NanakoAC NanakoAC

Weapon types are not balanced

Weapon types are not balanced

Maces suck, quite frankly. So do axes. And bows.

The best weapons in the game are swords, spears, and magic-bolt-throwing staves. The reasoning:

 

Swords:

Swords often give a bonus to initiative, which is a huge thing in this game. being able to take more turns than your enemy, essentially equates to a massive amount of extra damage due to attacking more often, and it more than makes up for the relatively lower damage. Counterattacks are also amazing, they simply compound the above. A counterattack is essentially ANOTHER free turn, although one in which you don't get to choose what you do. What it means is that someone with a longsword can do 2-3x the overall damage compared to a mace user, simply due to hitting more often. 

Swords combine amazingly with shields. you can advance on the enemy and defend infront of them with your shield up, resuting in you taking far less damage from an incoming attack, and then getting a free counterattack against the enemy, who is NOT in a defensive stance. The athican longsword with it's two counterattacks is just overkill. Personally i think, to balance swords, the counterattack should either not be reliable (50% chance to trigger?), or counterattacking should delay your next turn by giving a temporary penalty to initiative. also lower the damage of all sword weapons.

 

Axes:

Axes sometimes have an initiative penalty, and we've already established that sucks. The backswing ability is kind of neat, but the AI doesn't use evasion enough for you to need it. and it doesn't compare to counterattacking. an axe is basically just an inferior sword, and they only have real usefulness against warg riders. Axes need more damage, more initiative, and perhaps counterattacks of their own. An ability to destroy shields might be fun too

 

Spears:

Spears have armour penetration, which is very useful in the lategame against plate armour. The immunity to counterattacks also makes them a good counter to swords. However, i feel that their damage just isn't high enough, and unless you're playing krax, the inability to use a shield with one kind of cripples you defensively. Given the long reach of a spear, i feel that spear type weapons should have an inherent initiative bonus (more than swords) or that they should be able to attack over a distance of 2 tiles, instead of 1. bonuses versus mounted units would be nice too, as the game has almost no incentive not to stick each and every soldier on a horse, as is. 

 

Maces:

Maces suck. The initiative penalty pretty much kills them, regardless of anything else. They do tend to have the highest base damage, but this doesn't matter much - spears are better and often hit harder, due to the armor penetration. Lategame is even worse, as plate armour has double defense against blunt weapons, which just drives another nail into the coffin.

The Bash ability is a nice idea in theory, but in practical terms it isn't very useful. Unless you're already overwhelmingly more powerful, the chance of it proccing is simply too low to be reliable, and if you ARE that powerful then you don't need to stun anyone, you're probably killing them in one hit anyway.  And as others have pointed out, being able to deny your enemy an occasional turn is pretty much negated by the initiative penalty giving YOU less turns, too. The only time that maces can really be useful is if you're teaming up against some huge target, such as a dragon. Get several people with hammers pounding on it, and you might be able to stunlock it into eternity, but that's assuming you don't get fireballed to death as the dragon takes three free turns at the start of the battle first.

I do have a simple suggestion to make maces better. Take away the Bash ability, and give them splash damage instead - dealing 50% of the attack's damage to all enemies within 1 tile of the target. This would give maces a purpose, a niche to fill, as crowd control.

 

Bows:

Bows suck. They do. The main reason is their low damage. Although a bow can be useful earlygame against bandits and darklings, all it takes is a suit of leather armour and a wooden shield to make bows virtually worthless. it feels like they're affected more strongly by defense, than other types of weapons. The tarth do have a bow with armour penetration, but it's right at the far end of the tech tree, which i feel is pointless. I think ALL bows need some amount of armor penetration if they're to be of much use at all, and less of an initiative penalty

 

Magic staffs:

The best troop weapon in the game by far. The ember/frost staff at 6 damage, and later the upgraded versions which do 13 damage iirc. These staves fire magical bolts of energy, and so they are ranged weapons. However, they are very difficult to resist, as they ignore both "defense" and "magic resist" entirely, dealing their full damage unless the target specifically resists that element. 

In all practical terms, they fill the same role as bows, they have the initiative penalty, and you shoot them from afar, and they have roughly equivilant damage. But magic staffs are like bows if they all had 100% armour penetration. They're miles better and there's just no comparison. Magic staves need nerfing badly. The easiest way i can see, is to make Magic Resist reduce the damage from them, in addition to elemental resistance. Having a bigger initiative penalty on them compared to bows would help to balance them, too

 

 

IMO,  you can steamroll any army in the game using ice staves and athican longswords, alongside some half decent armour on the sword troops. Two troop archetypes are all you need to dominate the world, even the spears are optional. The weapon types are not balanced at all, imo. to that end, i'd also say the kingdom of altar is overpowered, as they have the best unique variant of the best kind of weapon.  And don't even get me started on henchmen stacking auras.....

46,131 views 59 replies
Reply #51 Top

Quoting Brayzen, reply 51
Concerning Bows: I think they are great for trained units as their damage gets multiplied by the number of troops. For Champs and sovereign, not so much.

