Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Share and discuss strategies for playing the game, and get help and tips from other players.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby iridium137 » January 9th, 2017, 5:41 am

In HttT, you can recruit both Elvish Shamans and Mages. The base versions of those units perform very different functions, so it's not meaningful to compare them directly. But the leveled-up versions have considerable overlap in abilities, so it makes sense to compare them. And I'm having trouble finding incentives to level up Elvish Shamans over Mages.

Level 2

The Elvish Druid gets improved healing over the Shaman, as well as an extra magic attack. Her attack power (6-3), while a lot better than the Shaman's (3-2), is still laughably weak for a level 2 unit. It does less damage than the level 1 Mage, and has a worse typing that makes it bad against trolls and especially undead.
The Elvish Sorceress gets a powerful 7-4 Arcane attack at the cost of losing healing. It tears through undead and is still good against orcs and especially trolls, but weak against humans.

The White Mage gets healing on par with the Druid, and an Arcane attack of 9-3, which is similar in strength to the Sorceress. So the Elvish Shaman forces me to choose between healing and damage when leveling up, while the White Mage gives me both in one unit? How is that fair? Being lawful, the White Mage is weak in caves (elves are bad in caves too, for a different reason).
The Red Mage gets no special abilities, but has the most powerful (8-4) and consistent attack (fire type). He/she is still super-effective against undead, while having better damage against orcs and especially humans.

Level 3

The Elvish Shyde gets +1 move and flight. She gets no improved healing at the cost of increased upkeep, so the level-up has questionable value. Her attack power (8-3) is still abysmal, being a level 3 unit that barely beats the level 1 Mage, and still carries that inferior typing.
The Elvish Enchantress gets a purely statistical upgrade... and it's not even that good. Going from 7-4 to 9-4 is very underwhelming for a level-2-to-level-3 upgrade.

The Mage of Light gets improved damage (12-3) and Illuminate, one of the best abilities in the game. Wherever he/she goes, it's daytime 2/3 of the time and neutral the other 1/3 of the time. This is a huge debuff to the frequent orc and undead enemies, and a huge buff to him/herself and any other lawful units you have (which admittedly, isn't a whole lot). Illuminate cancels out his/her weakness in caves, and turns it into an advantage, especially because the buff/nerf happens all the time in caves rather than 2/3.
The Arch Mage continues to have no special abilities and receives a purely statistical upgrade... but it's actually significant. The Elvish Enchantress gets 8 more damage, while the Arch Mage gets 16, which is double. Again, how is that fair?
The Silver Mage gets a rather miniscule (4) damage increase, but instead gets +1 move, 50% cold/fire resists, and Teleport. The extra cold resist makes him/her one of the best units to fight Necromancer/Lich bosses with. Teleport is also one of the best abilities in the game. Its applications are endless, like being able to capture faraway villages and still join the fight instantly, or being able to be recalled last and still catch up with the rest of the army, or reinforcing wherever is necessary in multi-front battles, or defending villages against pesky bats/wolves, ... The +1 move synergizes well with teleport, basically making that ability "free".

Level 4

The Elvish Slyph gets +1 move and flight. She also gets a sizeable (14) damage increase. While her damage is still not as good as a Great Mage, her mobility sometimes allows her to attack from angles that other units cannot reach, so she's pretty useful.
The Great Mage continues to get nothing but another significant damage upgrade. He/she is great (no pun intended) for weakening/killing durable high-level units. Not much else to say about him/her.

So basically, at level 2, White Mage = Druid + Sorceress. At level 3, the Mage lines get some cool abilities, while the Shaman lines get basically nothing. At level 4, the Shaman line finally gets a decent unit. But is it worth going through all that trouble for one? I feel it's too little, too late. Overall, I find very little incentive in leveling up Shaman units. It feels completely one-sided.

