The Steppe Orcs

[Doc Paterson]

*

...about Warrior -> Bladesman balancing issues.

Umm, before I answer that one, did you mean to say...

"...but only at the expense of overpowering the Warrior."

and

"...in a standard MP game, non-intelligent Warrior will need a mere 17 exp. to..."

I think you may have got the Warrior and Bladesman names mixed up.
If you did, then it makes sense. However if you didn't make a mistake I must ask you too clarify just what you mean, because it's got me baffled.

Rightright. I did indeed mean to say that the Warrior was overpowered, due to its quick advancement (the problem not being the stats of the new unit, but rather the ease at which the L1 can refill its HP). Even something like the Saurian Tribalist, which has (I believe) the lowest exp. of any L1 unit in standard MP, requires more to level ( 26 ) and is balanced by its miniscule HP ( 18 ).

Great to hear that progress has been made on the Barrier defensive attack programming. And yes, I do think that the exp. you most recently suggested would be good. Time and testing will tell with that unit.

and

Oh, by the way- I didn't realise that there was some discussion about the Barrier losing a shield. My take on that is that you should either keep the twin-shield idea, or, if you're orienting towards the single, to make it HUGE (much bigger than the one shown). Otherwise, it looks like he just has a free hand that he's doing nothing with.

[Zhukov]

Regarding: Warrior -> Bladesman transition:
I think I will leave this as is for now. Not because I think it is already good, but because if the low XP does end up combining with 'level-up heal' to make the Warrior overly powerful this will (as you say) become evident in playtesting.
I am considering just increasing the cost of the warrior a little. (By the way, the lowest existing XP requirement is the Thief, with 24).

UPDATE:
a) The one shield/two shield issue with the Barrier is cosmetic, not effecting gameplay, that is something I will sort out in my art thread.
The Barrier line has undergone some balancing changes. The stat post (page 2) has been updated.
Changes:
Steadfast removed
Resistances increased (dramatically)

b) The WML coding for the retaliation-only weapon special is in working order (thanks zookeeper!). It will be implemented for playtesting. Playtesting will start when the base images are in acceptable form.

My current Steppe-Orc pusuits are artwork and any more balancing that turns up. That said, any (sane) ideas are welcome.

[JW]

I'm sorry if this has been resolved - but I realised why I don't like a defense only unit. How will he level? Your enemy will have to level him for you...

[Zhukov]

I'm sorry if this has been resolved

Not at all. You are adding something to the debate. Nothing to apologise about there.
(although I never suspected that the Barrier line would raise this much controversy)

How will he level? Your enemy will have to level him for you...

Correct. This has been mentioned, but not explained in detail. So I will attempt to present the Barrier line in the greatest detail I am able...

Because the Barrier cannot attack offensively, he will probably never get a kill and he must get all his XP from fights. Furthermore, the time and place of all those fights will be chosen by the enemy. This is why kills for him are so unlikely, after all, only an exceedingly dumb enemy would attack a Barrier with a heavily wounded unit.

Now, if you check the stats you will see that the Barrier has a tiny XP requirement. It currently stands at 14. Now as Doc Paterson pointed out, this means a Barrier in a standard MP game with 70% XP will take ~10 XP and a intelligent one would take ~8. So he should be able to level up from just fights, without kills. (However will likely be adjusted with playtesting)

It could be said that the enemy could simply chose not to attack him. True! However if your enemy won't attack your unit, then you have a true Barrier, he would be serving his purpose perfectly! Can you imagine the benefits of a unit that the enemy won't attack? Put him on a village, or a chokepoint.
It could also be said that his ZoC would be useless because an enemy unit could just not attack him and pass through his ZoC without fear of attack. Again, this is true. But he is not intended to operate alone. Imagine if you will: an East-West battle line made up of half Barriers and half fighting units, with the Barriers slightly ahead of the rest. If the enemy attack the Barriers they will waste their attack on a tough unit, then be open to counterattack by your fighters. If they ignore the Barrier they will still get stopped by his ZoC for one turn, again leaving them vulnerable to your fighters. If they pass entirely through his ZoC, like a skirmisher could, then the enemy will be channelled one-by-one to your fighters, giving you a distinct advanatage.

The fact that the enemy will chose his fights means he will likely be attacked in conditions that are worst for him, in daytime for example. That is why his resistances and HP are high. He is prepared to fight under bad circumstances. (The exceptions being fire, which he has a -30% weakness to, and skirmishers who can ignore his ZoC. However both these are intentional.)

