Huntsman & Ranger upgrades need to be more equal

[TruePurple]

Before posting this I discussed it on stratagy forum to make sure I wasn't missing anything. neglected promotion paths starting at the bottom of page 9

Well it wasn't strongly and universally accepted that those upgrades are imbalanced, there was a general and noticable consensus of a imbalance.

Ranger does a little bit better on a few limited terrain types and has 1 more move. Huntsman with its marksmanship is useful in all sorts of situations. I find it better for damage to be focused on one kind of attack anyways.

To balance them I recommend lowering the move cost on a number of natural terrain(by 1 maybe,) Candidates for such include snow, (definitely snow, since the ranger can wear snow shoes, and so few units can move faster then 3 over snow except riders) mountains, shallow water, possibly cave & possibly forest. It was expressed in the thread that possibly if it could move 1 through the forest, that it would cut into elf turf. Others disagreed and pointed out that it was a not all too common level 3 anyways.

[irrevenant]

Please read Giving your idea the best chance of being accepted. Please specifically note point #3 re: your post's subject (the rest is useful too, though!).

Which unit is the Huntsman? It doesn't appear to be listed at units.wesnoth.org in the Rebels faction. Is it in Extended Era? The page for that is currently down.

[AI]

they're both human, they come from the Poacher->Trapper line.

[TruePurple]

Like AI said, & in main line.

How could my subject be any more descriptive? Theres only so much room for characters you know.

[irrevenant]

they're both human, they come from the Poacher->Trapper line.

Ah thanks, I basically never play Knalgan, and I suspect that's a newish unit.

They seem roughly balanced to me, but I'll leave commentary to the MP experts.

[[PA] NotUncleDave]

ranger has 70% in forest, huntsman has 60%.

[TruePurple]

But ranger is just as slow in the forest.

Huntsman is better in most situations, marksman is more generically useful.

Ranger- slightly better in certain circumstances, like 25% harder to hit in forests then huntsman.

Huntsman- Marksman is good in most circumstances, exception maybe drakes since they're dodge rarely gets past 40% anyways. But saurians can get 60 dodge easily.

If rangers have better movement over more natural terrain types then just hills, it will fit in with their theme nicely. And make their specialness useful compared to huntsman in more situations.

Does anyone feel reducing movement cost on things like snow etc to 2 instead of 3 might make rangers too powerful?

[[PA] NotUncleDave]

the ranger and huntsman have different roles- it's like trying to compare the elvish avenger and elvish sharpshooter.

i prefer the ranger in most situations, because there are usually more powerful ranged units than the huntsman available, but decent mixed fighters are few and far between.

[TruePurple]

No its not like comparing elvish avenger and elvish sharpshooter. Since there is a equal trade off between them.

What circumstances are rangers better to pick then huntsman?

What better range for Knalgans then huntsman? Dwarvish Dragonguards with their one shot and alot more experience required to get from upgrades & lack of marksmanship?

[[PA] NotUncleDave]

why try to compare a pair of campaign units in MP?

[thespaceinvader]

Because they went to mainline in release...1.3.14 i think... when all the artwork was finished - they're no longer solely campaign units.

I don't think the comparison between the ranger/huntsman and avenger/sharpshooter is quite accurate - the ranger is a mixed fighter, and the huntsman is a primarily ranged unit, as are the elvish equivalents, but the elvish avenger line has ambush, which gives it a positive use, where the human ranger is just a generic mixed fighter with slightly better defences than most. It doesn't have a use that isn't really satisfied elsewhere in the faction at level 3, and it certainly doesn't have a positive reason to use it as the avenger line does.

Maybe giving it ambush, or another useful ability like cures (as a ranger it would have a good knowledge of herbal medicine, or some other fluff) would set it apart and make it more of a useful alternative.

[Velensk]

It's quite simple rangers are more defencive, having greater defence and more hit points and a better melle attack. (better defence in a forest than the elven fighter line.
Huntsmen are more offensive having greater ranged firepower and accuracy.

I don't think that either needs changing right now.

[irrevenant]

Maybe giving it ambush, or another useful ability like cures (as a ranger it would have a good knowledge of herbal medicine, or some other fluff) would set it apart and make it more of a useful alternative.

Presumably heals rather than cures - cures would be overkill, IMO.

[thespaceinvader]

Either way works fluff-wise. I prefer cures to heals simply because the MP faction he's in has no native curing unit (or healer, for that matter...)

[TL]

There are a couple oddities in the ranger's modified movetype which I think could be cleared up to its benefit. For example, rangers get increased defense in both forest and hills--but the movement cost for hills drops to 1 while forest stays at 2. This is odd for a forest-oriented unit line. Also, the ranger's movement cost in swamps increases to 3, compared to 2 for poachers/trappers/huntsmen.

At a minimum I think it would make sense to swap their forest and hill movement costs (1 in forest, 2 in hills) and bring their swamp movement back down to 2; I know the point has been brought up that the devs may not want a human unit getting as good in forest as the elves (minus ambush), but I don't think it's altogether unreasonable that a level 3 human unit gets the same movement and defense that level 1 elves can get. Plus, it makes more sense that a forest-based human unit would be able to match elves in forests than having them spontaneously gain the ability to match dwarves in hills. Adding a few additional terrain perks here and there might be nice too; they're already a fairly decent unit, but I wouldn't mind seeing them getting a few small buffs to help them compete with the huntsman.