeep is generally less than whatever units they will lose. Many a time have I layed a guardsman as a trap, then come up from behind with a gryphon and from the front with a theif, and wound up killing two units that were on my guardsman in one turn. Guard then retreats, game continues, and you are at an advantage. After guard heals, he does it again and can probably level if they fall for it, or hold the front with little to back him up, while you go on to level your thief.

[Rhuvaen]

You don't want to hold your mountains with guardsmen. There aren't enough mountains for all your dwarves on a map, usually, so simply comparing them on mountains doesn't do the guardsman justice.

A dwarf fighter will usually last longer versus melee units on mountains or hills simply because his retaliation is higher (most enemies will need to recover some).

But sometimes, you need a unit to cover a specific position from grassland. Which unit do you use? The fragile outlaws can be taken down on grassland if enough enemies with the right attack type can reach them. A gryphon? What a waste. The fighter will just succumb to enemy ranged damage, easily. The thunderer will wound his enemies a lot, perhaps. But the guardsman will usually be able to hold for one turn, and retreat the next, plus deal some damage back to his attackers.

Also, guardsmen are much better at holding villages than fighters. A guardsman gets so much more from 8hp healing per turn than the fighter, because each point is worth more due to resistances. A fighter can simply be taken down with archers... Everybody hates dislodging guardsmen from villages.

That said, I don't like guardsmen if they are intelligent and lack the resilient trait...

[TL]

Now I'm not great at the game, and am willing to believe my play style is heavily responcible - but the results are hard to deny. When I lose a unit, losing a guardsman hurts more than losing a fighter. And tactically the guardsman doesnt last much longer. (i've seen more units survive because the gang-killers miss - which requires additional actions, gang-killers that hit, always arrive in sufficent damage numbers to kill it regardless - hence the despairty.)

First off, any time you've got four enemies pounding on a unit, something's gone wrong. Sometimes it's unavoidable and you just have to make a sacrifice, but that's when you bring out expendable units. Not valued specialists.

If you have a defensive line arranged so that each unit can only be hit by 2-3 units, then it is fairly common to run into situations where a dwarf fighter could possibly die depending on their luck but where a dwarf guardsman would be guaranteed to survive. An unlucky fighter can die on a mountain that a guardsman would be able to hold no matter what. If you need to hold a forest or grassland hex, a fighter doesn't even have to get unlucky. Often a guardsman would be sure to survive in a grassland or forest hex that would be absolute suicide for a fighter. You end up with a badly wounded guardsman, but better a badly wounded 19g unit than a dead 16g unit and a gaping hole in your defensive line that the enemy can immediately exploit.