You think a faction is overpowered? Come here!

[Velensk]

I was actually refering to the fact that you are saying things on the lines of "If you have unreasonable doubts" which implies that if anyone has doubts they are unreasonable.

I know which factions you were talking about.

[Caphriel]

I wasn't suggesting you search through the replays, I was suggesting you find a good opponent and play a couple of games to demonstrate that augurs are overpowered.

You keep referring to large groups of augurs ("Augurs may seem to be fragile but... only 1 out of 8 or 9 augurs that were used in the battle" and "With massive augur support, assasin is almost useless, which can't be said about augur that can be still used as a strong attack unit." stick at as examples), but if the Drake player recruits that many saurian units, he has recruited approximately that many fewer drake units, and therefore will be correspondingly less powerful during the day.

And I didn't realize you were mainly referring to loyalists and northerners, so thank you for clarifying that I don't think their use against loyalists really needs discussion, because the saurians are the only thing that make the drakes playable against the loyalists

Against the Northerners, you mentioned that augurs eat trolls at night, but why is the Northerner recruiting trolls against Drakes? Shouldn't he be recruiting mostly grunts, goblin spearmen, and archers, with a few assassins and a wolf or two? If the drake is heavily recruiting sauriens, less goblin spearmen and more grunts are probably a reasonable answer.

It feels like you're constructing scenarios in which the augur is at its best, and giving no credit to the theoretical Drake's opponent, which is why I asked for replays. For my part, I'll see if I can find or make a couple of a Northerner beating a Drake.

[Radament]

Trolls do have their niche, I think, having 20% pierce & blade resistance and regeneration. Don't forget that the place will be quickly littered with injured grunts looking for a village.

Fearless is not to be underestimated too.

Btw, the Flare is going strong in ancestral's hurt&heal: leaders

EDIT: Faello was referring to our game with that 9 augurs. Those numbers amassed (over time, of course, but that underlines that they have good survivability because of their speed & reliance in clearing a field for another unit to move in an provide cover) because red & purple were both Drakes, which is always a grand problem to deal with. It could actually be a good example of Faello's point about the prolonged Drake powerphase, but since our team made some crappy mistakes I wouldn't suggest that as a replay.

[Faello]

I think that Radament mentioned trolls earlier (not me) but I'd support his opinion. Trolls are hardly able to match drakes (and saurians too) but their resistances and regeneration allow you to put them on 60%def mountain hex and use as a stopper, to patch the frontline etc.

I was discussing a 2vs2 game, where both players of one team had drakes thus were able to recruit 8 or 9 augurs. Being less powerful during the day is the true statement, but if you'll hurt seriously your opponent before, there's no way he'll be able to punch you as hard with his troops as you punched him, which is possible if prolonged powerphase is in use.

No I'm not constructing scenarios, I'm telling you about the situations I actually saw when I obsed or played the games by myself.

I also gave you examples of the games (Velensk saw the Gallifax tactic I was referring to, it's not my fault that you didn't )

Yes Radament, you've made some serious mistake there, still, as you've said, this replay shows well how prolonged powerphase work. It's in the TGT! thread to download.

Anyway, hope that some dev will spot this discussion and maybe think about whole case. Over & out.

[llukiz]

Can someone explain me why bowman has been changed from atack 6-2 6-3 to: 4-2 6-3?
Old bowman was a graeat unit. New one is just week. I ask about eplonation becouse i cant find discusion about this changing

[Velensk]

There have been bits of discussion over time. The basic gist of it is that the old one was too much of a problem for orcs so they changed it so that it wasn't as good at retaliating in melee, but lowered its cost.

[Caphriel]

Old bowman was a graeat unit.

That's basically why. It dealt too much retaliation damage against the Orcs, as Velensk said.

However, the cost of the bowman went down by one, so now they're more easily interchangeable with spearmen to create the unit mix you want for your army

[llukiz]

>> That's basically why. It dealt too much retaliation damage against the Orcs

so then what about elvish fighter? He do more damage agaist orcs (4-5 3-3 29total) like bowman before (was 30 total and now is only 26).
Anyone know where can I find discusion about it?