I said I won't compare the level 1 units, because they're so different, but I feel there's one aspect that can be compared: their ability to level up. The Mage does require almost twice as much exp in that regard. However, in campaigns (especially long ones like HttT), there's plenty of experience available, so the problem isn't quatity of exp, but your ability to get it. And here, the Mage wins again. The Mage does more damage in one hit than the Shaman does with her entire attack, and is more accurate to boot. The Shaman's attack is so weak that she needs kills fed to her to get exp at a decent rate, while the Mage can get exp just fine even if you never think about feeding kills to him/her. I find Shamans almost impossible to level up in a reasonable amount of time without boss-abuse.
Let's look at some numbers. A non-dextrous Shaman can only finish off targets with 6 or less HP. That alone makes feeding kills to her risky: because the window is so narrow, the weakener has a considerable chance to do either too much or too little damage. Even when there's a target within kill range, the Shaman has a non-negligible chance of failing to get the killing blow. Against targets with 4-6 HP on flat terrain, the success rate is 36%, and it goes down to 25% and 16% against 50% and 60% defense. Those are pretty abysmal odds. Against 1-3 HP targets, the success rate is 84%, 75%, and 64% against 40%, 50%, and 60% defense. Better, but still pretty shaky. Against anything the Shaman has a >0% chance of killing, the Mage has a 97.3% chance of killing. The Mage has a 78.4% chance of killing 8-14 HP targets. Even a 34.3% chance of killing 15-21 HP targets is comparable to the Shaman's chance to kill 4-6 HP targets on flat terrain. So not only does the Shaman basically rely on kill-feeding, which is always tactically inconvenient, she has a pretty decent chance of screwing up and making the situation even more awkward.
Speaking of tactically inconvenient, there's another angle to this too. The Mage's job is to kill stuff, and gets exp for doing so. The Shaman's job is to heal and slow, which gives no and little exp. A Shaman getting a kill conflicts with her role, because it wastes her "slow" ability.

So Shamans are harder, riskier, and more tactically inconvenient to level up, and even when they do level up, the units I get aren't as good. How is that fair?
User avatar
iridium137
 
Posts: 8
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 12:48 am

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby ForestDragon » January 9th, 2017, 7:30 am

yeah, you got a point

well, here are the things that probablt should be changed (accroding to your points, which are fully valid, btw):

Shaman: have her need less exp to level up, or give her a damage buff (something like 4-2 melee and 5-2 ranged, or even just 4-2 on both attacks would make her much more significant) or even both
Sorceress: entangle 5-3
Enchantress: damage 10-4 faerie fire, entangle 6-4
Shyde 11-5 damage faerie fire, 7-5 gossamer
Druid, maybe 7-3 ranged thorns, and 6-2 staff
Shyde: 10-3 thorns, 7-3 ensnare, 8-2 faerie touch
User avatar
ForestDragon
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: March 6th, 2014, 1:32 pm

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby The_Gnat » January 9th, 2017, 8:33 am

Hello, i think this type of balance discussion is very interesting and i appreciate that you created this thread, that said my comments may appear to be terse but are not at all intended that way!

I personally believe that fundamentally the shaman and mage preform different function. Similarity their advancements also preform different functions.

Elvish Druid/Shyde : [role] : Healer, Slower - the elvish druid and its advancement are very weak ranged and melee units and were never designed to fight. I personally see them as units that hide behind walls of your soldiers and heal them each turn. The slows ability is also very powerful, which i believe you have understated. The slow ability is (though not effective as a attack) extremely effective against primarily melee units. It allows you allies to fight enemies and receive 1/2 the damage they would normally receive. This is major and can in 1 turn save much hitpoints, over the course of the game it can make a huge difference.

Elvish Sorceress/Enchantress: [role] : Range, Slower - the elvish sorceress and its advancement are strong ranged units, specifically against undead. In fact the elvish Enchantress is undoubtedly the most effective level 3 unit against undead (considering arcane,magical,and its high hit). I have already discussed slows the same applies here.

- A important thing when considering mages is their xp, which is quite higher. The mage has 22 more xp then the shaman and the white mage has 46 more xp than the druid both of these are quite considerable differences.

White Mage/Mage of Light: [role] : Healer, Range - the white mage and its advancement are primarily geared around healing (like elvish druids) however what the slow ability is replaced by a stronger attack, and for the mage of light a stronger melee also. I see this unit as compribal to the druid and shyde because of this slow vs. damage comparison.

