Page 2 of 10

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 24 Jan 2013, 14:21
by pawel95
High cost, can counter sword fighters AND it's recruitable. Isn't that supposed to be the knight?
I mean don't forget that it's all about rock paper scissors.

Well but on other side, it is rock paper scissors "Extended Version" :P Because they are better than knights(and than swordfighers).

However actually they are weak against Xbows/Archers... So this is everything ok with this KaM fighting theory.

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 24 Jan 2013, 15:52
by EDMatt
High cost, can counter sword fighters AND it's recruitable. Isn't that supposed to be the knight?
I mean don't forget that it's all about rock paper scissors.

Well but on other side, it is rock paper scissors "Extended Version" :P Because they are better than knights(and than swordfighers).

However actually they are weak against Xbows/Archers... So this is everything ok with this KaM fighting theory.
I agree

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 25 Jan 2013, 09:59
by Menszu
I find producing waraxes a good solution, but... make only warriors.
Leave Barbarians for the campaign, that's where they belong. In multiplayer those half-naked Conan style brutes look out of place for me. And... just waraxe + recruit is to cheap for their performance.
However, warrior's look great, and waraxe+armour+recruit sounds fair.
More importantly, to balance things right, why not adding a bonus for ranged egainst those, to make it really paper, scisors - let them die like militias when under fire.
That way you'll keep them away form ranged, the way you keep cav away from pikes. Becouse in my opinion giving them full iron-armour bonus would be to strong, just couiting is as leather sounds fine.
Or.... prove me wrong, didn't barbarians and warriors have +1 HP like cavalry? If that is so... just cout it out, than we can leave iron armour bonus. They would be dying pikeman style under fire.

Few more notes about warriors - just make waraxes another option for weaponsmith, why adding new building for single weapon and unit.
And... if anybody want to play with sprites... why not changing warriors waraxes for two-handed swords? I find them more historicaly acurate than pure fantasy duble-sided axes.

Ah, on the other note, why not implementing vagabond? Just axe+horse+recruit. I find horses to precious to build them, if someone has horse and axe, probably they can easly get leather and shield for scout. But... why not give them a try. Just for diversity, and I don't see them imba in any way.

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 25 Jan 2013, 13:12
by pawel95
And... just waraxe + recruit is to cheap for their performance.
NO! :D Like i have said to TDL. It depends how much it will cost. So if one waraxe will cost like 5 iron and 2 wood or sth like that, I think they arent that cheap,are they? :mrgreen:

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 25 Jan 2013, 17:52
by EDMatt
I find producing waraxes a good solution, but... make only warriors.
Leave Barbarians for the campaign, that's where they belong. In multiplayer those half-naked Conan style brutes look out of place for me. And... just waraxe + recruit is to cheap for their performance.
However, warrior's look great, and waraxe+armour+recruit sounds fair.
More importantly, to balance things right, why not adding a bonus for ranged egainst those, to make it really paper, scisors - let them die like militias when under fire.
That way you'll keep them away form ranged, the way you keep cav away from pikes. Becouse in my opinion giving them full iron-armour bonus would be to strong, just couiting is as leather sounds fine.
Or.... prove me wrong, didn't barbarians and warriors have +1 HP like cavalry? If that is so... just cout it out, than we can leave iron armour bonus. They would be dying pikeman style under fire.

Few more notes about warriors - just make waraxes another option for weaponsmith, why adding new building for single weapon and unit.
And... if anybody want to play with sprites... why not changing warriors waraxes for two-handed swords? I find them more historicaly acurate than pure fantasy duble-sided axes.

Ah, on the other note, why not implementing vagabond? Just axe+horse+recruit. I find horses to precious to build them, if someone has horse and axe, probably they can easly get leather and shield for scout. But... why not give them a try. Just for diversity, and I don't see them imba in any way.
I dont agree with alot of the points you mentioned above , but particularly with the one that says that they should be as weak as militia when under fire, I think they should be between axe fighter and lancer when under fire, if it has same resistance as militia against arrows, then it does not justify its cost.

