New trait for dwarves : fast-gunner

[Qes]

*cough*WINR*cough*

True, and I almost said that myself, but this is really an argument about intuitiveness not realism. ie. Wesnoth doesn't have to be realistic, but it shouldn't run counter to the player's reasonable expectations either.

Regardless, the current Thunderer passes both tests, so it's a moot point.

Perhaps I gave the wrong impression.

I like the thunderer units. Someone was talking about tweaking them and I simply wanted to present an option - something flavorful that didnt disrupt a sentiment of quasi-realism.

The thunderer is generally the best unit to have in the open - other than the guardsman, because sometimes it's impossible to make use of 'high-ground' that the dwarves need. The high damage output of range, and the melee contingent make it counter-worthy.

It was only a thought, and my misconceptions when I first started playing were MY fault - for the nature of assumptions, not the game's. I dont pretend otherwise.

Cheers,
-Qes

[G-$]

From a realism standpoint these guns should be slow.. In fact:

1. Early guns could not be kept loaded - the shot (just a metal ball) could actually just fall out of the gun or become jammed. The powder, often loose, would fall out as well. Especially in the field or in divisive terrain, there was a real danger of the powder becoming wet, so it was usually kept in a watertight pouch.

2. Gunpowder is an evolving medium that has gone through a lot of changes prior to the development of the modern bullet. Early gunpowders took a long time to build up the proper reaction to cause the gun to fire - this meant there was actually a few seconds delay before firing took place, after the powder was lit.

3. Rifles were not used in close quarters, in part for the above reasons. Pistols were, but a 'thunderstick' is not a pistol.

One change I would support to the thunderer is the idea to change the flavor text from 'dagger' to 'bayonet' or some dwarvish technology equivalent.

[brownbookwyrm]

This is my first post, so my apologies if this sounds a little weird, incorrectly formatted, etc.:

I like the dwarves, and from reading this thread I get the impression that the main point of it is the feeling that the dwarves lack a dependable ranged attacker. As much as I like thunderers, perhaps they are not the unit to tweak. I think the dwarvish scout would be a better choice. It already has a ranged attack (though only one strike with it, if I recall correctly) and a melee attack, with multiple strikes. I think the damage and strikes for both should be switched around. Then the thunderer is the dwarves' big one-shot ranged specialist, and the scout has multiple weaker strikes. I'm not sure how that balance, but oh well.

On a side note, does anyone else feel that Thunderer's hit less often then they should? I've had times that my Thunderers have 60-70% chance to hit, and it feels like their actually hitting about 30-40% of the time. Does anyone know if this is just me, a result of the RNG, or a game mechanic?

Finally,

G-$ wrote:
From a realism standpoint these guns should be slow.. In fact:

1. Early guns could not be kept loaded - the shot (just a metal ball) could actually just fall out of the gun or become jammed. The powder, often loose, would fall out as well. Especially in the field or in divisive terrain, there was a real danger of the powder becoming wet, so it was usually kept in a watertight pouch.

2. Gunpowder is an evolving medium that has gone through a lot of changes prior to the development of the modern bullet. Early gunpowders took a long time to build up the proper reaction to cause the gun to fire - this meant there was actually a few seconds delay before firing took place, after the powder was lit.

3. Rifles were not used in close quarters, in part for the above reasons. Pistols were, but a 'thunderstick' is not a pistol.

One change I would support to the thunderer is the idea to change the flavor text from 'dagger' to 'bayonet' or some dwarvish technology equivalent.

In response to your realism standpoint, it reflects how I use the Thunderer: in groups of two or three, in a line, or adjacent hexes to each other and one opponent, like the historical musket barrage.

[Iris]

Just note that you are replying to an abandoned, nearly four years-old topic.

[brownbookwyrm]

Thanks. Sorry, I didn't notice.