I suppose you could say that he is essentially a fortification (although obviously he can move). He shares many strengths and weaknesses with real-life static defence:
He cannot counterattack, only retaliate (yes, there is a difference). He must wait for the enemy to attack him, and thus must fight under circumstances chosen by the enemy. He is vulnerable to 'bombardment'. He gives the enemy the initiative, yet in return he is given unusual toughness.
These are all attributes of historical fortifications, whether they be medieval castles, watchtowers, WWI trenchworks or even 'green zones.'
However the barrier does not share the single biggest weakness of a fortification, imobility. He can move, this makes him a good deal less 'reactionary.' Now movement is something that no trenchwork ever achieved.

It would seem that over the time it took me to write this, the Barrier has developed a philosophy of his own. But I hope all this has given you some idea of what I was aiming for when I dreamed up the concept behin the barrier.
Before I get too carried away I should probably remember that he hasn't been playtested yet. This could all prove to be a whole load of speculative bull***t. But, for now, I am really quite attached to the Barrier. And become more so every time I defend him against some criticism.

[zookeeper]

I must say I think the barrier is an excellent unit idea. Units that require new kinds of tactics to beat or use are a whole lot more interesting than...well, the rest.

[Doc Paterson]

(By the way, the lowest existing XP requirement is the Thief, with 24).

By the way, that's not so- Thief is 28 exp.

You must have been looking at its HP.

[Zhukov]

Yep, you're right.

[ozymandias]

I was thinking that the Barrier was sort of an extreme version of the Guardsman. However, if the retaliatory attack is strong, there'd be an interesting difference in that you'd need ranged attacks to effectively get rid of him. Interesting, hope it works...

[im the one you think of]

surely the barrier should have a lower resistance to pierce than impact and blade. afterall if a small patch of the unit is not behind the shields, it will be a lot easier to hit with a spear, than with a sword or club. plus its a lot easier to break through something with a point than a blade.

[Maeglin Dubh]

Break through? No, you need weight to break through.... A hammer or an axe. A spear is not a shield-breaking weapon.

[ozymandias]

Also, a big shield makes a very good defense against arrows. So unless pierce damages gets split up, the Barrier ought to have good pierce res. And I don't think a polearm is the best thing to use against big shields. You'd probably want mobility to get around it, and shorter weapons would help there.

[Maeglin Dubh]

Historically, the best weapons to fight shieldwalls was another shieldwall. This would turn the whole battle into a shoving match, with knives, spears and swords stabbing through any gaps that showed up, and axes trying to hook over the top. Breaking the shield was never an objective in battle. In singular combat, perhaps. But never in a battle. To attack a shield with intent to break brought on the possibility of getting your weapon caught in the remnants. Assuming you succeded. Generally, you would lose the weapon, and your opponent would have a heavier shield.

[Zhukov]

[minor history lesson]
I know that some ancient historical armies (most notably the Romans) used javelins to neutralise shields. They would hurl a volley at the enemy who would naturally raise their shields. The javelins were not intended to pierce the shields to injure the soldiers behind them, instead they would get stuck in the shield and make it too unwieldy and unbalanced to use properly This forced many soldiers to abandon them. Obviously this made them easier to deal with in close quarters.
[/minor history lesson]

[lesson is arms]
If you actually wanted to damage the shield beyond use you would use a mace of some kind, ideally one with a triangular head (called a corbie I believe) or with flanges. These variants were designed to combine the wieght and momentum of a heavy head with the concentration of force provoded by a point.
[/lesson in arms]

So...
If the resistances of the Barrier line were to be factual he would be slightly weaker to impact, as impact weapons were historically suited for use against heavy armour.
However realism plays second fiddle to gameplay. He will continue to be well protected against nearly all form of damage. Like the other Steppe Orcs, fire is his main weakness, especially from long range.

EDIT: [second lesson in arms]
If all his opponents happened to be equiped with bodkin points for their arrows there might be justification for a 10% decrease in pierce resistance. However, as I said, gameplay comes first.
[/second lesso in arms]

[Casual User]

Good afternoon!

A few comments on the units:

-warrior:24xp is rather little IMHO, 28-32 would be better to keep from overpowering him. Otherwise, nothing out of the ordinary.

-bladesman:increase in attack is too little, especially if you consider the skewer. The skewer has base damage 30, 33 if strong, while the bladesman has base damage 26, 28 if strong (as a general rule, units get a 40-60% increase in damage and hp from level to level).