Also I dont think its right to say that something belongs somewhere, as we all witnessed, this game is evolving into the best KAM it can be, meaning that words like "something doesnt belong somehwere because its a single player feature" as an argument on its own doesnt really work for me, dont know about the rest out there.OP bowmen use to belong to multiplayer kam, but now its gone, Market wasnt there before, and its been added.
those are all examples of things that were there and were removed and things that werent there in the first place and were added.

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 25 Jan 2013, 18:34
by The Dark Lord
The things that were added or removed don't necessarily make it a better KaM, if you know what I'm referring to... :mrgreen:

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 25 Jan 2013, 19:03
by Menszu
NO! :D Like i have said to TDL. It depends how much it will cost. So if one waraxe will cost like 5 iron and 2 wood or sth like that, I think they arent that cheap,are they? :mrgreen:
Agreed, 2 steel + 2 coal sounds fair?
Still I imagined it just as normal 1steel+1coal - please take this value as proposed in my point of view below. This way I find it easiest to implement, just making it as another equal option for weaponsmith.
I dont agree with alot of the points you mentioned above , but particularly with the one that says that they should be as weak as militia when under fire, I think they should be between axe fighter and lancer when under fire, if it has same resistance as militia against arrows, then it does not justify its cost.
I have to agree with you after analysing the situation (if we're talking about the warriors not the barbs)
The armour rating of lance carrier would be more likely for them - against arrows - against melee they'd have normal iron armour.
And I propose that for a reason that if they would cost waraxe+armour they'll be the same cost as pikeman. And, honestly, than I'd use them against both cavalry and shield infantry, why bother with pikeman.
So if their implementation will ever happen, I thing they should get their own place between existing rocks, papers and scissors. So superb melee skills in exchange for missle weakness.

And about barbarians. My opinion of them belonging to campaign is not about balance, more about aesthetics and historical setting. In single player they apear in the story. Imho they just LOOK out of place beeing recruited in medieval city. Warriors on the other hand look fine for me - still, I mentioned that if someone is looking for a nice sprite-reworking project - axes could be changed into much more likely two-handed swords.
At the end it's worth mentioning that aesthetics is probably most subiective of arguments, I just gave an opinion.

Market, although I rarelly use it, is very welcomed in a game Knights and MERCHANTS.
And nerfing missle troops with shield bonus....awww I find it most briliant change, it brought back the joy of playing after Knights and Merchants beeing Crosbowmans and Crosbowmans. Changes good for diversity, gameplay, ballance, aesthetic and realism ; )

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 25 Jan 2013, 19:39
by Guest
Teach barbarians from civilized people? Oh please... Maybe from tactic side this would have sense, but this is really illogical. :rolleyes:

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 25 Jan 2013, 22:06
by EDMatt
Teach barbarians from civilized people? Oh please... Maybe from tactic side this would have sense, but this is really illogical. :rolleyes:
Illogical? how so?

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 07:24
by Krom
@EDMatt: Guest means that tutoring civilized recruit to become a savage Barbarian is nonsense :)

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 10:16
by sado1
So what should we do, change his name to Tough Guy With A Big Axe? ...

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 11:57
by ChrisEggII
I have no idea. I just think this proposition is not a good idea. That's all. I still think barbarians should be mercenaries.

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 18:30
by pawel95
I have no idea. I just think this proposition is not a good idea. That's all. I still think barbarians should be mercenaries.
Yeah he is right when you think from theoretical site. So maybe only adding Warriors with Iron armor. It is "nearly" the same and makes more sense :D

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:43
by EDMatt
I have no idea. I just think this proposition is not a good idea. That's all. I still think barbarians should be mercenaries.
If you think about it, gold chest turning into a unit is nonsense, So I think there is no problem with this. just a silly argument thats all.

Re: New unit brainstorm

PostPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 23:19
by ChrisEggII
This is payment, not transformation...