|
| From: | Richard Kettering |
| Subject: | Re: [Wesnoth-dev] The problem with Knalgans.... |
| Date: | Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:12:36 -0600 |
Fun with balancing.
I am of the opinion that the troll whelp should have his cost increased to at least 14. Trolls are especially harsh against dwarves, because few dwarves can pelt them with ranged attacks. This would also have the side effect of making the Orcish grunt cheaper than the troll whelp, which I think would really help - I'd rather see hordes of orcs on the battlefield, than hordes of trolls. I think of trolls as being somewhat less numerous than orcs, although still great in number.I don't think trolls are that good against dwarves. Dwarves hit hard enough that they can take them down fairly quickly, and in all terrain trolls are good in, Dwarves are better.
Except for forest, and the trolls have the same defense the dwarves do in grassland. The regeneration of the trolls _really_ has a strong effect. In mountains, the dwarves might be hard to hit, but the trolls are only slightly less so, and this allows them more time to regenerate. They, I would say, are about equal in combat strength, unless the dwarves can pin them down and hit them multiple times on the same turn - something that is quite hard to do if the troll has backup (especially of the orcish assassin variety).
Again, the key thing is that for every attack a dwarf gives, the troll gets a shot at the dwarf - because the dwarves don't have ranged attacks on their fighters.
And even if we up the cost of the troll to 14, the dwarf still costs three more gold. Elvish Pillager actually suggested raising the cost to 13, which might work just as well.
Things to consider in comparing them to enemy troops. a] They move somewhat slow by comparison.b] They potentially do slightly more damage, but not a LOT more damage - only 4 more than an elvish fighter, for example. c] They have no ranged attack. They shouldn't get one, but this really, really puts them at a disadvantage against a lot of units. d] They only get 30% defense on grass and forest, not 40% like everyone else.My suggestion - switch the dwarven movetype to getting 40% defense on grass. A subtle change, but one that should *really* have a worthwhile effect. I mean, even _orcs_ get 40% defense on grass, and orcs are much cheaper than dwarves, move faster, have more hitpoints, etc.But you forget, e] They have better resistance than most others.I think the better resistance more than makes up for the poor grassland defense. I think that the grassland defense works well, and if we did need to improve them there, we should do so by increasing their resistance a little further. It's already pretty good though, with 30% vs blades, 10% vs fire, and 20% vs all other attacks.An Elvish Fighter will do an average of 4*4*0.7 = 11.2 damage against a dwarf on grassland, but 5*4*0.6 = 12.0 damage against an elvish fighter, spearman, or orcish grunt.
I don't think that the better resistance makes up for the slower movement, lack of a ranged attack, HIGHER COST, and the fact that an elf gets decent defense on mountains and such whilst dwarves do not get good defense in forest.
It's the higher cost that really sticks it to them, and yet I would not be overfond of the dwarven fighter going down in cost. I think the very subtle, but potent increase in grassland defense should make them stronger.
I mean, the whole goal, I think, should be that the dwarves are significantly more powerful, but less numerous than other races (except maybe drakes). In a 3 vs. 3 fight between dwarvish fighters and orcish grunts, the dwarves should win, hands down, For the price of the three dwarves 17*3=51, you can get four orcish grunts 12*4=48. Dwarves should always be singly superior in strength to enemy orcs/trolls/humans/elves.
The better resistance might make them equal to the elvish fighter in combat prowess, but that's not good enough - they should be unmistakably, and clearly more powerful, because their opponents will always outnumber them. Right now, they are about equal to their opponents in power, but are much more expensive.
Keep in mind that the dwarves have no lawful bonus to help them, nor do they get the advantage of leadership.Well, lawful can spin either way, and in the case of dwarves I think it'd actually be a disadvantage, since their slow movement means their enemies can dictate the time when battle takes place a little more.
I wouldn't want lawful dwarves, but I was just noting the advantage that can be had by faster races acting at the right time, something dwarves cannot do. However, leadership is *never* a disadvantage, and it is something the dwarves do not have. (nor is it something they should have).
And these things work in concert against them. Charging horsemen during the day led by even 1 level of leadership hurt. Being peppered by arrows from human or elven bowmen during the day, led by 1 level of leadership (TOD obviously doesn't help the elves, yes), hurts even more, because unlike many other races, this is a free hit on them - they cannot shoot back, and when they strike back with melee, the enemy can hurt them significantly, even if they are only archers.
An enemy archer can deal up to 8 damage in melee (depending on the unit, and given the dwarves defense in grassland, it is likely that they will deal all eight damage. The dwarves might kill an archer or two, but the enemy is faster, and they can run, get healed, and come back, whilst the dwarves have to enter into a five-something turn commitment in order to go to villages and get healed.
If the dwarves had healing, the situation would be entirely different, since they could just keep moving, but healing is _yet_another_ thing they do not have, nor should have.
They need clear, and uncontested dominance in straight-out fights, because we have stripped them of absolutely every other advantage. Even the orcs have three things they do not - superior movement, poison, and inexpensive, but strong troops.
However, this leads to another topic: I think we should convert some units to lawful or neutral on some factions. At the moment, most important units on the Drakes, Knalgans, and Rebels are neutral. This leads to lots of possibilities of games where time of day has no meaning whatsoever, which takes away a major aspect of the game. I think we need to swing some units to one side or the other. Possibly, we should make some Drakes lawful, if for no other reason than that we really don't have that many lawful units in the game at the moment.
I really don't care either way. :)
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |