Spearman -> Swordsman?

Burnsaber · Post by **Burnsaber** » September 26th, 2004, 7:54 am

I like the loyalists very much, expect for one small thing: spearman ditches his spear and start to use sword! It`s like "wow, i`m now a experinced spearman, maybe i should ditch my spear and start to train fighting with a sword". I also dislike the fact that the spearman MUST lose his ranged when leveling up(EP suggested a javelineer in some thread).

So what i suggest to fix this? Lets add a level-one swordsman(men-at-arms?) and to keep the same number of troop selection, make the fencer an upgrade for the level one swordsman(with beefing up, of course). In my opinion fencer is a bit too unique to be a normal recruitable unit.

And if the idea cathes fire in some devs, i will be ready to take my shot at the graphics for the level-one-swordsman.

Post by **Neoriceisgood** » September 26th, 2004, 8:34 am

Many people want to have an extra advancement the "Javelineer" but without graphics this isn't happening.

miyo · Post by **miyo** » September 26th, 2004, 9:02 am

Spear is cheaper than sword so fresh recruits get spear, it is also faster to learn to use spear efficiently than sword. When good fighters are detected some of them are given sword and training to use it efficiently. As they are now swordsmen they no longer carry spears. Others continue their training with "spears" and become 'pikemen'

- Miyo

LordTobias · Post by **LordTobias** » September 26th, 2004, 9:06 am

I like Miyo's explanation for it.

And, in fact, something similar to that happened during the Middle Ages. You trained with your pole arms and so forth (to kill the charging lines) before you learned the art of sword play. If you lived long enough, then you learned the sword.

Otherwise...well...y'know...bloodied remains, etc etc...

miyo · Post by **miyo** » September 26th, 2004, 9:10 am

LordTobias wrote:I like Miyo's explanation for it.

We can find explanations for everything... some will find reasons why it should not be like this, some will find reasons why it should be like this. So reasons do not matter - it is all about feeling.

- Miyo

LordTobias · Post by **LordTobias** » September 26th, 2004, 9:12 am

I'm "feeling your reason?" You could say that, I guess.

I just prefer the idea of keeping the Spearman rather than adding new guys. Could be better, could be worse.

Only way to find out is to do it. And with something that's not an entire certainty...well...you get the idea.

miyo · Post by **miyo** » September 26th, 2004, 9:14 am

LordTobias wrote:I just prefer the idea of keeping the Spearman rather than adding new guys.

I concur.

- Miyo

Dacyn · Post by **Dacyn** » September 26th, 2004, 9:20 am

miyo wrote:I concur.

I fail to concur.

are we putting this to a vote or something?

LordTobias · Post by **LordTobias** » September 26th, 2004, 9:23 am

We could...but it would be easier with a little poll majiggy at the top.

Also, a quick side note about the Spearman:

I don't think they should have the ranged attack at all. But, that's just me opinion on that one...

If someone can come up with a nice looking graphics and a good reason, I'm supportive. Until then, though, it just makes more work for the guys who are trying to push the game forward.

Burnsaber · Post by **Burnsaber** » September 26th, 2004, 9:23 am

Despite the not warm welcome, i will post my futile attemtp at graphics( Yeah i used the spearman as base, but aint it supposed to have the same pose than the swordsman? if this gets implented, of course). I had huge troubles differating him from spearman.

LordTobias · Post by **LordTobias** » September 26th, 2004, 9:38 am

Just to note: I'm not one of the devs, so my opinion on the game doesn't matter...er...so...yeah.

Just giving a point on why it might not be good to have one.

If you want it in the game, you'll have to find a way to get most of the devs on your side. In other words...find a reason why this absolutely must be implemented into the game, and voila, you've done it.

Edit: Now that I see the graphics...Hmm...suggestion:

Add a little more shading, make his right foot smaller, and make the sword look more like a sword rather than a toy.

Other than that, it looks pretty decent.

Burnsaber · Post by **Burnsaber** » September 26th, 2004, 9:54 am

Here is the version with the Tobias` suggestions.

And for the reason why should this be in-game. I say that my suggestion would give the loyalist much more "army" feel. Right now they seems just bunch of units putted together and called a army( mainly cause the fencer, right now one sixth of loyalist army is usually fencers!) The way i "feel" that they should be way more rare. Like every 50th person in loyalist forse is a fencer, that would make sense.

And this also would give the spearman a room for one more branch
( hoplites, javelineers? anyone?)

P.S: i also noticed that someone must do me a section in the GraphicLibrary at Wiki

Post by **Boucman** » September 26th, 2004, 10:12 am

hmm

I don't think your sugestion will convince the devs...

adding a unit is not a small thing. it totally changes the balance of a faction... so it should be done with caution.

as LordTobias pointed out it's very important to point out why this unit is needed... for instance what is the problem with loyalist that this unit fixes...

think balance, not feeling. feeling is important, but it's much easier to fix than balance, so balance will generally win.

why add this unit ? what does it add, does it remove a weakness ? does the weakness need to be removed ? will the game (by oposition to just the loyalist) be better ?

lot of new unit sugestion can be sumarised by "this is a cool unit that will make my favorite side all powerfull... please add" your sugestion is not like that (a good clue that it isn't : it's meant to be lvl1

) but it's important to know the trap.

my advice, sugest stats, and explain how it will fit into the faction. I don't feel that the loyalist are just a bunch of unit stuck together... why do you feel that way...

hope this helps

edit: as for the GraphicLibrary, you're in, I'm the one doing it...

but you'll need 15 contributions to have your own page, like everybody else

Burnsaber · Post by **Burnsaber** » September 26th, 2004, 12:45 pm

This would increase balance of loyalists, with a decent level one source of blade damage. One time when i was fighting with elves(and woses), i were in a real need of good blade damage a la swordsman, but i needed to level a guy with full pierce to make it. which was not good (cavalry is scout and easy to hit, fencer is a odd bird that cannot survive a second in the front line). That is just a example, i used mages to burn them.

If this is added it would make the loyalist damge type more contistent

Right now loyalist unit tree is from the view of damge types like this:

Spearman line -> pierce line with two full blade attacks(swordsman, loyal guard) and one half(halberdier),
Fencer line -> blade line, with ranged lv2(edited: i typoed 3 instead of 2

)

With my suggestion:

Sword line -> full blade with some ranged level 3(duelist)
polearm line -> full pierce with some blade level 3(halberdier)

Makes a lot more sense dosen`t it? It would make the loyalists more playable when you are able to get the damage types you want right now, not when you manage to level up a another guy with diiferent damage type.

I mainly want this change to MP. If campaing desingners don`t want to use this they don`t have to.(just don`t give men-at-arms recruitable)

I`ll come back with some stats little bit later....

Burnsaber · Post by **Burnsaber** » September 26th, 2004, 1:10 pm

ok first shot at the stats

Hp:42 (4 more than spearman)
Cost:15 (loyalists don`t need a another flood unit like spearman)
Exp: 30

Attack: 3-7 sword(blade)

So why would you ever want to make this than spearman? it needs 12 exp less to level up

.

The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

Spearman -> Swordsman?

Spearman -> Swordsman?

Re: Spearman -> Swordsman?