Red Mage/Arch Mage: [role] : Range - the red mage preforms a single role as a powerful magical ranged unit. Its fire type is useful more often then arcane and it hits 12-4 rather than 9-4 like the enchantress. It is a all round solid ranged unit and that is its purpose.


In summary i would suggest for you get a good mix of ranged units and healers, in Heir to the throne i have found the undead as much more of a threat because the elvish fighters and human spearmans are not very effective against undead. Because of this i would recommend Elvish Sorceresss over Red Mages.

Also though i really think slowing is great i would take the more powerful white mage over the druid. But the druids xp and cost do make it better.

Now all this said i agree with all your assessments and think that (like forestdragon said) the elvish druid line should probably be buffed.
User avatar
The_Gnat
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby Bitron » January 9th, 2017, 3:42 pm

IMO, it is questionable to compare units at all, even though they fulfill similar roles, because it's not about balancing units against units, but about balancing factions against factions. Due to the ability to slow, which is a pretty powerful ability to prevent damage, the elvish shaman has all right to be the way it is. It may be weaker than the mage, but it isn't supposed to be like the mage anyways, so why change that?
User avatar
Bitron
Moderator
 
Posts: 328
Joined: October 19th, 2015, 9:23 am
Location: Germany

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby Yomar » January 9th, 2017, 4:32 pm

Yes they have similar roles, in fact Rebels could and in fact play well without mages, even in the default era.
I saw Elves defeating undeads kindaeasly with only Duids, Woses, Archers, Horses and Fighters.
Yomar
 
Posts: 238
Joined: October 27th, 2011, 5:14 am

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby beetlenaut » January 9th, 2017, 9:40 pm

I think the shaman line is slightly better than the mage line because of slows and their speed at high levels. I have played HttT recruiting only shamans, and recruiting only magi. The shaman one was easier (except for Siege of Elensefar).
Campaigns: Dead Water
The Founding of Borstep
Secrets of the Ancients
User avatar
beetlenaut
Developer
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: December 8th, 2007, 3:21 am
Location: Washington State

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby iridium137 » January 20th, 2017, 4:56 am

IMO, it is questionable to compare units at all, even though they fulfill similar roles, because it's not about balancing units against units, but about balancing factions against factions. Due to the ability to slow, which is a pretty powerful ability to prevent damage, the elvish shaman has all right to be the way it is. It may be weaker than the mage, but it isn't supposed to be like the mage anyways, so why change that?

Yes they have similar roles, in fact Rebels could and in fact play well without mages, even in the default era.
I saw Elves defeating undeads kindaeasly with only Duids, Woses, Archers, Horses and Fighters.

I'm talking about campaigns, not multiplayer. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's only one campaign that allows you to recruit Elvish Shamans and Mages, and that's why I put "in HttT" in the title.

The purpose of this thread is more along the lines of "convince me that Elvish Shaman advancements are useful" rather than a balancing complaint. I realize the tone of my post may have indicated otherwise, so I apologize if I came across the wrong way. Because the context is a campaign, which is single-player, it doesn't need to be "balanced". The answer could very well be "some units are indeed more useful than others, and that's okay".

The slows ability is also very powerful, which i believe you have understated. The slow ability is (though not effective as a attack) extremely effective against primarily melee units. It allows you allies to fight enemies and receive 1/2 the damage they would normally receive. This is major and can in 1 turn save much hitpoints, over the course of the game it can make a huge difference.

I probably should have talked about the "slow" ability more. The reason I didn't is because I don't find it very useful. "Slow" attacks deal low damage, and exposes your fragile spellcaster to a heavy melee attacker that can still deal half damage, plus she deals minimal counterattack damage on the enemy's turn. A slowed enemy still takes up a space and exerts ZoC. The threat still needs to be dealt with on the next turn, so it's a temporary solution. When faced with heavy melee attackers, I find it much easier to just blast them with your strongest ranged attackers. A dead enemy deals no damage and is gone permanently. A dead enemy also frees up space, allowing me to use that space to either cover my spellcasters with level 1 meatshields like Elvish Fighters, or continue bombarding other enemies. This is why I prefer the greater firepower of White/Red Mages, over the "slow" ability of Elvish Druids/Sorceresses.

in Heir to the throne i have found the undead as much more of a threat because the elvish fighters and human spearmans are not very effective against undead. Because of this i would recommend Elvish Sorceresss over Red Mages.