[Aethaeryn]

>> That's basically why. It dealt too much retaliation damage against the Orcs

so then what about elvish fighter? He do more damage agaist orcs (4-5 3-3 29total) like bowman before (was 30 total and now is only 26).
Anyone know where can I find discusion about it?

Units are not balanced unit-to-unit, but rather faction-to-faction. Just because an elvish archer is better than a bowman doesn't mean that the bowman should be made stronger.

[Darkmage]

>> That's basically why. It dealt too much retaliation damage against the Orcs

so then what about elvish fighter? He do more damage agaist orcs (4-5 3-3 29total) like bowman before (was 30 total and now is only 26).
Anyone know where can I find discusion about it?

Units are not balanced unit-to-unit, but rather faction-to-faction. Just because an elvish archer is better than a bowman doesn't mean that the bowman should be made stronger.

Good point, a goblin pillager against a soulshooter is a clear win, in one turn, or 2 with bad luck but that does not mean pillager is unbalanced, try pillager against a fire drake, that's the fun of the game, you got to use the best unit a faction has against another faction.

[Caphriel]

He compared to the Elvish fighter actually, and the short, generalized answer to his question is that ranged damage is generally valued a bit higher than melee damage, so you get less ranged damage for the same cost.

[Skrim]

the short, generalized answer to his question is that ranged damage is generally valued a bit higher than melee damage, so you get less ranged damage for the same cost.

Why is that? It's not as if non-magical ranged weaponry in this game is any better than melee.

Ranged units can attack melee-only targets without retaliation, yes, but then they also retaliate more weakly when they are attacked. And melee is better for attacking certain opponents, like Mages, Adepts and Thunderers, taking less retal in these cases. What's more, melee units can hold against Ulfserker or Horseman strikes whereas ranged units make easy targets. And then there's also the tendency of ranged units to be less durable than their melee counterparts. And while melee units benefit from the Strong trait available to all races, only the Elves have a ranged-boosting trait.

And on top of all those disadvantages, they get priced higher?

It is no wonder that, although Bowmen and Spearmen are supposedly interchangeable, Spearmen are the core of Loyalist armies while Bowmen get relegated to a cheap support role.

[lostnumber]

the short, generalized answer to his question is that ranged damage is generally valued a bit higher than melee damage, so you get less ranged damage for the same cost.

Why is that? It's not as if non-magical ranged weaponry in this game is any better than melee.

Lets put it this way. How often do you find yourself using your ranged attack with a unit like an elvish fighter? My guess is fairly often, particularly so in campaigns.

Now how often do you find your archer using a melee attack? I'm trying to recall a time and drawing a blank. Maybe if it was an elvish ambusher.

Almost all units have melee retal, while quite a significant number do not have any ranged capabilities. Being able to attack without being attacked back is a tremendous advantage.

[Caphriel]

the short, generalized answer to his question is that ranged damage is generally valued a bit higher than melee damage, so you get less ranged damage for the same cost.

Why is that?

Don't ask meeee!

My guess would be something along what lostnumber said. Almost every unit has a melee attack, but a lot of units have little or no ranged attack. Because the core units of most factions are melee-focused, ranged damage is more valuable because you can attack without retaliation, or with very limited retaliation. And in a nice circular fashion, ranged damage being more expensive and more fragile helps maintain the fact that the core units of most factions are melee-focused, creating an interesting dynamic.

[Yoyobuae]

Remember is not as simple as "melee is better than ranged".

When attacking, melee is good against ranged and ranged is good against melee. When defending, melee is better against melee, and ranged is better against ranged.

If you attack, you can pick the type of attack (and type of unit) to use, ranged or melee, which allows taking advantage of the opponent's weakness. When defending, you cannot choose, you can only try arrange units so that the enemy takes the most retaliation.

The ToD cycle will mean each player will need to also cycle between ofense and defense (depends on faction match-up). Which in turn means that proper use of melee or ranged units at the right time will be an advantage.

A chaotic faction that is retreating as daylight comes probably won't counter attack. So even if their melee heavy army could counter attacking ranged units, the ToD forbids.

If anything, the heavy reliance on mostly melee (or melee only) units makes ranged units all the more effective. They just need to be put to good use according to faction match-up and ToD cycle.