-bladesman massif:fine, nothing out of the ordinary.

-skewer:see above. Also, I think you should make the skewer line more different from the bladesman line. Right now, skewer is just bladesman with pierce instead of blade. Maybe giving him firststrike, or 6moves, I don't know...

-skewer massif:see skewer

-savage:a berserker who has a non-berserking attack... Seems very, very overpowered to me. Berserking units are hard as hell to balance, you'll see.

-barrier:can't wait to see how it will play out in reality, otherwise, no comment...

-rigid:see barrier

-stoic:see barrier

-icewind herder:a decent mage with 36hp and 6 moves for only 19gold .Way overpowered. I say make him go down to 30hp and price hime 21gold, he'll still be tougher than most mages...

-icewind drover:a mage, seems okay.

-icewind master:RIPLIB, he goes down to 5 moves. I think the whole line should have 5 moves.

-outrunner:way, way, way overpowered, as has been mentionned.

-flanker:see outrunner. By the way, I think one of the units in this line should get skirmish, it seems to fit.

-striker:attacks can only have one special... Otherwise, this one seems more balanced than the rest.

-marauder:see striker

-piercer:8-2 seems a little weak, otherwise, okay.

-juggernaut:the steppe orc's version of the lancer...

-spearhead:leadership+charge seems a weird combination, still, for very savage orcs...

-driver:see spearhead.

-warbringer:see spearhead

A general comment:

-they'll have a very tough time against undead. With only one lvl 1 that has impact, and a support unit at that, and only blade, cold and pierce otherwise, skeletons will be hell. The resistance to cold will partially cover it, but not completely, undead are impossible if you don't have the right damage types. How about if the marauder had flaming arrows and the warrior used clubs instead of axes?

-bit low on scouts. As I see it, you've painted yourself into a corner. The outrunner needs re-balancing, either you make him a scout (and the faction lacks range support) or you make him an archer (and the faction lacks a scout). BTW, a faction without a decent scout is doomed, so they'll need at least a 7 moves guy. How about tamed animals of some kind?

-about the movetype, making them systematically a better fighter and faster in in open field than in any type of rough terrain impoverishes the strategy a lot. I understand why you did it, I'm just not sure it will work too great. Maybe they should require 2 moves in tundra. Even if you spend your whole life in winter, you'll still be a bit slower in deep snow than in open ground. Seeing as how they're orcs, maybe they should be good in hills, at least...

-finally, what's the more peculiar angle of these guys? How is their playing style different from that of other factions? The barrier is an interesting idea, but apart from that...

In any case, if I went a little heavy with the criticism, I'd liketo say it's great to have some guys that are decent in snow. Also, the general idea of 'frost orcs' is quite good. In any case, good luck, and be sure I'll keep trolling .

Boy, what a long post!

[Zhukov]

Whoa! A postive mountain of comment. I'm not sure if I should curse you for creating so much work, or thank you for taking the time to trawl through a mountain of stats.
It's good criticism though, so I'm grateful.

This may take a while...
*cracks knuckles*

First, keep in mind that only playtesting can really balance a unit. Those stats are only preliminary. This however, is no excuse for them to be unbalanced. So...

Unit Specific Comments.
a) - Low XP on Warrior
Doc Paterson also picked this up. First, see post #9 of page 3, also post #1-2 of page 5. (Once you have read them, the rest of my answer should make sense)
As I said there, I will leave the Warriors XP as it is for now. I need to find the fine point between overpowering the Warrior and underpowering the Bladesman/Skewer. A balance this fine can, IMHO, only be reached through playtesting.

b) - Bladesman [and Skewer] weak.
Yes, the Bladesman and Skewer have relative weakness when compared to other level 2's. However they are actually level 1.6 (the posts listed in my answer just above should make this clear). This ties in closely with the low XP of the Warrior.
In comparison with each other, I think I will lower the Skewer to 9-3.

c) - Boring Skewer/Skewer Massif
That's exactly what the Skewer is, a Bladesman with spears. This is explained (perhaps not well enough?) in the unit descriptions. The idea is that some Warriors continue to use an axe, others prefere the slightly more sublte spears, while yet others regress to their fists.
I was originally going to have the Bladesman also have a spear. But I decided to split him into two lines.

