Knalgans and water

[F50]

I feel somewhat intimidated by the Ideas introduction pages, so please, don't flame me.

I think the Knalgans are too underpowered in water (in MP), so I would like to ask why should they be *that* underpowered, and to propose a solution (new unit) that doesn't interfere with the Knalgan theme.

The main reason I think Knalgans are too underpowered in water (other than newbie experience, which isn't worth much around here, probably for good reason) is this:

"Water battles will be nearly pointless. Cheap Mermen with higher defense will easily rout your Gryphon(s). Avoid sea battles unless you can taunt a Merman within range of a ranged unit (who can stand on decent terrain)." http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/How_to_play_Knalgans from the section on loyalists.

Why make Knalgans that useless in water? It should make maps a lot harder to balance as every other faction except Knalgans can hold water and adding extra mountainous terrain could benefit Northerners unduly.


My proposed solution (both outlaws and thus chaotic) is to add a unit. They are based upon the existing bowman and poacher units Apologies again for not having artwork, but it would suck:

Fisherman:

fishing knife: blade 2 - 2 (melee)
Fishing spear: pierce 6 - 3 (ranged)

movement:
Cave 2 40%
Cave Wall 99 40%
Chasm 99 20%
Deep Water 2 30%
Forest 2 30%
Grassland 2 30%
Hills 2 30%
Mountains 3 30%
Mushroom Grove 2 30%
Sand 1 50%
Shallow Water 1 50%
Snow 3 20%
Swamp 1 40%
Village 1 60%

Whaler (lvl2 of fisherman):

fishing knife: blade 4 - 3 (melee)
Fishing spear: pierce 8 - 3 (ranged)

same movement.

The cost for these units should be the same as the poacher/trapper. Hp, move points, and XP should be enough to balance the unit.

If part of my solution doesn't make sense or is clearly idiotic/unbalancing don't flame, I would likely be happy to acquiesce.

[Neoskel]

Since when are there whales in the mountains?

[AI]

-Waterbattles are expensive for factions w/o fish (because they rely on expensive/weak flying units)
-Only half of the factions have fish
-The ones that do only have one type
-Maps based around waterbattles are inherently unbalanced in default (and they don't give you a whole lot of choice in strategy either)

So, you'd either have to fix all the factions or not play maps with a heavy focus on waterbattles.


PS:
Undead have the choice between the lvl0 bat, which has decent defence and drain, but awfully low hp and the ghost, which (though also having drain) moves awfully slow over water.
Drakes collectively have 20% defence over water (except for the sky and hurricane drakes (50%), but since the glider doesn't, this might be a bug), are slow over deep water and are probably in deep trouble if they run into a merman.

[Cuyo Quiz]

I believe they say that everyone is bad in water. Those who aren't must pay a full unit's price to get a unit that only works in water or use costly options.

I believe ranged attacks can be a holding solution to water invaders.

[irrevenant]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always figured that a weakness over water was part of the Knalgan faction balance. They're spectacularly effective over land, after all...

[mameluke]

Why make Knalgans that useless in water? It should make maps a lot harder to balance as every other faction except Knalgans can hold water and adding extra mountainous terrain could benefit Northerners unduly.

The factions have different strength, specially on terrain-types.
That is exactly why a good balanced map in MP needs to have various types of terrain.

Rebels are good in forests... they would win on a map with only forests.
Knalgans are weak on water... they would loose on a map full of water.

That's ok!
If you would like to change that: Just give all the factions the same units, with different themes but the same stats... would be a nice game, eh?

[EDIT]
Ps:
Knalgans are ******* strong on mountains! Nobody can beat them up in the hills
Since mountains are the "opposite" of water, this makes sense... doesn't it?
[/EDIT]

[F50]

Since when are there whales in the mountains?

Hmmm, you're right, even outlaws don't live by the sea. However, then I need to find another name for that unit

Rebels are good in forests... they would win on a map with only forests.
Knalgans are weak on water... they would loose on a map full of water.

yes, but if there is one seaside village that cannot be held thanks to a complete lack of units mildly useful in water, then that is unbalancing.

If you would like to change that: Just give all the factions the same units, with different themes but the same stats... would be a nice game, eh?

Straw man fallacy. I am not suggesting that Knalgans be capable in water (the movement type suggested doesn't allow for any deep-water operations), simply that they should have something to defend a small, critical (shallow) water area.

[EDIT]
Ps:
Knalgans are ******* strong on mountains! Nobody can beat them up in the hills
Since mountains are the "opposite" of water, this makes sense... doesn't it?
[/EDIT]

Straw man again. Knalgans =/= dwarves. Furthermore, this is a (fallacious) realism argument, not a gameplay one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always figured that a weakness over water was part of the Knalgan faction balance. They're spectacularly effective over land, after all...

Spectacularly effective in hills/mountains, decent on other land. Don't get me wrong, you are right that a weakness over water *should* be part of the Knalgan balance, but that shouldn't include an inability to exert influence over it. Particularly I am thinking of the former water village in blitz and the water villages in hornshark island, and any other exposed water villages in multiplayer maps. The fisherman unit shouldn't have much mp, hp, resistances and such. I don't want a unit quite as powerful as the Merman/Naga, I just want to be able to survive on a map with a small lake on it. It would also be nice to be able to see a small lake on a balanced map. The water village was fun in blitz, if only I could keep control of it.

I believe they say that everyone is bad in water. Those who aren't must pay a full unit's price to get a unit that only works in water or use costly options.

