The Dwarven Dilemma

[soul_steven]

Poison is useless against dwarfs? i think that discredits any future comments you have just from that one comment

[Great_Mage_Atari]

Poison is useless against dwarfs? i think that discredits any future comments you have just from that one comment

I meant if it were -6hp rather than -4hp with the given healthy change then it would not be so useless. Poison is a Dwarf killer as of the moment.

[Cackfiend]

Yeah I'm no "expert" (got a rude PM from a member trying to discredit all I said prior because of it ) but I do agree with Cackfiend on one thing. I do think that poison should be counter-effected by the healthy trait. I wouldn't say nerfing the damage by 4hp takeaway, but rather reduce it by 2hp to give poison a 6hp damage to healthy units. Therefor poison is not so useless against Dwarves and still does moderate damage.

the dwarves that are lucky enough (40% of them) to get healthy trait vs orcs certainly wouldnt make poison useless to have vs the faction. there would still be plenty of units to poison and poisoning would be still very useful even vs those with the healthy trait if it did cut poison dmg in half like in my suggestion


but really the best option is to just remove the healthy trait from the game altogether, regardless of adding in the ability for all dwarves to only take 6 dmg from poison

[Gallifax]

While I'll be the first to agree with you that dwarves are my worst race, this is largely due to the fact that I prefer actually recruiting dwarves instead of outlaws regardless of the map when I play vs loyalist, drakes, and orcs.. but my playstyle isn't really the point. The point of the entire thread is to highlight the shortcomings of having 4mp units in wesnoth and the fact that the near useless healthy trait (that doesnt even help vs poison anymore) just makes even less quick dwarves

Were it important if I would be the only one, I dont think it would be.

And ofc playstyle and recruitment choice allways matters, but you really do know that yourself.

True 4 mp isnt ideal for attack, but those guards and fighters and thunderers are all more defenders and for that they are fine with their resistances and high hp and healthy. Not meant for quick rushes. Combine them with outlaws is the key,its wanted that way. Its not called "Dwarfs ONLY faction" its called Knalgans.

There are a lot of things to make the game more balanced, making more similar leader with all having 5 mp and making no unit have less than 5 mp.

That would all work well and propably what all the competitive players like better. But the more similar factions become , the more its getting boring.

Some fun part of wesnoth is the flexibility it asks from the players. I wouldnt want to reduce it too much.

[Kolbur]

Uhm, I have to say I am a little shocked about the unknowingness in this thread. The Healthy trait as it is now already reduces the poison damage to 6!

As Cackfiend pointed out it is essentially a mini-regeneration without the cure poison ability. It does not only heal injured dwarves 2 hp everytime regardless of moves or attacks, it also heals the 2 hp in addition to village healing (like when resting after not moving or fighting)! This means a healthy dwarf can heal 10 hp on a village and also heal 2 hp on a village when he is poisoned in addition to the removal of poison. In this regard it works even better than regeneration.

It is a fine trait if you ask me, at least on the level of resilient due to the extra 2 hp that also come with it on lvl 1. It does make getting the quick trait less likely which is indeed very important for dwarves. But if you really want to argue removing a trait from the dwarven trait pool I'd rather remove the resilient trait tbh since dwarves already are naturally resilient indicated by their high hp.

Now the problem with poison is not so big as some make it sound here. It mostly makes it really hard to attack orcs with a dwarf heavy unit composition because their low mp will make retreating close to impossible. Dwarves are totally fine when defending vs Orcs though. In my experience Knalgans have much greater trouble vs Drakes. In this match up the mobility mismatch really shows a greater effect.

[Cackfiend]

Uhm, I have to say I am a little shocked about the unknowingness in this thread. The Healthy trait as it is now already reduces the poison damage to 6!

Don't be too shocked that Great_Mage_Atari didn't know this...

Who are you, the Dalai Lama of Wesnoth players? Lot's of people are very successful in strategies with Dwarves who are not part of the ladder. Not all experts play on the ladder. I consider myself experienced player (played since v1.0 and never made a ladder account), though not an expert by any means, and can win most battles with Dwarves. ... I can play very well with Dwarves and see no problem with them. 4mp doesn't even phase me if I can play well with the unit I recruited.

This guy is 0-5 on the ladder and the game he was dwarves he failed to take 2 of his villages by turn 5 and was easily dispatched by his 15xx ranked opponent =/

As Cackfiend pointed out it is essentially a mini-regeneration without the cure poison ability. It does not only heal injured dwarves 2 hp everytime regardless of moves or attacks, it also heals the 2 hp in addition to village healing (like when resting after not moving or fighting)! This means a healthy dwarf can heal 10 hp on a village and also heal 2 hp on a village when he is poisoned in addition to the removal of poison. In this regard it works even better than regeneration.