I have been playing Tarth and it seems impossible to make Lady Irane usefull while yielding a bow, it seems so much easier to build her with melee weapons or going caster. this stinks as I would much rather play her as archer. I am new to the game so I may be missing something though..........

I wonder if I am playing the same game, or if I am one of few who is trying to get the best out of my units :S
Bows are not bad right now, they are just not great, they have a tiny niche that works well with horses, the kiting archers. And they work great with spells like.. (brainfart... oh well) any spell that reduces the movement of the enemy.
BUT, spell staves seems superior to me, since when I get to mid-game, the point where I unlock bows (or staves), the enemy is either wearing leather or chainmail armor (I play on hard or expert depending on mood and faction).

This could all be changed in different ways, I would prefer unit traits that unlocked somewhere in the tech tree, that gave some sort of resistance to fire and/or frost. (Not much, but a buffer so you can design units against staves, instead of just giving in to the "omni" defense that is in the current version, dodging units.
I said before I hoped staves would run on spellmastery against spell resist because that would give either a new armour type, or a more interesting attack type (Which is easier to defend against).

That said, most changes I would ever think of would also include changing the "trained units" traits, since right now most of the balance is skewed due to the traits alone.
I get maces are somewhat balanced in damage, but the unit traits boosts quick swords or spears so much more, and the magical rings with +1 fire/cold damage does too. I really hope they reduce the initiative penalty on maces (A slight bit), and does so backswing works on a per unit basis, those 2 would make each weapon more enticing, and might even be enough for me to consider them (If backswing where on a per unit basis, axes would be a really cool choice, compared to swords or spears, well, on early trained units...)

Another fault in the current balance is the massive starting accuracy someone designed to implement in 1.00 (I dislike it), it now starts at 70 (before release it started at 60), this together with the rather big bonuses you get from a fortress makes accuracy a thing of the past.

The third thing is, whoever changes these, stardock or modder, be carefull not to "Overnerf" items, I see overnerfing done a lot when people try to "fix" strategies, it really kind of saddens me.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #52 Top

Quoting Kongdej, reply 50
Quoting SOLOSOL,
reply 48
Well this kind of threads are good to extract ideas, but it is hard to get to a point everybody is satisfied.

I think you will find that some of us will be satisfied if we just see atleast 1 or 2 proper uses for maces, and a use for trained squads, for axes. So I will atleast consider them once in a while.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I'd agree with Kongdej - if maces were a bit more usable relative to swords and spears, and backswing worked better, I'd use maces and axes more often. Right now, I'll only use maces if I know that I'm going to be seeing a lot of things with high defense against cutting and piercing attacks, and little or no defense against blunt attacks. Axes I'll only use if I for some reason don't want to use spears and don't yet have a good sword. On champions, things are a bit different, because I can switch the weapon my champion is using between battles (if they take place during my turn), and champions usually get better equipment than is available for trained troops (or better equipment than I'm willing to pay for on trained troops, if it's relatively late in the game but I'm not yet swimming in resources).

The problem with maces and axes is that these weapons are essentially specialist weapons, but swords and spears are generalist weapons, with the way the game is currently set up. Therefore, since the maces generally don't do quite enough damage relative to same-tier swords (except daggers, when you don't take Finesse) and spears to make up for their lower initiative and don't knock enemies down quite enough to make up for their lack of counterattacks or immunity to counterattacks and help with their lackluster initiative, there is little reason to favor maces over swords or spears. Axes seem to have been intended to be great when it's likely that your attacks will be dodged, but since backswing is only triggered when the entire unit misses, axes are less than useful on trained troops unless you don't yet have a fortress with an accuracy boosting structure or a level bonus to trained units, or if you face very high dodge enemies (which the AI won't make unless you designed one for it).

Reply #53 Top

Quoting Lord, reply 3
There are some tings to take into consideration.  What resources do the weapon take?  Yea, that mace sucks compared to a lot of other weapons, BUT it takes no metal or crystal.  Also, there are some tough things out there that are weak to blunt damage.  

 

I disagree about bows, I use them the entire game and they work fine.  They are slow, do low damage, but they can attack anyone anywhere, and that is pretty nice, my late game armies often have 4 archer units in it, and they decimate the enemy.  

 

Spears are great weapons, fairly light, no int penalty, armor penetration, low resources and prevent counterattack.  They are fine. One handed are great.

 

Axes...yea, axes kind of suck...no real reason to use them.  the one handed is slow and backswing is only of marginal use, I would rather use a spear at that level, or a hammer even though its worse, uses no resources.  The two handed axe is pretty crappy, the damage is low, the weight is high, no real reason to use it.  The trog version does have some armor penetration, but is still meh and the great axe is worse than what it replaces.

 

Swords are great, they do good damage, have int bonuses, and have counterattack, they are great.  the two handed sword is of marginal use, the damage isn't much better than the longsword.  And as great as Athican swords are, and they are the best in the game for troops, you do have to have the faction trait to build them, so they are not without some cost.  