Quick correction:
Elvish Sorceress against undead: 10-4
Red Mage against undead: 10-4
Elvish Enchantress against undead: 13-4
Arch Mage against undead: 14-4
Higher base damage matters too, and compensates for hitting a type weakness.

- A important thing when considering mages is their xp, which is quite higher. The mage has 22 more xp then the shaman and the white mage has 46 more xp than the druid both of these are quite considerable differences.

I talked about exp a little, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. And it's kinda hard to explain. This isn't like Fire Emblem, where exp is at a premium, and success is heavily reliant on how well you distribute it. Terms like "exp hogging" comes up when talking about FE games. On the other hand, in BfW campaigns, especially long ones like HttT, exp is plentiful. So it's really only relevant in scenarios 1-2, where one level 1 unit requiring 22 more exp to level up can actually prevent or delay another level 1 unit from leveling up. But mages don't arrive until scenario 3, and by then, you already have a few leveled units. I find that even around 4-5 scenarios in, my recall list of leveled units is already too long for me to recall them all. At that point, it almost doesn't matter who you give the exp to, because it (kinda) "goes to waste" anyways. As a result, when I play campaigns, I hardly worry about exp at all past the first two scenarios or so. Instead, I just focus on fighting the battle as well as I could. Units get exp "naturally" through the course of combat, with minimal preferential treatment. (I do try to make some effort to level up new unit types though, like the dwarves you get later on.) That's what I meant when I said that it's not about quantity of exp, but your ability to get it. Mages require almost 2x more exp than Elvish Shamans, but kills give 8x more exp, and Mages kill much better. As a result, I tend to level up Mages easily despite their higher exp requirement, while Elvish Shamans often make me go out of my way to feed them kills if I want to level them up in a reasonable amount of time.

Not only is exp plentiful, it's not even a very useful resource. Gold is a much more limited and useful resource. And leveling up has the downside of your unit costing more upkeep. This matters a lot for the Elvish Shyde. Her flight is wasted on a support unit with minimal attack power, and mostly hangs in the backlines anyways to heal. I don't think that's worth the extra upkeep. The Elvish Druid taking 46 exp less than White Mage is almost irrelevant when I don't even want to level one up. This applies, to a lesser extent, to the Elvish Sorceress -> Enchantress upgrade. You get a meager damage increase that's not really worth the increased upkeep. The Mage lines, on the other hand, get awesome abilities at level 3 (or in the case of Arch Mage, a significant damage increase), easily worth the cost.

I think the shaman line is slightly better than the mage line because of slows and their speed at high levels. I have played HttT recruiting only shamans, and recruiting only magi. The shaman one was easier (except for Siege of Elensefar).

A mono-type run's performance is not necessarily indicative of how good that unit is in a more varied army. First off, how easy a mono-type run is largely depends on the performance of the level 1 unit. And I never said that the Elvish Shaman is a bad unit for a level 1, because it's not. (Maybe I went into too much detail on how difficult they are to level up, and it came across that way.) I was talking about how the level 2+ versions compare against each other, and here, I feel the Elvish Shaman lines fall short. Also, in a mono-Mage run, you're forced to use the expensive and extremely fragile Mages as meatshields. The Elvish Shaman is cheaper, has slow, and minor healing, making them better at being meatshields. They're still not good at that though, and in an actual army, you'll use actual meatshields instead of Elvish Shamans as meatshields. That's why I never brought up durability when comparing the spellcasters- you have other units to take hits for them, and my strategies revolve around them rarely, if ever, getting hit. Even high-level spellcasters have no business facetanking anything remotely scary, unless it can't be avoided.

