Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

Wow, those are some sweet looking graphics. I am going to steal them and make myself a Dwarf Fortress mod MWAHAHAHAHA.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

Maybe for the PD do an intermediate change first--the real problem are the crossbows. I've seen 10 crossbowman from PD stop 8 mammoths before they even reach your front line. If the PD were 1 Clansdwarf 0.5 crossbowmen, then it might be reasonable. It wouldn't have the killing power to really do anything.

If you give the Brother of War Dom4, could you also give him a chassis cost of 40 instead of 50? That way people could afford another scale with him. The main problem with him is you give up high air access, which cannot be stressed enough. Put Flight and Fog Warriors on some Troll Slayers and everyone wants to cry.

The only units I can really get behind raising the resource cost of are the crossbowmen. Right now by far the best expansion strategy is to every round get a prospector and as many crossbowmen as you can, and you field an expansion party every 2 rounds with prod-0.

The funny part about getting rid of the drain immunity is that suddenly your research mages are Engineers, and you only make Runesmiths when you really need someone and can't get a Runelord from your capital. This has the side effect of making the Dwarfs even more of a nightmare to siege. "Oh hey you might not want to do that each of my researchers has castle defense 20".

Frankly, though, I'm not too concerned about lightning nations. Again, that's what the prospectors are for. Their flanking miners will tank the lightning for long enough to get through. If you wanna be really careful, keep Ironbreakers or Runeguards as having the lightning resist, but take it away from everyone else. That way you have a counter to them, but aren't just casually immune to it.

Trollslayers could maybe go up to 40 gold. They're really a late-game unit/"oh no a giant nation is rushing me" type, so it won't really change anything, though. Noone'll still get hammers.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

I thought about it some more, and the real thing that's assuring prospector dominance right now is not the low gold cost(which would probably be fine at 40 or maybe 60), but the low resource cost. Right now he's the lowest resource cost commander you get(other than the giant slayer), and so of course he'll be used almost exclusively early game. Make him cost at least 40 resources, preferably closer to 50/60, and he'll still be used, but not as your main early-game meatshield. This also reduces troop spamming to have everyone you'd ever want to recruit as a commander with 40+ resource cost.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

Don't take the drain away. It is thematically good.

I think I have other comments too, but I'm too tired! Looking really sweet though Burn.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

I updated the first post with the planned changes for the next version (0.7, due to friday). Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions! If the nation is still simply better than Ulm, even with all the nerfs planned, I might just go ahead and overwrite MA Ulm with this nation. This 'solution' will also have the added benefit of giving dwarves the "extra resources from castles" - bonus.

There are some things thought I want comments for. Are the Clan Kings worth the cap only slot? Or to put it simply, would you ever recruit it over Runelord? Also I'm a bit torn on the mapmove issue. Mapmove 2 as the standard is thematic option, but Ulm has 1 as the standard. If I simply keep most units at mapmove 2, the comparison to Ulm will be even more skewed.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

Does the
...command not work? (p29 of the mod manual)

Assuming you wanted them to have that bonus anyway...

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

I think that mapmove 2 is thematically awesome, but makes balance kinda iffy. If your mapmove 2 units are 'good enough' to get the job done, you'll almost never recruit the MM1 ones. So you just use crossbowmen and (heavy)clansdwarfs. It might make sense to make your crossbowmen have MM1, but the standard melee keep at 2. Of course, that just tips the scales towards using indy archers/rangers. Actually, I'm kinda okay with the rangers option. Rangers and miners are your scouts/raiders/forward armies, and then you have these clunking armies coming up behind.

On a somewhat related note, I finally realized the real point of Hammers: they only have 3 encumbrance. I'm sure that can be leveraged somewhat hilariously.

I think it might be a bit more appropriate to benchmark Dwarves against, say, Shinuyama's combat strength. I'll try to run some tests later.

By the way, I don't really understand why Distill Flame/Distill Thunder are in Alteration. It sounds prettymuch exactly like Construction.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

@Stavis_L

Since when has that command been available? I feel so old now.

Well, as much as I'd like to give it, it doesn't really matter since I can't give it anyway (becuase then Ulm would look even more suck in comparison).

Damn you Ulm :shakes fist:!

For the same reason that I went to so extreme lenghts to try to make Anvils of Doom into sensible enchantment summons. Construction is a absolute no-brainer for this nation (that's okay thought, there always has to be a favourite). Adding your national summons to construction would just be a boring case of "getting your cake and eating it too". IMHO summons/national spells are a lot more intresting if they are sprinkled all over the research screen, makes you think since you need to "sacrifice" your research a bit to get them. As a added bonus, this "sacrifice" often might make you miss the optimal spells and perhaps encourage to use the less-optimal ones in some crazy fashion.

I'll change the description and try to really emphasize the "Distilling" process in the description. They also could be in Enchantment (as the other "runic" stuff), if I ever need to give the player a nudge to go into that direction.

On another vain, I was thinking the exact same thing about making Cbows into MM 1. Thematically, I think I might make the basic Clansdwarf and Clansdwarf Cbow MM1 by giving them a bit "militia" feel. Heavy Clansdwarf and Arbalests could stick to their MM2 (since their equipment requires more training, they are a bit more professional soldiers).

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

Not positive, but I believe only in 3.23, so you haven't been missing it for very long. Lots of new modding love added in the last couple of patches; worth revisiting the modding manual if you haven't in a while :-) Or, see my post to the modding shortlist comments thread for ones that (at least according to the manual) have been added (relatively) recently (since last time the shortlist was updated, anyway.)

BTW - if you overwrote Ulm, you'd also get to use their nametype (*tempt tempt*)

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, balancetest version 0.6
 

Don't compare to Ulm! Ulm are notoriously weak and dull. They are the last thing you want to compare to. I think you'll find Dwarfs are not overpowered compared to the other Warhammer races, or indeed any of the better vanilla MA races.

Also I personally would much prefer you didn't overwrite Ulm. It is good if you can play any pair of races against each other. Overwriting Ulm just makes that needlessly difficult. After all, someone might find an Ulm v Dwarves game interesting.