d) - Overpowered Savage.
Agreed. However the unit stats are deceptive. I only intend to keep one of the attacks shown there. I am yet to decide which, so I just typed in both of them. I will put "OR" in the stats to stop this confusing people in future.
Hard to balance? I expect final balancing to be a nightmare, the Savage can join the club.

e) - Barrier line.
I don't beleive it! You didn't slam the Barrier! Perhaps I have finally out-posted the Barrier critics,
I can't wait either. Even if it proves useless in MP I think it will be good in a campaign. (Which I will write, one day).

f) - Overpowered IceWind line with RIPLIB issues.
Yeah, you're right. I will jack up the price. Taking into consideration some plans I have for this line, a price of 23, maybe 24, would be justified. The HP is staying. He is an Orc and has not been weakened by his exposure to magic, so he's tougher then usual.
The 5 movement for the Master was a typo, he has 6.
Expect further change in this line soon, including a split.

g) - Overpowered Outrunner line.
That was pointed out by Doc Paterson. I have been working on this, but just haven't posted the changes yet. I will do so soon. I won't be giving them skirmish. As I understand it Skirmish reflects the ability to skillfully dodge, jink and fight your way around enemy units. Outrunners are ranged units with no skill at close quarters. Also if the Marauder were to have Skirmish, and a ranged backstab...ouch, a bit too ouch.
Only one special per attack? That's lousy. Oh well, those attacks can do without Marksman.
As I said, change coming. Your comments on them after their makeover would be good.

h) - Slightly weak Piercer.
I disagree on this. The horseman has only 9-2 and is still powerful...and the Piercer is cheaper then a Horseman. And 8-2 isn't so weak with the charge special. That makes it 16-2. Night can turn it into 20-2. And a strong one...you see my point?

i) - Spearhead, Driver and WarBringer: Charge + Leadership.
This is explained in the unit descriptions. And it is even supported historically. Leading from behind in the style of modern officers is a rather recent development. It is also a development of mainly Western military.
I imagine Orcs as respecting officers/leaders who lead by example, at the front of the charge. The Orc's leaders are selected from their boldest fighters. I think this goes well with the chargeing attack.
Also, don't forget that the Spearhead and up get a battleaxe as well for more reserved fighting.

General Comments.
a) - Problems against undead.
The only Undead unit I can see as being troublesome is the Ghost (and it's higher level forms). All other undead are vulnerable to Impact. The name "Piercer" may have thrown you, but his Flail (aka morning star) is a charging impact attack, I smell powdered skeleton.
As for the Ghost, that would just be a hard unit to deal with. Like the Drakes can have trouble with Loyalist Spearmen.

b) - Scouts.
The Outrunner has 7 movement. A lack of very good scouts was a weakness I planned from the start. To make up for less movement the Outrunner is somewhat more combat capable then other scouts.
However if this lack of scouts turns out to be a terminal weakness I will give the Outrunner a mount, although this would couse him further rebalancing.

c) - Defense values.
The changes aren't all that big. Compare it to the smallfoot movetype. All that has happened is:
- a 10% increase on plains
- mountians have 'switched places' with tundra.
2 moves for Tundra...why? Apply this to Elves. Even if you have lived your entire life in a forest you would still be a bit slower in tangled undergrowth then in open ground, right? Wrong, IMO at least.
And they have the same defence in hills as normal Orcs do, they just go a bit slower. If you have been raised on a giant steppe, climbing hills might not be your thing, however as hills naturally favour defense, you can still fight in them.

d) - Features that make Steppe Orcs distinct.
Good question.
If you mean what distinct units do they have, there is, apart from the Barrier, the ranged backstab of the Marauder, the flexible Warrior, the lead-from-the-front Spearhead line and of course the supreme strength on snow.
If you mean general playing style, well...that will only become apparent with playtesting. I'm not really good enough to predict something as wide and sweeping as playing style when I only have what is still only a bunch of numbers on a screen. Time will tell, I can only hope. (Well, I can also balance and draw )

n any case, if I went a little heavy with the criticism, I'd liketo say it's great to have some guys that are decent in snow. Also, the general idea of 'frost orcs' is quite good. In any case, good luck, and be sure I'll keep trolling.

Don't worry, nothing you said had me hiding under the bed in shame. Criticism is a blessing if it is well written. And yours most definitely was just that.

Phew! Long post. You kept me busy for...now hang on just a second. Where did my afternoon go...!? Oh well.

Thanks.

EDIT: If I left something out, or didn't explain it to your satisfaction, just ask again. I have plenty of afternoons to spare.