Yes, I think we all realize that healthy trait acts exactly like rested does, in fact thats how it worked before as well but the unit couldnt be involved in a fight to get it... but it could move.

The way I look at it is this; healthy dwarves have a mini hp regen of 2 regardless of what they do, if theyre poisoned, or in a village, its always +2 hps a turn. So, when poisoned it still does 8 damage because you're losing that +2 regen and taking 6 additional damage. Healthy USE TO reduce poison dmg to 4/turn.

It is a fine trait if you ask me, at least on the level of resilient due to the extra 2 hp that also come with it on lvl 1. It does make getting the quick trait less likely which is indeed very important for dwarves. But if you really want to argue removing a trait from the dwarven trait pool I'd rather remove the resilient trait tbh since dwarves already are naturally resilient indicated by their high hp.

Removing resilient is an option that I highlighted in my original post, though I think its one of the least likely to be done

Now the problem with poison is not so big as some make it sound here. It mostly makes it really hard to attack orcs with a dwarf heavy unit composition because their low mp will make retreating close to impossible. Dwarves are totally fine when defending vs Orcs though. In my experience Knalgans have much greater trouble vs Drakes. In this match up the mobility mismatch really shows a greater effect.

I totally agree that the bigger issue with Dwarves is vs loyalist and drakes. That being said, going on the offense as dwarves vs orcs is usually a terrible idea on most maps and if the Dwarf just defends super well its a very stalematish matchup.

Removing the healthy trait and adding -2 dmg from poison to all dwarves is the best idea imo... if not then at least rebuff healthy to 4dmg from poison

[csarmi]

Well I saw him play in a WTT game (the tourney he had to abandon due to some RL matters if I can recall) and he looked like a very weak player indeed. This doesn't mean he can't make good points.

As for the healthy trait, what about changing it to cure poison (not prevent it, just cure it on his turn).
I like the idea of halving poison damage too (in addition to the always rests).

[Xalzar]

This guy is 0-5 on the ladder and the game he was dwarves he failed to take 2 of his villages by turn 5 and was easily dispatched by his 15xx ranked opponent =/

Seriously, I wouldn't call him a good player then. I think we are all forgotting the Outlaws, aren't we?
The faction is "Knalgan Alliance", Dwarves+Outlaws, not "Dwarves". If you want fast units, then go for Gryphons or Outlaws.

A player who recruits only Dwarves has not understood how to use the faction IMHO:
-Outlaws and/or Gryphons take villages and explore (surely better than Dwarves)
-Dwarves defend on those forementioned villages or on hills and mountains
-They take the brunt of the enemy assault, weakening his units
-Outlaws can defend fairly well on their preferred terrains, shielding the Dwarves from the poison (Outlaws are fast so they reach villages quickly; also, they are more expendable)
-Outlaws and Gryphons can attack and give the time to the Dwarves to reach the battlefield; once the Dwarves are arrived, it's difficult to make them recede, expecially if you have conquered nearby villages

Obviously this is general strategy, every match is different from another and the faction is so flexible that you can be creative and experiment various tactics (should I mention HODOR? oh, there are no Dwarves in it )

So, I agree with all of you: Dwarves are underpowered against other factions. But I add: luckily they have Gryphons and Outlaws.

[The Black Sword]

I'd agree that healthy is on the same level as resilient which is usually just as good as strong or intelligent. Obviously strong is very important for an ulf and healthy is the weakest trait but its a very specialised unit. Against Drakes, a strong guard is nice but in other matchups res/healthy are just as useful.
So, as I see it, the main benefit of removing healthy would be to increase the number of quick dwarves. Do you really think that having an extra 1 in every 10 dwarves being quick would make such a difference in these matchups?
If there is a problem here I don't think removing healthy(or resilient) will fix it.
In addition removing either will reduce the dwarvish theme of being a resilient race, for very little gain. This is what I meant in my previous post. The "potentially unbalanced" comment was mostly referring to making dwarves 5mp.

You say good orc players know how to use poison well, I'd just reiterate my previous argument about being difficult for the orcs to attack and able to grab something using ulfs when the orc defends. I remember playing this matchup vs Daunt on Fallenstar(supposedly a weak dwarf map). At the time I was specialising with the orcs and had a very good record. It took well over 20 turns but eventually Daunt managed to grind me down. I remember looking back on the game and seeing very little I could have done differently in my attacks.

