Fencers

[Haibane]

May it's just not so obvious how to use fencer, while it's quite clear with shaman. Also shaman is universal, you can always use some healing or slow. Anyway, differece between 2 and 1 isn't so big.

Speaking for myself, I'm always trying to have 1 or 2 of them on the battlefield, so it's not rare for me to have 3-5 of them in one bigger game. Sure, when I'm losing or fighting undeads, I prefere to buy other units.

[nebula955]

it's clear how to use a fencer..
1. kill weak units of more worth out of zoc range.
2. THREATEN so that wounded units are harder to protect.
3. can hold grass
4. can hold a hex against nonmagical when you're desperate.
5. can be very useful in zoc-i.e. trap your opponent's army with the little sucker that they can't kill, also hindering movement
6. damage variety.

[Trau]

I would contend that it's not obvious at all how to use fencers.

It's a unit that seems ideal for hunting down and killing mages... yet its movetype makes it extremely vulnerable against magic. Then archers? But no, every archer in the game except skeletons retaliate with a rather competent blade attack and can shoot you next turn with a powerful missile attack which, aside from the Burner, also has a bonus against you.

Then it chases down any injured unit... yet its ability to inflict kills is extremely low, with 4-4 base damage, and you've still had to trade off a 16g unit for the kill, and if that's not expensive, then it's certainly not cheap, not to mention the fact that you've had to inflict the damage to make that enemy close to dead with other units, adding more cost in unit turns, by which I mean it won't be a straight trade like with Ulfserkers.

Okay, but it does carry a blade, that makes it good for niche blade damage, right? As it turns out, in most cases, because the Fencer's attack is so weak (16, where spearmen do 21, HI do 22, bowmen shoot for 18, and cavalry do 18, and Horsemen do 18 or 36 on attack) you're better off fighting elusivefoots with spearmen or heavy infantry and woses with cavalry (if, for some reason, you're not using mages).

I would contend that he cannot hold grass hexes well, given his vulnerability to a common attack type, his lack of a ranged attack, his low hp, the fact that the shift from 70% defense on ideal terrain to 60% (that's losing 1/4 durability), and he has a rather low attack, so the enemy could beat up on the fencer with less fear of retaliation and be less vulnerable against next turn's counterattack.

I would say that, in reality, everything in the world that possibly can be stacked against the fencer is, similarly with the Saurians, but they have the other advantage of levelling extremely fast. You've got an un-cheap unit that is countered by the units they are most likely to be able to duke it out with. They have trouble making kills due to their abnormally low 4-4 attack (I believe they have to actually be able to kill an enemy in one shot to have their killing power be as reliable as a horseman on the same unit, though on the plus side, they won't be taking double retaliation damage if they fail) and have trouble blocking people because they're rather flimsy and not cheap.

[nebula955]

statistically 60% for fleetfoot is 50% for normal units with blade, 70% is roughly equivalent to 60%. The result is that fleetfoot generally survive better, the lesser hp does count, but it's not that bad.

[Nebiros]

I find that fencers although usefull, tend not to show up in standard mutiplayer for a couple reasons

I think there's one major reason: too many players don't understand how to use skirmish effectively. It's an ability powerful enough to define the units that possess it, and only two factions can get it.

A skirmish unit is immune to ZoCs, but has one of its own. That allows you to do things that normal units can't do to each other.

I don't kill that many units *with* a fencer. But I kill quite a few units *because of* a fencer. If you don't see the difference, you're not using skirmish to its full potential.

1 being that they do much less damage than spearmen, cost more, while olny having about the suriveability, less against many units.

Yes, but they have skirmish. It's very important. Comparing those other factors without taking into account skirmish (and their extra move point and different movetype from other loyalists) proves nothing.

So I was thinking about how to make them more usefull or more specialised without altering their roll or changing their price. The idea I came up with was to make it so that they lvled quickly. Which fits with how they are used. Duelists are undoubtably nice units but not exceptionaly strong for a lvl 2. If I remember right they have a 5-5 melle attack and a 12-1 ranged attack neither of which is incredibly damaging (except maybe if strong and at day). I would like comments on this idea.

I don't think it's necessary. Fencers are already useful in the right situations. They're not the backbone of the faction, nor are they intended to be; but they have their jobs (finishing off the wounded, stealing villages, putting ZoC in an awkward-for-the-enemy place, occupying high defense terrain) and they do them well. They can sometimes be a substitute for a spearman in a pinch - but if you *expect* to use them that way you should have gotten a real spearman. Fencers are a specialist unit best used for things that spearmen can't do.

It's true that they don't always come back from their missions - but an enemy that chooses to throw their firepower against a fencer rather than your other units isn't doing as much damage to your other units, and any result that doesn't *immediately* kill the fencer is unlikely to kill him at all - to say nothing of what kind of hexes they might have to stand on to swing at the fencer, and what time of day they might have to do it. That can make it very worth the risk of losing the fencer. People who normally know better sometimes start playing like the AI and throwing everything they have at a 70% def unit trying to finish it off before it runs away. Then the sun rises and your other units murder them.