------

With all that said though, when I get around to playing HttT again, I'm willing to give the Elvish Shaman line another try. Maybe I'm using them wrong. (It'd be helpful if you could describe specific situations where they're helpful.) Maybe it'a a matter of playstyle, and there's no right/wrong answer.
User avatar
iridium137
 
Posts: 8
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 12:48 am

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby The_Gnat » January 20th, 2017, 11:58 pm

I talked about exp a little, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. And it's kinda hard to explain. This isn't like Fire Emblem, where exp is at a premium, and success is heavily reliant on how well you distribute it. Terms like "exp hogging" comes up when talking about FE games. On the other hand, in BfW campaigns, especially long ones like HttT, exp is plentiful. So it's really only relevant in scenarios 1-2, where one level 1 unit requiring 22 more exp to level up can actually prevent or delay another level 1 unit from leveling up. But mages don't arrive until scenario 3, and by then, you already have a few leveled units. I find that even around 4-5 scenarios in, my recall list of leveled units is already too long for me to recall them all. At that point, it almost doesn't matter who you give the exp to, because it (kinda) "goes to waste" anyways. As a result, when I play campaigns, I hardly worry about exp at all past the first two scenarios or so. Instead, I just focus on fighting the battle as well as I could. Units get exp "naturally" through the course of combat, with minimal preferential treatment. (I do try to make some effort to level up new unit types though, like the dwarves you get later on.)


Firstly i will point out that your playstyle is very unique :D i have never played a campaign were any of those statements can be said. (including HttT and TRoW which are longer campaigns of 23 scenarios)

That's what I meant when I said that it's not about quantity of exp, but your ability to get it. Mages require almost 2x more exp than Elvish Shamans, but kills give 8x more exp, and Mages kill much better. As a result, I tend to level up Mages easily despite their higher exp requirement, while Elvish Shamans often make me go out of my way to feed them kills if I want to level them up in a reasonable amount of time.


Secondly i understand this point but because of my playing strategy whether shaman or mages usually all that is required is a kill strike and i do not often engage in combat deadly combat with my low life healer units. ;)

Not only is exp plentiful, it's not even a very useful resource. Gold is a much more limited and useful resource. And leveling up has the downside of your unit costing more upkeep. This matters a lot for the Elvish Shyde. Her flight is wasted on a support unit with minimal attack power, and mostly hangs in the backlines anyways to heal. I don't think that's worth the extra upkeep. The Elvish Druid taking 46 exp less than White Mage is almost irrelevant when I don't even want to level one up. This applies, to a lesser extent, to the Elvish Sorceress -> Enchantress upgrade. You get a meager damage increase that's not really worth the increased upkeep. The Mage lines, on the other hand, get awesome abilities at level 3 (or in the case of Arch Mage, a significant damage increase), easily worth the cost.

I have not encountered this particular problem of excess xp, and find that i work much better with small groups of level 3 units and i often purposely avoid killing enemies to give xp to lower level units.

A very interesting perspective, i agree to some extent that if your Elvish Druids only purpose is healing, then advancing to the shyde is pointless. :)

However if your druid is only ever going to heal units then wouldn't the white mage fill the same role and therefore being equivalent since it has the same healing capabilities.

The answer is obviously no because you have specified that your white mage would be fulfilling an attacking role:

The Mage lines... get awesome abilities at level 3... a significant damage increase... easily worth the cost


Which indicates that you use the use the white mage as a attacking unit, and since the druid can not be used as an effective attacking unit it is understandable that you do not see its purpose.

This is why I prefer the greater firepower of White/Red Mages, over the "slow" ability of Elvish Druids/Sorceresses.


Slow is mainly valueble when you can not afford to have a high level enemy unit hit you at full damage on melee. After slowing the particular enemy you attack him with multiple units, thereby giving the maximum benefit to your slow ability. If used correctly the slow ability can save 100 damage in a single turn. By the time you finish with the enemy you have slowed it should no longer be a threat to your healer. Therefore slow becomes more and more useful the more you have melee units.