At the least I think we can agree that the loyal and drake matchups are worse. And I don't think removing healthy or resil would do much here.

Xalzar: While HODOR might be a fun strategy to use, in almost all cases you are handicapping yourself by using it vs a good player. The problem appears to be that the faction is having trouble in these matchups. Cackfiends suggesting a fix by improving the dwarves, that's why he's focusing on them.

Again, I think looking at the poacher would be the best solution.

[Xalzar]

Xalzar: While HODOR might be a fun strategy to use, in almost all cases you are handicapping yourself by using it vs a good player.

I was joking there.

Again, I think looking at the poacher would be the best solution.

QFT (also against the Drakes which seem to be a problem)

[Cackfiend]

This guy is 0-5 on the ladder and the game he was dwarves he failed to take 2 of his villages by turn 5 and was easily dispatched by his 15xx ranked opponent =/

Seriously, I wouldn't call him a good player then. I think we are all forgotting the Outlaws, aren't we?
The faction is "Knalgan Alliance", Dwarves+Outlaws, not "Dwarves". If you want fast units, then go for Gryphons or Outlaws.

A player who recruits only Dwarves has not understood how to use the faction IMHO:
-Outlaws and/or Gryphons take villages and explore (surely better than Dwarves)
-Dwarves defend on those forementioned villages or on hills and mountains
-They take the brunt of the enemy assault, weakening his units
-Outlaws can defend fairly well on their preferred terrains, shielding the Dwarves from the poison (Outlaws are fast so they reach villages quickly; also, they are more expendable)
-Outlaws and Gryphons can attack and give the time to the Dwarves to reach the battlefield; once the Dwarves are arrived, it's difficult to make them recede, expecially if you have conquered nearby villages

Obviously this is general strategy, every match is different from another and the faction is so flexible that you can be creative and experiment various tactics (should I mention HODOR? oh, there are no Dwarves in it )

So, I agree with all of you: Dwarves are underpowered against other factions. But I add: luckily they have Gryphons and Outlaws.

If you read my posts you will see I highlight the fact that outlaws are bad vs loyalist/drakes and this is why dwarves have a lot of trouble with them. Footpads are near useless vs these factions and Thieves are easily zoced to not being able to perform backstab at night while being absolutely slaughtered at day. Poachers are mediocre vs either race.

I'd agree that healthy is on the same level as resilient which is usually just as good as strong or intelligent. Obviously strong is very important for an ulf and healthy is the weakest trait but its a very specialised unit. Against Drakes, a strong guard is nice but in other matchups res/healthy are just as useful.
.

I will definitely disagree with you on strong on Guardsmen. It makes them just that much better at dealing with cavs/horsemen and generally all around since they have 3 attacks with very little dmg so strong effectively makes them output 20% more damage

some examples:

Intel/Resil cavs and horsemen have 43 hps, Quick/Resil have 41 hps

Strong guardsmen do 7-3 (21 dmg potential)
Thunderers do 22-1
which equals to 43 dmg potential. If you have 2 strong guardsmen and a thunderer that are in range of a resilient/int or resil/quick horse/cav unit it is going to die where as if those guardsmen are non-strong theres a huge possibility of it living.

Horsemen charge a strong guardsmen with retal of 14-3 vs a non strong guardsmen of a retal of 12-3 which is a 42vs36 dmg potential. horsemen have 36/37/39/41/43/44 hps which means that strong guardsmen are gonna deter a horsemen from attacking it, lets say if its on grass and isolated, where as a non strong guardsmen would be perfectly safe to attack.

In addition removing either will reduce the dwarvish theme of being a resilient race, for very little gain. This is what I meant in my previous post. The "potentially unbalanced" comment was mostly referring to making dwarves 5mp.

Reduce the dwarvish theme of being a resilient race? Sure, but not by much at all. Dwarves were fine before healthy was implemented.

Im not real convinced that if all dwarves were 5mps and had no potential to be Quick that there would be a big issue... you're still talking about half of your opponents units out running them. Remember i suggested that if dwarves were indeed buffed to 5mp you'd have to have to take 2 mps to go thru forest.... regardless this really has no chance of being implemented

You say good orc players know how to use poison well, I'd just reiterate my previous argument about being difficult for the orcs to attack and able to grab something using ulfs when the orc defends. I remember playing this matchup vs Daunt on Fallenstar(supposedly a weak dwarf map). At the time I was specialising with the orcs and had a very good record. It took well over 20 turns but eventually Daunt managed to grind me down. I remember looking back on the game and seeing very little I could have done differently in my attacks.