You have to know when to commit them, when to hold them in reserve and when to park them on a mountain and dare enemies to come take a shot at them (to draw them out of position or even just waste their time).

P.S. I see no need to remove a unit from loyalists, but if you are going to, I'd remove the cavalryman. It has its uses, but it's not very interesting; it doesn't really expand the faction's capabilities the way the fencer and horseman do.

[Velensk]

Skirmish is a great ability, that is not a point up for argueing, the problem with it is that besides being elusive it is the olny thing the unit has going for it. This is why I was proposing something else that was minor but potentialy interesting. I don't know what this talk of removing a loyalist unit is about, but if that is so I vote definatly not the cavalrymen, it may not open up the possiblities that fencers/horsemen do but it is tough and highly mobile at a decent price which is not something you can say for either of the others. My personal vote would have to be the heavy infantry, but at the same time I definatly don't want those to go either dispite me using them even less than fencers.

[F8 Binds...]

I atleast use fencers. They are my way of... Distracting the opponent or getting those extra few hits. I atleast get one every game. Although not as survivable, they are only truly threatened by mages and especially marksman, since most units with that ability tend to use pierce or blade. Although they don't serve a variety of purposes, I like my fencers. Useful for injuring wounded units after an attack, they sometimes can be useful to sneak in to get some big hits after the battle's been fought. Though not as particularly as useful like the Saurian is for the Drakes, it can be one of those units that goes in for the finishing kill. Quite frankly, having high evasion and reasonable attacks at both ranges at L2 can be quite nasty.

I say perhaps a lower xp rate could distinguish it more from the other loyalist units. Although there's nothing wrong with keeping it where it is. I atleast don't want to see it leave in any case.

[Mabuse]

P.S. I see no need to remove a unit from loyalists, but if you are going to, I'd remove the cavalryman. It has its uses, but it's not very interesting; it doesn't really expand the faction's capabilities the way the fencer and horseman do.

maybe cavalryman is "not very interesting" but it is essential.
hvy infantry is also nice sometimes, but i use it very rarely -
i never use fencer usually, but i think they have their purpose and its nice to have the possibility to train them.

i dont think its nessessary to lower their XP, just to see hordes of fencers
(which would be stupid in my opinion -as fencer should stay high specialize unit)

[F8 Binds...]

No, it's not hordes... It's just perhaps to make them level easier into something that can be used, IMHO, much more effectively. Any player that would recruit hordes of fencers would be overcome by mages, skeletons, cavalrymen, elvish fighters... any mainline fighter line or magic using unit. En masse Fencers = Doom for the player that recruits them en masse.

[Mabuse]

sure, a lvl2 unit is more effectively than a lvl1 unit.

i just dont think that fencers should level too easy, they are already used, its not that they are completely useless - as mentioned a bit wouldnt hurt - if its too easy its not good

[Aethaeryn]

I think the issue is that fencers have the same xp requirements as spearmen and are less useful/used.

[F8 Binds...]

I hereby propose a slight change to the fencer, making it have tied for the lowest or the lowest xp requirement for the loyalists as a whole.

Currently, as earlier mentioned, Fencers level just as quickly as Spearmen, and slower than bowmen and mermen. I suggest it goes from:

42xp -> 34-36xp

I think one of the problems is that the fencer is always compared to Speaman, which is more of an essential, solid melee fighter, whereas the Fencer is more of a specialist. I think a slight xp drop could define the fencer much better in the faction, and perhaps could get some more default play.

The change in default play is only from 29xp -> 24-25 xp. I suggest 24, as it allows 2 kills to level the fencer as compared to other units in the faction.

[Sorrow]

24xp would be three kills. Fencers with a little luck can be an amazing pain, I don't think lucky fencers should get rewarded more than they already are.

[F8 Binds...]

24xp would be three kills. Fencers with a little luck can be an amazing pain, I don't think lucky fencers should get rewarded more than they already are.

My bad. A typo.

Only dwarves and orcs do not have a reliable way to get rid of fencers. And recruiting a fencer against one of these two factions is well... not particularly useful.


Just like it can be useful to level a saurian or outlaw, I think the fencer should be more rewarded for getting kills and surviving. That's of course my humble opinion, but fencers and other elusivefoots require more than just hoping to get good hits in with your melee bashers. Fencers are well... a specialist unit for a special occasion. I don't see these occasions happen all the time either.

[Haibane]

24xp would be three kills. Fencers with a little luck can be an amazing pain, I don't think lucky fencers should get rewarded more than they already are.

I agree. As long as fencer has 70% defense at most terrains, it can be amazing pain (you don't have horde of mages to hunt single fencer everytime) and I'm not fan of his easier leveling. Making it 3 kills sounds too easy, as lucky fencers get many XP points just by fighting itself.

Btw some of you sound like 4-4 (5-4 strong) lawful damage is nothing. I don't consider it so bad, but anyway, 5-5 (6-5 strong) (lvl2) is quite scary for unit like fencer, not mentioning 12-1 ranged.