This leads me to believe that the reason you don't like the druid is three fold:

1. You play your healer units as attackers, which is why you do not appreciate the druid because it has never been meant to be an attacking unit
2. You seem to have xp flying around and meanwhile a shortage of money which changes what units are valuable to your army
3. You don't slow units and so a important ability of the druids is invalidated

In the circumstances you discussed i understand why you think the druid is not valuable and i agree, but i believe it comes down to game play style, of which i do not have similar experience. I believe (and may not be correct) that with the game play strategy you have the druid would never be very useful to you. :)

In summary this is the merits of the shaman line (advancing to the shyde) versus the mage line (advancing to the mage of light):
- Heals +4 at level 1
- 5 gold cheaper at level 1
- 22 less xp at level 1
- 56 less xp at level 2
- Slows (allowing melee units to not be damaged as much)
- Fast movement at level 3
- Equal hitpoints at all levels (not any weaker)
- Better defense in many terrains


The disadvantages include:

- 30% worse resistance to arcane at level 1
- 50% worse resistance to arcane at level 2 and 3
- far worse ranged attack level 1
- 3-3 less ranged attack level 2
- 4-3 less ranged attack level 3


Hopefully this helps, and answers your questions "convince me that Elvish Shaman advancements are useful". I do not believe i can convince you, nor do i believe it is necessary to convince you. The mage is a very useful unit and from your post i gather that your playing style leaves no room for a unit like the druid. :D
User avatar
The_Gnat
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby Delicius169 » February 25th, 2017, 8:07 pm

Well flying sshamans (shydes?) are important when you are looking for fire spectre, arent they? I cant imagine walking with mages of light in dungdeon.... unless there is roadway... I havent played it for long long time.
The best advantage is movement, its easier to put her in a good spot. Though I think, that poison would be nice improvement...
Delicius169
 
Posts: 175
Joined: February 16th, 2015, 5:02 pm

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby Sudipta » March 1st, 2017, 4:39 pm

This thread was quite an enjoyable read. Since people have ranted long enough, ill be as brief as possible. From what i read, for your play-style, mage is definitely better than the shaman line... for u only, that is.. Most people do not play your way, and most of the hard campaigns cannot be played in your all out attack/ dont care about exp style. In a campaign like HttT where u have ample gold/exp and fairly simple fights with huge variety of different units, this is feasible, but for the truly difficult campaigns, ( SotBE, UtBS, IfTU, AtS to name a few) every bit of healing matters, every small decision has an impact on the success/failure of the playthrough..
And IMO, all things considered the elvish shaman line is slightly better/more useful than the mage line. im not trying to convince u or anything, but damage isn't the only thing by which a unit/unit tree should be judged ) The Slow ability is the most useful ability for taking down bosses, ( imagine fighting some ancient liches ) and the higher movespeed of the elves plus their higher defense/ evasion is very handy. But in HttT, it doesnt really matter since its relatively simple/easy and we have plenty of options to choose from. Just level up lots of both elven shamans and human mages. like u said theres plenty of exp. Whenever i play HttT, my main goal is to finish with as massive an army as i can so i level up literally every unit type. in my most recent playthrough i couldn't even recall half of my army in the last scenario :doh: ( tho i bet that happens to almost everyone )
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Playing Wesnoth since 2010, still there is so much left to play
User avatar
Sudipta
 
Posts: 139
Joined: June 10th, 2015, 6:37 pm
Location: Meditating under a waterfall, Heartfangs, Wesnoth

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby Gyra_Solune » April 4th, 2017, 8:08 pm

Basically it boils down to, at no point do any of the Mages get the ability to slow things, and that's one of the most useful features of the Shaman. You level the Shaman up to secure that ability so you can put them against stronger and stronger units with less risk. The Sorceress gets an extra strike of the slowing attack per level, which is very useful - with an effect like slow or poison, you want it to hit at least once, and each strike increases the odds of doing it. The base Shaman often misses entirely, especially against foes in fortified terrain, but the Sorceress line gets more and more strikes, and by level 4, having 5 chances to slow makes it exceptionally likely it'll get the effect in, while it gets enough HP to not die to counterattack and a moderately powerful ranged attack to deter being hit by other ranged units.

The Shyde, meanwhile, is a simple offer of more versatility. It keeps the healing and makes it better, keeps the same slowing, adds a little more HP, adds a modest magic attack. In a MP context it's the one you go for since the +8 healing is so good, in a campaign context the Sorceress is better.