At his peak Dauntless was/is one of the best to have ever played, and hes got way more experience than you

So, as I see it, the main benefit of removing healthy would be to increase the number of quick dwarves. Do you really think that having an extra 1 in every 10 dwarves being quick would make such a difference in these matchups?
If there is a problem here I don't think removing healthy(or resilient) will fix it

...

At the least I think we can agree that the loyal and drake matchups are worse. And I don't think removing healthy or resil would do much here.

1 in every 10 dwarves being quick would indeed make a big difference. But at the same time it would not be a HUGE difference, where is where balance comes into play here. Removing healthy also gives you more strong units as well... so you're already at 20% or 1 out of 5 units being, imo, way better. Intelligent ulfs are nice too as well as Resilient ulfs.

Again, I think looking at the poacher would be the best solution.

again, agreed the poacher has needed a buff for a long time as the unit is just so mediocre in all that it does. maybe adding the chance of getting dextrous?

[The Black Sword]

Sure strong is a 20% increase for the guard, but in absolute terms, its still only 1-3 damage. The guard is primarily a defensive unit and one which takes its time to die so healthy is actually a very nice trait for it. Obviously strong is a useful trait, there are occasions where the 1 extra damage makes all the difference, but no more so with the guard than other units IMO. In the situation you describe, I'd prefer to just shoot it with thunderers .

At his peak Dauntless was/is one of the best to have ever played, and hes got way more experience than you

Sort of my point, he won in very anti-dwarf conditions. Between two top players the knalgan still has roughly equal chances to beat the orcs IMO(you posted your anecdote, so I have mine ).

Healthy is a terrible ulf trait but for the other dwarves, its fine IMO. I'd stand by the opinion that removing it(or resil) would have little to no effect on the drake/loy matchups.

Dextrous for the poacher seems to be the best option, adding hp is the obvious choice to buff it but I can't see that having enough of an impact on its own.

[Cackfiend]

Sure strong is a 20% increase for the guard, but in absolute terms, its still only 1-3 damage. The guard is primarily a defensive unit and one which takes its time to die so healthy is actually a very nice trait for it. Obviously strong is a useful trait, there are occasions where the 1 extra damage makes all the difference, but no more so with the guard than other units IMO. In the situation you describe, I'd prefer to just shoot it with thunderers .

At his peak Dauntless was/is one of the best to have ever played, and hes got way more experience than you

Sort of my point, he won in very anti-dwarf conditions. Between two top players the knalgan still has roughly equal chances to beat the orcs IMO(you posted your anecdote, so I have mine ).

Healthy is a terrible ulf trait but for the other dwarves, its fine IMO. I'd stand by the opinion that removing it(or resil) would have little to no effect on the drake/loy matchups.

Dextrous for the poacher seems to be the best option, adding hp is the obvious choice to buff it but I can't see that having enough of an impact on its own.

The guardsman shines as an offensive unit vs Drakes and Loyalist though, ESPECIALLY when strong



As for your match vs Dauntless...

I watched the replay, at least the first half since after the save it went OOS for me for some reason, and I'd like to point out a few things:

• 1. Fallenstar Lake is indeed an anti-dwarf map... but mostly vs Loyalist. Fallenstar is also THE ONLY MAP that orcs cant rush, therefore a very anti-orc map as well
  
  2. You mention in the beginning of the match that you had yet to play vs Dwarves since you had started playing Orcs a lot (inexperience)
  
  3. You attack a dwarf fighter thats in a village, at day, with TWO orc assassins from grass... what were you thinking?!?! (lucky you didnt lose both of them his next turn)
  
  4. You made *FIVE* nagas which matched your 5 Grunts you had recruited total at the time, which is downright blasphemy with orcs at a high level of play since they are in fact the worst non-goblin unit for Orcs
  
  5. The conditions you both created were not very anti-dwarf since you kept the fight in the North and failed to use your 5 nagas to fight in the water in the south, but this was a bad idea anyways since Gryphons > Nagas... again, nagas suck
  
  6. You didn't even let the dwarf possibly go on the offensive, and if they refuse you bank until you have enough money for a complete and sizable army for your all-in attack
  
  7. Between two top players I believe that Orcs most definitely have the advantage, although its not as big as it is at a lower level of play. My recent game vs elido in this matchup on HGB I think is a decent example of Poison > Dwarves when played correctly by two players of similar skill level. http://wesnoth.gamingladder.info/gamede ... %3A53%3A50

The removal of healthy trait and addition of all Dwarves taking only 6 dmg from poison would effectively even out the Orc vs Dwarf matchup and even out the Dwarf vs Loyalist/Drakes matchup due to speed issues.

