Neglected promotion paths

[Velensk]

At night the ranger will have a 9-4 attack, with that attack then it's inhanced melle retaliation then another attack it could very well kill a swordsman.

[Dodgy Tactician]

7-4 isn't exactly a huge melee, but it can for example allow a Ranger to beat a swordsman in one on one combat overnight,

"beat"? A ranger isn't going to kill a swordsman during night with one melee retaliation. Especially with a a swordsmans sword resistance.

Beat doesn't necessarily mean kill. If two units are contesting a strategic piece of terrain and one has to retreat for healing, then it is beaten. It may not be killed, but it is beaten. Also, even with a Swordsman's sword resistance, a Ranger does more damage per hit at night, he also has the ranged attack and most importantly, the ability to run away if the battle goes against him or chase down the enemy if the battle goes for him. This means that during the night, the Ranger is effectively a superior melee fighter to the Swordsman. It has sufficient melee skills that it will stand up in melee against a decent Level 2 melee unit. I can't really say the same for the Huntsman, although it isn't hugely shabby either.

Given that the Ranger would use his ranged attack on his turn as well (at 9-4 damage with no retaliation), the Swordsman is toast. A Huntsman couldn't do that and if the battle went against him, couldn't escape.

A rangers range attack is 7-4 not 9-4. A huntsmans range is 9-4 and with the marksmanship could ignore all sorts of defenses. Where as a rangers mild extra bonuses to defenses only apply in limited situations. The swordsman would be more likely to be toast from the huntsman then from the ranger.

I did state that it was at night, so I was adding the 25% bonus which gives 8.75, rounded to 9.

Also despite its better defenses in water(and even with double defenses on water, its still better that it not be caught in it) and forests, a ranger isn't any faster in these. It really should be. Then it might be a more reasonable alternative to huntsman.

I completely agree, perhaps movement cost to 1.5 if it will accept non-integers. That way, he gets 3 movement in Forest tiles compared to 2 for a quick Huntsman. Having them outrun Elves in woodland is probably the reason why it isn't done (and a good one in my opinion). I also think the Huntsman should have a few less HP (50 ish).

As for the huntsman, it's not just about the unit itself. Marksman is an enormous tactical advantage for the entire squad, it allows the army to dislodge units in high defense.

Hence why my favourite unit line in the game is the Elvish Marksman. I see the Huntsman as somewhere between the Elvish Marksman and the Elvish Ranger in terms of Ranged vs. Melee power with the Ranger as off on the Melee side of the Elvish Ranger.

At night the ranger will have a 9-4 attack, with that attack then it's inhanced melle retaliation then another attack it could very well kill a swordsman.

That's what I meant by "beat". If the Swordsman attacks the Ranger and then the Ranger shoots the Swordsman, then unless factors like different defense slants it in the Swordsman's favour, then his probability of coming out on top is very small. Even if he isn't dead, the Ranger is likely to have a lot more fight left in him.

[TruePurple]

In your scenario, it would be night time for the counter attack too (unless your last in rotation. In your scenario the huntsman would be better off then the ranger. Its going to do more damage over all to the swordsman. Plus the ranger is not going to out run the swordsman in most circumstances.

[Dodgy Tactician]

In your scenario, it would be night time for the counter attack too (unless your last in rotation. In your scenario the huntsman would be better off then the ranger. Its going to do more damage over all to the swordsman.

I'm talking about survivability rather than outright power though and in that respect the Ranger is superior, although less superior than he really should be in my opinion.

Plus the ranger is not going to out run the swordsman in most circumstances.

On the contrary, the Ranger can outrun the Swordsman in just about all circumstances, what with having more movement points and less movement cost over hills (unless all of your Swordsmen are quick). Admittedly, they won't outrun Royal Guards all the time, but Swordsmen only have 5 MP.

6 to 5 in Grassland (or other cost 1), 3 to 2 in Forest (or other cost 2), 6 to 2 in Hills, 2 to 1 in Mountains (or other cost 3).

[TruePurple]

So the ranger can run away like a coward in some situations. But in the circumance you described, the marksman would be better off for "winning"

[Dodgy Tactician]

So the ranger can run away like a coward in some situations.

There's a quote about he who fights and runs away. While not as powerful a unit as a Huntsman, a Ranger gives a player more tactical options. Neither is better specifically and a prudent general uses both for their strengths.

[Samantha]

So the ranger can run away like a coward in some situations.

There's a quote about he who fights and runs away. While not as powerful a unit as a Huntsman, a Ranger gives a player more tactical options. Neither is better specifically and a prudent general uses both for their strengths.

The Huntsman has marksman on his bow, which gives him much more tactical versatility by allowing him to better engage units on defensive terrain.

I suppose you really are a Dodgy Tactician.

[TruePurple]

Beat doesn't necessarily mean kill. If two units are contesting a strategic piece of terrain and one has to retreat for healing, then it is beaten. It may not be killed, but it is beaten.

Exactly, and a huntsman is the better killer, which is better then a rangers slightly better movement and ability to run off and heal. If ranger had better movement over forests, shallow water, mountains etc then I might call them more of equal choices. But as I see them now, its hard to imagine ranger over huntsman in all but the most specialized of circumstances.