Also not to be ignored is simply that Shamans level up FASTER. A Mage takes 50 XP, a Shaman just takes 32. It's harder to level up because it's weaker, sure, but at level 2, where both units gain passable combat power, it becomes even more noticeable. White Mage takes a whopping 132 XP to get to level 3 - Druid takes a mere 80, and at level 3 it's a much better healing unit than a level 2 White Mage. Both Sorceress and Red Mage take 100 XP, but while the the Enchantress needs 180 to level up, Arch Mage needs a stunning 220 - more than a Level 4 AMLA!
User avatar
Gyra_Solune
 
Posts: 263
Joined: July 29th, 2015, 5:23 am

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby line » April 5th, 2017, 12:41 pm

Following the discussion so far, I miss a view towards how shamans deal with the terrain. They favour forest as elves naturally do. But the shamans have an outstanding 70% defense there, what makes them close to untouchable. If it all is only about the starting scenarios in a campaign, then you mostly won't face lvl 3 units. A pair of two shamans next to each other are hard to hit and can heal each other. Orcs and undead will have a 50% defense on wood, so this shaman combo can hold out quite a while against one or two melee enemies (using their slow abilitiy). (As said, they are no killers, so they need some support to be fed with xp.)
Watching the shamans upgrades then you have to note, that the flying units have better defense at open ground, increasing from 40 to 50%.

Overall, if you ask, when to use shamans, the answer is quite the same as if you asked, when to use elves - if you expect forest. If you are allowed to choose between mages and shamans, take what you prefer to play with. But as always, a good mix of units and their abilities is very useful. Humans have no slowing ability, so at least a few shamans will add some new options.
line
 
Posts: 94
Joined: January 11th, 2012, 9:21 pm

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby ElderofZion » April 6th, 2017, 12:03 am

Im pretty sure shamans require less xp to advance so leveling them can be faster (despite their low damage, if you want to lvl something you can make it kill things no matter how much damage it deals). Shammy lvl ups also have 70% forest defense and 1 forest mp which can be significant, and shyde and sylph have flying so their selling point is mainly the mobility and 50% defense on terrains like flat.

However you may still argue that it is not enough to make up for the huge damage, teleportation or illumination the mage lvl ups have and in fact you might be right, I think shaman lvl ups just werent designed with their raw combat power being on par with mages, I think you may argue that shaman lvl up line is weaker (or actually more correctly - much more situational) than the mage lvl up line, but again, the mages require more xp but also COST MORE which is most likely the main, simple reason why they and their lvl up line is more powerful, a lvl 1 mage costs more, expensive units can just be better at what they are supposed to do. I can give a good example in other lines, eg in Northern Rebirth you can get lvl 3 thugs and lvl 3 dwarf lords. The lvl 3 thug is probably the weakest of all lvl 3 basic fighter units while dwarf lord is undoubtedly the strongest of them all, highwaymen perform poorly compared to dwarf lords when fighting orcs, dwarf lord is much stronger even on flat though dwarves are meant to camp on hills, castles, mountains, caves and not to fight on flat. The dwarf lord has every advantage over highwayman after all the thug costs 13g and dwarf fighter 16g.

That being said I wouldn't say that the sorcerer line is weak, though maybe the druid line is kind of weak especially compared to white mage. The sylph despite lower damage is much more mobile, can slow and has a good mele attack, and has higher defense, not to forget that it can be dextrious to get 11-5. While that can be very situational and having brute power of the great mage may usually be better i have had great experienc using sylphs and i think despite all this they are as good as great mages. And the arcane damage is nice as well.
@Elder but we have asked for the disclosure of all the cheese and we treat it seriously. Everyone on this site can get banned, everyone.
@Elder ale prosiliśmy o wyjawianie wszystkich serów i traktujemy to poważnie. Każdy na tej stronie może zostać zbanowany, każdy.

- Sagez
User avatar
ElderofZion
 
Posts: 238
Joined: July 11th, 2015, 2:13 pm

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby Gyra_Solune » April 10th, 2017, 10:06 pm

ElderofZion wrote: I can give a good example in other lines, eg in Northern Rebirth you can get lvl 3 thugs and lvl 3 dwarf lords. The lvl 3 thug is probably the weakest of all lvl 3 basic fighter units while dwarf lord is undoubtedly the strongest of them all, highwaymen perform poorly compared to dwarf lords when fighting orcs, dwarf lord is much stronger even on flat though dwarves are meant to camp on hills, castles, mountains, caves and not to fight on flat. The dwarf lord has every advantage over highwayman after all the thug costs 13g and dwarf fighter 16g.


