the poacher needs balancing

joshudson · Post by **joshudson** » September 24th, 2007, 6:30 pm

If I were to change anything (and this is not so likely)
* Trapper defense in swamp 60%
* Trapper defense in forest 70%

Trapper not random leader (rogue is better as leader in most cases where you normally want trapper).
No change to poacher.

Weeksy · Post by **Weeksy** » September 24th, 2007, 7:16 pm

problem is, that leaves you with just 3 possible choices for knalgan random leaders, 2 of which have only 4 mp. Is there something wrong with adding the Bandit as a knalgan leader, if just to make it so there are 4 randoms?

Haibane · Post by **Haibane** » September 25th, 2007, 7:07 am

joshudson wrote:If I were to change anything (and this is not so likely)
* Trapper defense in swamp 60%
* Trapper defense in forest 70%

Uh, you must be kidding

That's not balancing, that's transformation of trapper into swamp elf. I don't see any reason why knalgans should have ranged unit with elvish defense in forest and village defense in swamp (not mentioning how he would do it, diving into swamp and sometimes shooting from there, something like tactical submarine ?).

Leave forest for elves and swamps for water creatures, even if trapper really needs some improvement (dunno), this is wrong way.
I don't want to change trapper to fit leader role, I just want to remove him from it.

Btw may I missed something Weeksy, but Knalgans still have 5 leaders, which one is not random now ? And isn't bandit just trade of one bad leader for another bad one ?

Weeksy · Post by **Weeksy** » September 25th, 2007, 4:39 pm

the L2 guardsman isn't random, and if it were it'd be even worse in the way of lack-of-moves leaders. Also, I don't see bandit as nearly the horrible leader a trapper is (And I don't see the trapper as that bad either) when you have swordsman damage, albeit without a bit of blade resist, and a damage that more things have weaknesses to.

Beholder · Post by **Beholder** » September 26th, 2007, 1:35 am

Weeksy wrote:the L2 guardsman isn't random, and if it were it'd be even worse in the way of lack-of-moves leaders. Also, I don't see bandit as nearly the horrible leader a trapper is (And I don't see the trapper as that bad either) when you have swordsman damage, albeit without a bit of blade resist, and a damage that more things have weaknesses to.

No unit in the game move worse then the HI. Even the Wose moves better.

nebula955 · Post by **nebula955** » September 26th, 2007, 9:51 pm

the hi does damage......the guardsman does not.....albeit they both suck. is hi still a random leader in 1.3? and tbh a rogue isnt that good of a leader either.....weak damage unless you backstab and if you backstab you are often behind enemy lines....dangerous place for a rogue.
EDIT: you ought not take guardsman with no damage literally, but being as it's not more damaging than a level 1 and less durable when attacking...

Post by **Jetrel** » September 26th, 2007, 10:25 pm

nebula955 wrote:the hi does damage......the guardsman does not.....

What?

Post by **Doc Paterson** » September 26th, 2007, 11:52 pm

Jetryl wrote:
nebula955 wrote:the hi does damage......the guardsman does not.....
What?

It has a 0-3 melee attack.

Nebiros · Post by **Nebiros** » September 27th, 2007, 12:04 am

nebula955 wrote:tbh a rogue isnt that good of a leader either.....weak damage unless you backstab and if you backstab you are often behind enemy lines....dangerous place for a rogue.

Rogues have skirmish though. And you can send a friend (like a cheap footpad or thief) behind enemy lines to avoid going there yourself. Anyway, I find that when I use my leader in direct combat it is often because an enemy is behind *my* lines, which may make it easy to pincer with one other unit (especially something fast like a footpad or gryphon) and get backstab.

I don't think either the rogue or the trapper is such a bad leader that it is unfair compared to other random leaders. Both are versatile units that can counterattack anything, have good defenses and mobility and can often do some damage with minimal retaliation. There's more to the game than who does the most direct damage, otherwise the ranger, the javelineer and many other units would have to be considered "weak" too.

There's one leader that I am often disappointed to get randomly and that's the orcish slayer. Low HP, negative resistances and (unlike the rogue) no way to get away - and the enemy may be undead, making it a unit I wouldn't have chosen to ever recruit in that matchup. And for all that it still doesn't do much damage - just poison which is often too slow to save a leader's skin. The slayer isn't a big upgrade from the assassin in the first place (IMO; I prefer to level other units when I have a choice) and to have him as leader just underlines the fact.

Fred · Post by **Fred** » September 28th, 2007, 5:52 pm

Doc Paterson wrote:
Jetryl wrote: What?
It has a 0-3 melee attack.

what do you mean by that? I thought that the guardsman had a 5-3 melee attack and a 5 or 6-1 ranged attack. So how would the guardsman do no damage at all?

Vendanna · Post by **Vendanna** » September 28th, 2007, 6:59 pm

Fred wrote:what do you mean by that? I thought that the guardsman had a 5-3 melee attack and a 5 or 6-1 ranged attack. So how would the guardsman do no damage at all?

I love the smell of irony on the morning... it smells like victory.

Of course it does damage, what the other user is saying is that it doesn't do the damage he expects it to do for a leader.

Post by **Velensk** » September 28th, 2007, 7:19 pm

Stalwarts do 7-3 and 8-1 definately not par for a lvl 2. On the other hand the stalwart is one leader that is ussualy safe to place in the front line and bait enemies with, as long as you take prcautions.

On the whole though I agree that Stalwart is not as nice a leader as some of the others.

Post by **Blarumyrran** » September 28th, 2007, 8:59 pm

On the other hand the stalwart is one leader that is ussualy safe to place in the front line and bait enemies with, as long as you take prcautions.

while he is in front line, you cant recruit anything. add it to the low mp and you get a unit whos gotta stay at the throne all the time. leaders should have ass-kicking attacks, so that they can show up, do their stuff and get back to the throne, imo. rogue is thus my favorite leader in the game. but staying on a hill and waiting? thats not really fit for a king

Beholder · Post by **Beholder** » September 30th, 2007, 5:22 am

Syntax_Error wrote:
On the other hand the stalwart is one leader that is ussualy safe to place in the front line and bait enemies with, as long as you take prcautions.
while he is in front line, you cant recruit anything. add it to the low mp and you get a unit whos gotta stay at the throne all the time. leaders should have ass-kicking attacks, so that they can show up, do their stuff and get back to the throne, imo. rogue is thus my favorite leader in the game. but staying on a hill and waiting? thats not really fit for a king

This is a important point. Slow leaders see little actual battle.

BIG_LIZARD_PWNZ · September 30th, 2007, 6:01 pm

Beholder wrote: This is a important point. Slow leaders see little actual battle.

k1nd 0f l1ke u!

LOLOLOLOLERZ