 

Staffs are the best, but I rarely have the crystal income to really make armies out of them.  I think my last game, I had two 7 man staff units, that's it.  I probably could have had more, but my Sions cost 50+ crystals each...and I made four of them.

 

 

 

I agree with Xia on just about everything here -- I've found that all of the weapons are useful in their own right (even if just to add some variety).  I didn't think much of my club-wielding militia until I had a atown attacked by an Earth elemental -- all of my little custom spear troops got their assess handed to them, but my clubbies did OK and dealt out some good damage.

It will probably take some more games to fully realize all of the potential that's out there with the different weapons types.

Reply #54 Top

Quoting rlane48, reply 53
I agree with Xia on just about everything here -- I've found that all of the weapons are useful in their own right (even if just to add some variety). I didn't think much of my club-wielding militia until I had a atown attacked by an Earth elemental -- all of my little custom spear troops got their assess handed to them, but my clubbies did OK and dealt out some good damage.

It will probably take some more games to fully realize all of the potential that's out there with the different weapons types.

The problem with this is, this makes maces only good against the wildlands, and not other players, if players had a chance to get more units like earth elementals
(and notice players or AI never touches summons right now, because they are rubbish ;)).
Then at least there would be a reason for me to pop up a bunch of maces instead of just spitting out spear troops to go through heavy armour, which is both useful against earth elementals AND the chainmail cavalry that the AI fields (if you design it for them).

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #55 Top

The main reason to use maces is the same reason it was in real life, they're cheap and any fool can use them.  They don't take resources.  This means that if you are stuck in a game (like I was with 5 cities, and not one damn ore of metal or crystal), you can still pump out units that can do some damage.  Are they as good as those that cost iron or crystals, nope, but if I don't have them, or are using 300 metal for my knights, but want some more troops to defend or fill out my ranks, then chumps with maces are the way to go.

Reply #56 Top

Quoting Lord, reply 56
The main reason to use maces is the same reason it was in real life, they're cheap and any fool can use them. They don't take resources. This means that if you are stuck in a game (like I was with 5 cities, and not one damn ore of metal or crystal), you can still pump out units that can do some damage. Are they as good as those that cost iron or crystals, nope, but if I don't have them, or are using 300 metal for my knights, but want some more troops to defend or fill out my ranks, then chumps with maces are the way to go.

Perhaps maces are cheap and any fool can use them, but the reason for using maces in real life also involved increasing the momentum of each weapon strike so that there was a greater chance of penetrating armor. Spikes, studs, or flanges were added to concentrate the impact force so as to better penetrate good armor (for example, plate armor).

However, in the game, spears are also cheap, and since they generally perform at least as well as maces, maces become a lot less attractive when you consider the initiative penalties. Sure, there's a little bit of benefit to being able to use a shield, but the high initiative penalties make clubs, warhammers, and maces far less attractive than spears. I suppose, though, if you really have no metal whatsoever, maces are better, but I'd be hard-pressed to think of a situation where I really did have no metal at all.

Quoting Kongdej, reply 51
Bows are not bad right now

Bows are not particularly bad, but the cost of researching them generally outweighs their utility (at least for me) when I can make a fast-moving, higher initiative unit using the first weapon I researched in the game and have roughly the same performance as a bowman. On top of that are the magic staffs that are available that bypass armor, which I can research roughly 3 times faster, though at the cost of crystal.

Reply #57 Top

I think bows are fine, and there's a rare special bow that is VERY GOOD for your champs. The only thing I would want on them would be an accuracy bonus... mainly because I think that would fit them best.

Bow techs, on the other hand, I could see improvement for, the cost of research is a bit rough just for one item. A simple solution would be to move them all down one tier (reducing cost at the same time), or perhaps allow them to upgrade defender's bows (to make the tech more useful)... Or maybe just have the basic archery as part of one of the other techs and split it off for the last two bows.

 

Reply #58 Top

Quoting joeball123, reply 57
Quoting Kongdej,
reply 51
Bows are not bad right now

Bows are not particularly bad, but the cost of researching them generally outweighs their utility (at least for me) when I can make a fast-moving, higher initiative unit using the first weapon I researched in the game and have roughly the same performance as a bowman. On top of that are the magic staffs that are available that bypass armor, which I can research roughly 3 times faster, though at the cost of crystal.

I tried to say that too if you read through all my post about bows in this thread, I don't like them right now, but they are not particularly bad, they just don't have that "wow" factor that makes me come back to them, its the same with maces, I still would tweak the numbers on the maces by 1's or 2's but I guess its good to have them as the "free" weapon, so there is always something to produce when youre out of metal. That said, said weapon shouldn't necessarily be slow n dumb too, but have some utility in army vs army, but that might just be me.

I still hope axes gets something at least, I haven't seen ANYONE like axes. (and if someone did, I obviously decided to ignore them mentally ;))

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #59 Top

I still use bow's extensivly.  relativly cheap and with the higher techs still do some damage.  plus against elementals and dragons my sword/spear troops are almost helpless.