If its not done, then at THE VERY LEAST Healthy trait should cut down poison dmg to 4/rd



Anyway, sorry if I'm being too critical. You should know that I have a lot of respect for you and believe you are one of the best players in wesnoth right now. But this game vs Dauntless is, imo, a sad argument against Orcs being OP vs Dwarves

[The Black Sword]

Anyway, sorry if I'm being too critical.

Hehe, np, nothing wrong with criticism if its valid. I didn't realise the ladder stored so many replays. I was going off my memory here and now that I actually look at the game, I see some mistakes but I think your points are exaggerated and you can still see just how tough the dwarvish defense is from this game. I thought I remember some good dwarf attack too, but it looks like I was mistaken, just one attack at the end.

Anyhow, on to my defense :

1.I have rarely seen an orc rush work well vs dwarves between good players, so I don't think that's much of an issue.

2.True, I had forgotten this, I also mentioned at the end that I was thinking in a mindset similar to orc vs elf which didn't work too well. Still, it is almost impossible to find a game where the players made no mistakes or luck had no involvement and I think you can see something from the game.

3. I did this at second day, so next turn was dusk. He had only 2 proper vill holders, the fighter being one of them, I think I wanted to put some extra damage into him for night so I'd have a chance of removing him. I figured that a counter would be quite costly for him, I could put a lot of damage into his units on flat and then if he countered again it would be night. I miscalulated though and he still managed a solid defense for the first night thanks to the resilient footies.
If he'd went for the second assassin I could have trapped a unit though.
So, yeah, I'd say it was a mistake but not so bad as your statement makes out. I lost 1 unit and did put a fair amount of damage into his units in return.

You saw his defense there though, very hard to see a way to break through that. I probably should have retreated at second watch actually.

4/5. I'm quite surprised by this comment, especially when Fallenstar is such a good map for fishes. I quite like nagas and I don't see anything wrong with my use of them here. 2 in the north on water hexes where they're more useful than grunts, 2 in the south to keep the pressure on those vills and protect my own. The 5th was then to replace one I'd lost. Certainly, I don't see my position becoming any better if those nagas had been grunts.

5/6. As I mentioned I think dwarves can pick off a unit or 2 with ulfs on the attack and retreat well. I was happy enough that he didn't get a chance to attack. I attacked at second night, even if I hadn't attacked, there's no guarantee that the dwarves couldn't just bank back. I don't think more units would have helped much breaking that defense, especially when he gets more units too.

For anyone else wanting to look at the game, the replay is here.

Now my turn , elido vs Cackfiend:

1.Look how well that orc rush went . I don't think the fact that orcs can't rush on fallenstar makes much of a difference to the matchup.

2. During the attack on turn 14, there was no need to leave the footie open to 3 units on flat. Granted still unlucky to lose it but then the poacher is hurt too because of that. If it hadn't been for that he could have retreated with a kill. Staying another turn for another kill or 2 is a good move anyway I think but the point stands.

3. Elido had good opportunities this turn but got greedy I think. Losing the first ulf was unlucky but for the second he could could have weakened the grunt from two hexes and finished him from the forest with the ulf to cover him. That ulf would probably have enough hp to trade for an assassin then. He also put the gryph in a very poor position, which is expensive to replace and left the poacher to die too. He left the guard in a great spot to be poisoned and the footie is clearly going to be poisoned and trapped.

I know he wanted to get the keep, but he's trading units(losing gold) with orcs at day, just so that he'll be able to stay there at night, that's not a great plan.

I played this turn out, killed the grunt and troll and made a line from the mountain to the castle and in to the hill with almost 0 ctk on my units from the orcs, few good poison options and an ulf with quite some hp left.(my other ulf survived too but we'll ignore that ).

At the end of your turn, he has very few units for countering assassins left on the left side.

I have a few random other comments but these turns were crucial IMO. He should have been 3 kills(or 2, allowing for the bad luck ulf) up at first day, in a good position to retreat at second day. Instead he's actually down units and been poisoned AT DAY.

[nani]

Just throwing a game in: Me(Orc) vs Dauntless(Dwarves) on Sulla's ... discuss.