Remember that "bad" is a relative word. If you think of being "bad" in water as relative to other units in your faction, then that is the case. However, factions are balanced against each other, not units, so factions must be "bad" in water relative to other factions. This would make the loyalists and northerners good in water, and the Knalgans bad in water (don't know enough about rebels and Drakes).

I believe ranged attacks can be a holding solution to water invaders.

as long as you have the luxury of shooting from land, yes. Most water villages don't grant you that luxury, though.

-Waterbattles are expensive for factions w/o fish (because they rely on expensive/weak flying units)
-Only half of the factions have fish
-The ones that do only have one type
-Maps based around waterbattles are inherently unbalanced in default (and they don't give you a whole lot of choice in strategy either)
So, you'd either have to fix all the factions or not play maps with a heavy focus on waterbattles.

I don't play maps with a heavy focus on water battles. I play maps where water battles influence the outcome of the war. Horshark Island and formerly Blitz can give certain factions serious problems here because a 4gp/turn difference is a big difference.

PS:
Undead have the choice between the lvl0 bat, which has decent defense and drain, but awfully low hp and the ghost, which (though also having drain) moves awfully slow over water.
Drakes collectively have 20% defence over water (except for the sky and hurricane drakes (50%), but since the glider doesn't, this might be a bug), are slow over deep water and are probably in deep trouble if they run into a merman.

I don't know enough about undead and drakes to say much here but bats and ghosts are rather cheap and the MP doesn't matter as much as the defense value which is decent for both. Drakes have a bigger problem here though. That said, all their units have the ability to move on water and can hit hard even if they get hit back. Drakes don't get high defenses in general but get high hp to compensate so 20% defense is not as radical for them as it is for some other factions.

If any of the outlaws had a decent defense in water I would be able to use them instead. MP doesn't matter nearly as much as survivability when you are trying to hold a small area of water.

[Iris]

If any of the outlaws had a decent defense in water I would be able to use them instead. MP doesn't matter nearly as much as survivability when you are trying to hold a small area of water.

?

Footpads, outlaws and fugitives have 40% defense on swamp/shallow water. That is decent enough, since footpads have great defense ratios on flat terrains and other units have usually 40% defense on them, compared to the usual 20% on water. And they are part of the Knalgan faction AFAIK.

[AI]

They also have negative resistances to compensate for this, besides their low HP.

[anakayub]

How about gryphons? (I know that they're expensive).

And I've never played Hornshark before, but if I remember correctly, aren't water units vulnerable from thunderers (from sand) +gryphons for zoc? I can't seem to recall other popular maps where villages are really deep and only accessible to gryphs (Cynsaun does I think).

And water isn't that big of a difference actually on Blitz (I'm cannot comment too much about Hornshark having only watched matches on it). As long as you can defend the bank villages (not necessarily by having units on them) you can continue your land assault; you're not going to attack through the channel anyways. And you negate a few recruits of your opponents rendering them useless. And if your opponent focuses too much on pursuing naval greatness, he is very vulnerable to land assault, and in my opinion even on Hornshark, as water units have to go generally "around" the island, while gryphons and other flyers etc can be mobilized through the island for a land blitz. 1 naga will not trouble a gryphon on a village, and seeing 2 trying to capture 1 village means that he's sacrificed land units. Remobilizing them forward to support your units already forward and go for an aggressive attack is difficult to defend against if he overcommits to the water.

[F50]

Hornshark is probably not a great example then.

Water was a big difference on blitz with the village, and can still be quite nasty (swamp village and leader attack). Gryphons are a laughable defense against Mermen, however. I was unlucky attacking one during the day (yeah, not a good idea, I know) and the Merman almost killed it (another unit waded into the water and did so). Waste of 24gp.

40% defense is definitely not enough given their low hitpoints and -20 to pierce/blade. For them, 40%, sucks, just as 40% is good for Drakes. You're putting standards from regular units on to elusivefoot units, which is inappropriate, especially as an argument for saying that water is defensible. I know the outlaws (except thug) are Knalgan, that's why I mentioned them. Using the gryphon as a measure (for defense, not attack strength), one would need at least 60% defense or 50% defense and the ability to move in water with ease.

[Velensk]

Err, they have 50% defence, and they have only -20% to impact, not peirce, and they do move in the water with ease.

[anakayub]

F50, your 3rd paragraph is err, confusing.

And attacking a merman at day, regardless of unit, does not really constitute a defense. And regarding that swamp Weldyn Channel village, you can also defend with a guardsman/fighter/elusivefoot against up to at least 2 mermans. Such villages are even easier to defend than the water villages of Hornshark/Cynsaun. And defending by threats if you have sufficient range is also a reasonable idea. If a merman takes your swamp village, you have up to 4 hexes to attack and reclaim the village, reasonable enough to kill with range. It's all a lot of case-by-case according to available units and style.

[AI]

Err, they have 50% defence, and they have only -20% to impact, not peirce, and they do move in the water with ease.

While the second paragraph was about gryphons, the third was about footpads and other elusivefoots.

It wasn't very clear though.

[irrevenant]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always figured that a weakness over water was part of the Knalgan faction balance. They're spectacularly effective over land, after all...

Spectacularly effective in hills/mountains, decent on other land.

To clarify: You appear to be thinking purely of defence. Knalgans have a lot of HP and do a lot of damage, so they still have an edge even where their defence is merely decent. They're very powerful over all. Their low MP and their poor efficiency in water are their Achilles heels.