[Federalist marshal]

Beat doesn't necessarily mean kill. If two units are contesting a strategic piece of terrain and one has to retreat for healing, then it is beaten. It may not be killed, but it is beaten.

Exactly, and a huntsman is the better killer, which is better then a rangers slightly better movement and ability to run off and heal. If ranger had better movement over forests, shallow water, mountains etc then I might call them more of equal choices. But as I see them now, its hard to imagine ranger over huntsman in all but the most specialized of circumstances.

So if the ranger is so inferior, why hasn't anyone modified his statistics to make him more equal?

[TruePurple]

Well both are more recent unit additions and level 3's don't come up all that often in multiplayer which is their main balance concern area. Other then that I don't know.

Anyways I said it seemed clearly inferior except for specializated situations as far as I could see, I didn't say it was so inferior, as in by a large margin.

[TL]

Anyways I said it seemed clearly inferior except for specializated situations as far as I could see, I didn't say it was so inferior, as in by a large margin.

True enough, but that's not such a terrible thing. Arguably most or all of the loyalist recruit list is "clearly inferior" to the spearman except for specialized situations, for example--and as far as northerners go, there's no arguing at all that the orcish grunt is definitely their dominant unit. It doesn't matter if a unit is technically inferior, so long as it is not completely obsoleted.

[TruePurple]

Well considering the limited amount/ways of terrain its good on it seems like it would be a very rare cirumcstances indeed. So rare I might even miss a rangers good use in favor of a huntsman anyways and still not miss too much.

Unless theres something I'm not considering (which is why the posts about it)

[TL]

An increase of 50% to 60% and of 60% to 70% on the two most common types of defensive terrain (i.e., the terrain which it is largely the purpose of your tactical maneuvering to secure) in the game is hardly limited! In hills and forests the ranger is effectively 20-25% more survivable against most attacks, and offers well-rounded retaliation damage in any terrain (in contrast to the huntsman, which enemy melee units can beat on with relative impunity). If the ranger was neutral it would be a solid defensive unit with good mobility; the only thing holding it back is its TOD dependence, which lends itself to more offensively oriented units (such as, of course, the huntsman) and works cross-purpose to the ranger's defensive footing (since effectively 1/3 of the time the ranger's retaliation is too weak to provide an adequate deterrent anyhow). The ranger's chaotic alignment has its perks as well, giving it enough hitting power to be a credible melee threat at night, but it muddles the ranger's role considerably.

Yes, given these conflicting set of abilities, the circumstances under which the choice of a ranger would decisively dominate a huntsman are relatively rare. The ranger does have persistent smaller advantages, though, getting hit 20-25% less often on the most common desireable terrain and dealing ~25% more retaliation against most attacks (since even the AI is smart enough to prefer beating using melee hitters to beat on ranged units, and on balanced mixed fighters to a lesser degree as well).

[Dodgy Tactician]

The Huntsman has marksman on his bow, which gives him much more tactical versatility by allowing him to better engage units on defensive terrain.

I would call that a strategic versatility rather than a tactical one, but it's just quibbling over semantics really.

So if the ranger is so inferior, why hasn't anyone modified his statistics to make him more equal?

Because they were only added in 3.1.13.

I see a Ranger (in my mind) as being an Aragorn-type unit if you take away all the LOTR storyline and make him a normal man rather than a hero. He is equally good with a sword and a bow, can travel long distances through natural terrain and knows herbal remedies. I think the combat side is about right, but he needs a little more movement in forests and shallow water (1.5 ideally, because a cost of 1 would make him too fast) and Heal +4. He then becomes a support/screening unit which is survivable in combat. In fact, when I've got some free time, I'll start playing about with the stats and seeing what happens.

[Aethaeryn]

The Huntsman has marksman on his bow, which gives him much more tactical versatility by allowing him to better engage units on defensive terrain.

I would call that a strategic versatility rather than a tactical one, but it's just quibbling over semantics really.

So if the ranger is so inferior, why hasn't anyone modified his statistics to make him more equal?

Because they were only added in 3.1.13.

I see a Ranger (in my mind) as being an Aragorn-type unit if you take away all the LOTR storyline and make him a normal man rather than a hero. He is equally good with a sword and a bow, can travel long distances through natural terrain and knows herbal remedies. I think the combat side is about right, but he needs a little more movement in forests and shallow water (1.5 ideally, because a cost of 1 would make him too fast) and Heal +4. He then becomes a support/screening unit which is survivable in combat. In fact, when I've got some free time, I'll start playing about with the stats and seeing what happens.

Well, I think just the heal +4 combined with 1 more MP would give the branch more use, just like the Paladin and Grand Knight...

Two movements in shallow water and swamp could also be interesting, though I'm not sure 1.5 in forest would work - there is no unit that has such a movement of decimals, and he shouldn't be able to outrun elves. In fact, I'd say that the ranger should have 2 MP where he otherwise would have 3 (including mountains and possibly snow too) so he becomes a sort of scout of sorts, what is what a ranger would be.