Dud units / monsters / summons

[Gandalf Parker]

Jazzepi said:
Has anyone actually found a good use for patrol bonuses? It seems like castle defense/seige is far more useful.
Jazzepi

Again that depends tons on the game type. In a quick little MP game then definetly Id rather have defense/seige. In a large map game Id rather have patrol bonus. Particularly if its capital only.

[Sombre]

QM: I don't think it's true that 75% of the stuff in the game is 'dud'. Maybe not for preferred use in highly competative MP, but most things still have their uses or are merely below average. What I'm looking for is units which flat out bite and punish you for using them,.. and make them a bit more usable.

It seems people find the flagellents to be ok, so if I were to change them all I would do is remove the random affliction.

I use the CB mod and I think a lot has been done there to increase variety (some disagree). But there are still dud units which could be made less so. Not looking to even everything out, but if a unit is a dud it might as well not even be in the game and that's no good for anyone.

[HoneyBadger]

I agree-most units have *some* use. My deciding factor is usually whether or not the unit is interesting enough that the time I need to find a use for it is worth the trouble of doing so. So a really interesting unit might be worth more time than one that's dull, if both are stats-equal.

[PvK]

HoneyBadger said:
I have a rather controversial one. I would say the basic Niefel soldier (the guy with the axe, not the jarl) is a dud. Yes, they're extremely tough troops, and yes, they're sacred, and yes, they can be *used*-in very large combats, and to support PD, but I wouldn't say they're very use*ful*-and they're the only Niefel troop you ever get besides the Jarl. What's the point of that? Why not more variety and interest here?...

Try seeing what happens when a bunch of Vans (blessed if you like) fight a wall of Niefel giant soldiers. Unless the Vans have cold protection somehow, after a couple of turns, the Vans will be frozen into unconsciousness, and then chopped into chum. So will just about anything else that isn't cold-immune.

[MaxWilson]

Sombre said:
- Spear armed huskarl of Helheim (I think) is never ever worth buying because his nearest equivalents are much better at very little change of cost.

I said this, but I've since retracted the comment since it turns out I was misremembering his stats.

-Max

[Sombre]

Ah. I didn't check that one myself, you just made a good argument. I personally think spear and pike armed units tend to be rather unpowered since having high weapon length for repel isn't actually very useful.

[MaxWilson]

Edi said:

When you plug the new numbers in, it's either attack 2 points raw addition to the final numbers or 1 point less penalty plus 1 point raw addition, meaning that the sword/axe combo warriors benefit slightly more from the combination than the double axe wielders, but overall the numbers stay the same.

Sorry, I'm not following. Whether it's a raw 2 points or a raw 1 point plus 1 point of ambi, both double axe and combo warriors have at least a -2 penalty from weapon length. Raising ambidexterity to 2 should have exactly the same effect as another point of basic attack. The double-axe and combo guys would wind up at 10/12 and 9/12, respectively, which is just a flat +2 improvement to both of them.

Am I missing something?

-Max

[Edi]

Yes. You're confusing weapon inherent penalties with ambidexterity penalties.

Ambidex bonus affects penalty due to weapon length, meaning adex 2 would negate the weapon length penalty for axes (length 1), so the double axe warrior would have only -1 penalty to attack courtesy of the inherent penalty of the axe. If they used double maces, there would be no penalty at all. The sword/axe warrior would have a length penalty of 3-2=1 and would get another 1 poinyt penalty for the axe, so his attack with axe would be at -2 to basic attack and the word attack with -1 to basic attack (with the second attack being effectively 2 points higher due to the def penalty for the first one).

Increasing ambidex bonus is more effective if the weapons being used are long and if there are no inherent attack penalties for the weapon. I'd actually prefer a +2/+1 att/adex bonus, that would have an impact that still would not be too overpowering.

[MaxWilson]

I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the sword/axe guys had some kind of preference for 1 raw + 1 ambi instead of 2 raw, which I couldn't figure out because they yield exactly the same numbers. (It's a flat +2 bonus relative to the existing Ulmish warriors.) Since I agree with all the numbers in your post, you must not have been saying that.

Mountain Warrior (Axe + Sword)
Att 11, Ambi 1. Length penalty = 2, so 8/9 (effectively 8/11).

Mountain Warrior (Axe + Sword, hypothetical raw +2 bonus)
Att 13, Ambi 1. Length penalty = 2, so 10/11 (effectively 10/13).

Mountain Warrior (Axe + Sword, hypothetical raw +1, +1 ambi)
Att 12, Ambi 2. Length penalty = 1, so 10/11 (effectively 10/13).

I think we agree on this--extra ambi is the same as attack bonus unless your weapons are so short that your length penalty is already zero, which for Ulm it's not. Yes?

-Max

[Edi]

Hrmm, it could be. I need to check up on the ambidexterity mechanics when I get back home, but it certainly looks that way. My mistake.

I think the +1/+1 is a more elegant solution since it does not result in visible attack values that look overinflated compared to other base units in the game. I suppose it's a matter of preference. In any case, the Ulmish units should NOT get more than +1 to ambidexterity (for a total adex of 2) or it will piss on all sort of other thematics (such as assassins having good ambidexterity etc).