Conceptual Balance (Discussion)

[PDF]

Agreed on the ideas on
Lt Cav : it's hopeless at current prices. Either some more prec or some less gold, or a mix of both

Indy mages are very crappy now, expensive and weak. One of the other could be ok but not both...I'd rather go for somewhat boost them (50% path instead of 10 for example....) rather than making them cheaper but useless anyway !

@Endo
About archers I don't ask to have better "humans" or whatever race, my idea would be to have more variety and balance amongst archers where current only difference is prec.
So creating new bow "sub types" (inferior shortbow, etc..) could help differentiating poor troops such as Atavi or Bakemoni vs better ones, be they Ulmish or whatever.

[Nerfix]

We do get Small Bows now...

And Bakemono Archer's usefulness isn't related to the power of their bows but the sheer affordability. Cheap price = Volume of fire + easy acces to Flaming Arrows = Mass Destruction.

[Nerfix]

FrankTrollman said:

If your Earth wants to be 6+, a Cyclops costs less points.

If your Fire wants to be 4+ (or 3 with a Dominion of 4+), a Forge Lord is cheaper.

If your Nature wants to be 2+ and you want a Dominion of 4+, a Lord of he Forest is cheaper.

All three of those titans have better stats than the Lord of War and some have better abilities as well. If you weren't interested in stats, then a Great Enchantress is chepaer for almost any set of magical picks and generate magical income.

I have no idea what Maverni could be doing that would involve a Lord of War being economical for anything. It's just a bad god.

-Frank

Um, no. Lord of War is 75 points cheaper than Forge Lord or Cyclops. At least the last time I checked. =|