Hm? What makes the Highwayman that weak? Compared to the Dwarvish Lord it has almost exactly the same damage base, but benefits more from Strong, and gets a solid boost - 14-4 at night, maximum 15-4, while the Lord caps at 16-3. In terms of raw damage per gold the Thug line outpaces the Dwarvish Fighter, but they're inferior defensively. Impact's also generally a good damage type, typically better than blade, especially in a campaign where you're dealing with a lot of undead and trolls and such - the Thug line is really the only basic infantry unit that deals impact primarily as its damage, which is sort of its gimmick in lieu of any other noteworthy features.
User avatar
Gyra_Solune
 
Posts: 263
Joined: July 29th, 2015, 5:23 am

Re: Elvish Shamans vs Mages in HttT

Postby ElderofZion » April 11th, 2017, 3:50 pm

Gyra_Solune wrote:
ElderofZion wrote: I can give a good example in other lines, eg in Northern Rebirth you can get lvl 3 thugs and lvl 3 dwarf lords. The lvl 3 thug is probably the weakest of all lvl 3 basic fighter units while dwarf lord is undoubtedly the strongest of them all, highwaymen perform poorly compared to dwarf lords when fighting orcs, dwarf lord is much stronger even on flat though dwarves are meant to camp on hills, castles, mountains, caves and not to fight on flat. The dwarf lord has every advantage over highwayman after all the thug costs 13g and dwarf fighter 16g.


Hm? What makes the Highwayman that weak? Compared to the Dwarvish Lord it has almost exactly the same damage base, but benefits more from Strong, and gets a solid boost - 14-4 at night, maximum 15-4, while the Lord caps at 16-3. In terms of raw damage per gold the Thug line outpaces the Dwarvish Fighter, but they're inferior defensively. Impact's also generally a good damage type, typically better than blade, especially in a campaign where you're dealing with a lot of undead and trolls and such - the Thug line is really the only basic infantry unit that deals impact primarily as its damage, which is sort of its gimmick in lieu of any other noteworthy features.


You said raw damage PER GOLD exactly, this is actually proving my point xD dwarf fighter has more hp and is just sturdier, even on flat which makes him a superior unit stat wise.

highwayman deals 44 damage in mele compared to 45 of dwarf lord, if strong 48 to r8 bur Dwarf lord also has ranged attack for 10 damage and has 2 damage types, so it has better damage. Even the thug deals 20 damage base to 21 damage base of dwarf fighter + hammer, when strong its equal, so at no point does the thug line deals more damage than the dwarf fighter line.

When we compare the hp its easy, dwarf lord is superior, but lets not forget about resistances which make him crazy strong on high defense (highwayman doesn ot get any special defenses and neither does he get the resistance) and even on flat he is stronger than any standard unit (if you do the calculations 20% fesistance mitigates about the same amount of damage as 10% more defense, actually slightly more but that is insignificant considering the real damage values you are going to take, but the 30% res and more mitigates more damage thus making the unit more resistant to damage than a normaL 40% defense unit without resistances), and also has 10% resistance to magic. You could even argue that its mobility is better in rough terrain. If you played some campaigns where you can get dwarf lords it becomes pretty obvious to you that they are the best lvl 3 basic unit.

And there is no lvl 3 basic unit weaker than highwayman, human units get resistance advantage, orc hp and ranged, elf ranged, mobility, defense and mele, drakes get hp, mobility and damage, highwayman gets nothing of that, its just the weakest.
@Elder but we have asked for the disclosure of all the cheese and we treat it seriously. Everyone on this site can get banned, everyone.
@Elder ale prosiliśmy o wyjawianie wszystkich serów i traktujemy to poważnie. Każdy na tej stronie może zostać zbanowany, każdy.

- Sagez
User avatar
ElderofZion
 
Posts: 238
Joined: July 11th, 2015, 2:13 pm

Next

Return to Strategies & Tips

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests