Firststrike for Gaurdsmen

[Velensk]

I was watching someone play through the Test of the Clans and I notice that although he got many gaurdsmen, the horsemen still ran them over pretty quickly. This did not seem right to me. I think that it might help the case if gaurdsmen got first strike.

I think that in general it would be a minor buff, but a fitting one, that is focused against horsemen that gaurdsemen arn't quite as good at fighting as it feels like they should be.

[governor]

I don't think this is a good idea. I have two concerns:

1. Steadfast and pierce resistance already effectively nullifies charge. So the guardsman hits the horseman twice as hard when it is defending without penalty. Attacker hits (9*2*.6*tod)-2 while defender hits (5*2*1.2)-3. I could argue that this is the worst unit other than undead skeletons or spearmen that a horseman could attack.

2. It makes it a bit harder for every other melee race (Knalgans and Notherners) to remove a unit which is already very hard to remove.

[Velensk]

The reason I suggested it was I was watching gaurdsmen getting thumped by horseman dispite doubled damage, and 40% resistance on defence, and I figured that a minor boost might help.

I'd not be too woried about melle heavy factions having extra trouble dislodging gaurdsmen due to first strike, because horsemen are the olny things where they'd do enough damage for it too mater. If neither side is going to die, or slow the other down, then it does not matter what order the shots come in, and it's unlikly that anyone sensible would be attacking a gaurdsman with a unit that the gaurdsman could finish of.

[Mabuse]

wouldnt mind this.

this culd also be a minor buff for the knalgans, which is considered by some as the weakest faction now, since it got no big improvements (correct me if im wrong) except lvl 3 poacher

i think it would make the guardsman slightly stronger, but the normal dwarf infantry still has its own uses, so ... why not.

but the question my be also if this change is really needed, so i just say i wouldn mind

but this is from a point of view as a loyalist player (if i am honst), dont know how it affect drakes or northerners for example - this could cause troubles there perhaps, since guardsman are very resistant

[Mabuse]

after a third thought i cant really find a reason for that since it doesnt seem to me that using hoseman to attack guardsman is a very efficient strategy

also i dont think that trouble expieriencend in an SCN should affect balance in MP - whoever is unsing horseman versus guardsmen will go down - so theres no realy need to buff them

[Noyga]

The dwarvish guardsmen are small so are their spears.
This is an example of possible justification for the Dwarvish Guardsmen not having firststrike.

Additionnaly with steadfast, pierce damage and good resistances those units are already nice vs mounted units. Adding firststrike might be too much.

[Doc Paterson]

I thought you guys were aware that we don't balance MP units based on campaigns?

[Velensk]

I was however I was not thinking of that when I posted.

After reading over your thoughts, I agree that there is no real reason to do it.

I don't realy think it would hurt anything realy, but that's not realy an issue.

[F8 Binds...]

The average Guardsman is only in severe peril against a Horseman if he is on bad terrain or can be taken out in one hit. I will add my vote to the others of denying firststrike to the Guardsman.

[CIB]

I thought you guys were aware that we don't balance MP units based on campaigns?

Why do campaigns use MP units then, in the first place?

[Doc Paterson]

I thought you guys were aware that we don't balance MP units based on campaigns?

Why do campaigns use MP units then, in the first place?

Eh....Because a campaign isn't about having a "fair" match between human players....It adjusts its level of challenge on a scenario-by-scenario basis. If a scenario is deemed too difficult by its creator, quantitative adjustments are easily made (increase/decrease gold, unit count, change terrain layout, etc. etc. etc.)

The MP factions, on the other hand, are set, and have been meticulously balanced and fine-tuned over the course of years. Almost any change will be felt, in some way, in one or more of the many potential matchups.

[CIB]

You just explained why you don't need balanced units for campaigns, thus you didn't answer my question, you only said why I asked it.. In campaigns you just want units that are fun playing, you don't want balance, it doesn't make any sense to use the perfectly balanced MP units in campaigns.

[zookeeper]

Why do campaigns use MP units then, in the first place?

Yeah, I wonder why...

How about you describe an alternative in sufficient detail.

[TL]

Well, for starters there's an issue of availability. Mainline campaigns use MP units (with some additions) because that's what they have art for. You could create a set of "clone" units using core unit art for new units with wholly different stats, but that could get needlessly confusing if it was done very much at all.

(Also, in a certain sense campaigns do use a different set of units--level 3 and 4 units rarely show up in standard multiplayer and lack the same sort of precision tuning that MP-recruitable units do, but in a decent sized campaign they show up pretty frequently. Even level 2 units play much differently in an MP game where they're an infrequent temporary concentration of power than in a single-player campaign where they're your army's bread and butter; compare the highly desirable MP Javelineer with his exceptional well-rounded attacks and sexy disco moves to the mediocre campaign Javelineer with his inability to level up further and poor personal hygiene.)

[CIB]

How about you describe an alternative in sufficient detail.

You could for example create a new set of units that uses the old units as base, but that adds unbalanced features, that values the ability to level up higher, etc.. But it's going off-topic now.