Dwarves design

the Anvil of Doom can simply be represented Graphically with the Runelord.

Click to expand...

If thats all you mean (in the rune thread) then its completely fine. I have nothing useful to add about art or fluff.

If the dwarves have limited mobility, which they should, I strongly support the idea of 2 range artillery, with national cap.

Click to expand...

I don't see how a mortar's 2 range relates to limited mobility IF as I think was suggested they can only attack and bombard city tiles.
I'd be ok I guess with trying a mortar as well with a small unit cap if thats the consensus.
But do we really want a dwarf cannon, organ gun, flame cannon and mortar all available at cannons tech? The organ gun should probably also require steam power or advanced engineering. Maybe the flame cannon would also require engineering? Or should we go bolt-thrower instead of flame cannon, to help spread their siege units out over the tech tree (and over the game), so its not just grudgethrowers and nothing else for most of the game and then.... a massive explosion (heh) of of siege units with the cannons tech.

I didn't knew someone suggested such a thing about mortars, and I don't think it's a good idea. I was thinking it would avoid having the cavalry attack them, then retreating out of range.

I didn't knew someone suggested such a thing about mortars, and I don't think it's a good idea. I was thinking it would avoid having the cavalry attack them, then retreating out of range.

Click to expand...

The only way that this would work is if the bombardment ability was able to kill units entirely (ie do 100% damage).
Which is a bad idea IMO; the only factor that balances the bombardment effects of siege units are a) their small national caps (which dwarves risk exceeding with their variety) and b) the fact that they have fairly small damage cap limits (most bombardment in the mod can only inflict a max of 10%-30% damage).

But yeah, only being able to attack or bombard cities is probably hard to code, and not great design.
Instead, I would make them units with a high city walls bombardment ability, and no unit bombardment ability. And so no 2-tile range (no bombardment to use)

But I'd rather avoid them entirely, they don't really do anything that a dwarf cannon doesn't do.

It won't be hard at all to change the max damage cap. I wouldn't mind dwarves having tons of siege units, as long as they have no cavalry equivalent. They'll need some siege units in their cities, as they won't be able to send in speedy reinforcement, nor wearing ennemy stacks down with withdrawing units.

It won't be hard at all to change the max damage cap

Click to expand...

I know it won't be *hard* to change the max damage cap; its just a parameter for each unit. But I'm saying I don't think we should. Having a max damage cap is one of the only things that keeps siege units balanced. I don't want you to be able just sit outside an AI city and blast away with impunity killing their units without attacking the city - particularly given the AI's weak ability to sally out of its besieged cities.

Absolutely dwarves need more siege units than other factions, to compensate for limited mobility and lack of magic. But how much more? When they only have 3 missile units, it would be silly for them to have 5-6 war machines.

not so.
in most battles i've seen dwarves fight, they had a minimum of 4 cannons of varying descriptions and only in half the cases one or two regiments of quarrellers in addition to those.

Let's try out various combinations and unit caps.

in most battles i've seen dwarves fight, they had a minimum of 4 cannons of varying descriptions and only in half the cases one or two regiments of quarrellers in addition to those.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but thats because the rules allow you to do it - people exploit rules loopholes to some extent because cannons are so powerful. In no army in history have artillery pieces come even close to the numbers of regular infantry units.

But I'm ok with trying a few things out.

actually in tabletop games cannon are usually more trouble than they're worth.

IF they can get a few rounds of before being decimated by magefire, infiltrators or traditional cavalry an IF they manage to hit anything they do do a lot of damage though.

note:
dwarf crossbowmen are exacly the same as dwarf clan warriors,
only adding the crossbow to the basic outfit.
Wearing light armour, a handweapon and a CB, they are better at melee than specialized missile troops at the cost of their balistical skill. Thenagain their weapopns are better quality.
I don't know what would be a good way to represent this though. change combattype to melee? bizar! removing a first strike is not an option, they get only one.
maybe give them a small bonus vs archers as well?

maybe give them a small bonus vs archers as well?

Click to expand...

Issues like this need to wait until we implement some of the combat system design changes (increasing some of the rock/paper/scissors type system to encourage more unit diversification).
But a bonus vs archers doesn't seem the right way to do it; archers vs archers, the win goes the unit that is better at ranged combat.
And the crossbow is already insanely good at melee combat, so I'm not convinced there's much of a need for a change.
I guess we could reduce their bonus vs melee units (representing worse shooting skills) and give a small bonus vs archer units (to represent heavier armor).

The basic design between my proposed combat system changes are:

I don't know if spears would be very effective against chariots...they would be if they were drawn by (live) horses.

otherwise I have no objections, this looks good.

-chariot/tank/vehicle promotion: scytes : +25vs melee
do cavalry promotions apply? (i'm too lazy to lookit up. )
else : barding + def str and vs archers

---
monsters rethink : (just an idea)
require a ranger/dungeonmaster/moulder to capture a monster first before it can be produced. The mechanic already exists in ffh iirc.
Requires lots of extra events that spawn monsters and/or different monsterspawning/containing lairs.

I had this concept pretty much worked out for clan Moulder of the Skaven.
But couldn't get the lairs to work. :/ So it stuck there.

I don't know if spears would be very effective against chariots...they would be if they were drawn by (live) horses.

Click to expand...

Well, the point isn't to make spearmen good vs chariots... its to make them better than swordsmen vs chariots.
(and if a chariot was bearing down on you, which would you rather have - a sword or a spear?).

Consider:
strength 5 swordsman, +25% vs melee units, +10% city attack.
Strength 5 spearman, +40% vs shock cavalry, +10% vs chariots.
Strength 6/4 chariot, +25% vs melee units.

So, the chariot vs the swordsman is 7.5 vs 5 = 1.5 combat ratio (in open ground).
Chariot vs spearman is 7.5 vs 5.5 = 1.36 combat ratio (in open ground).
Swordsman vs spearman is 6.25 vs 5.0 = 1.25 combat ratio (in open ground).

And, by definition, isn't almost every chariot in the game drawn by some kind of creature - horses, boars, wolves, or whatever?

require a ranger/dungeonmaster/moulder to capture a monster first before it can be produced. The mechanic already exists in ffh iirc.

Click to expand...

Capturing monsters works in FFH. But having to capture a monster before you produce it? Bad idea. What if you don't have any of those monsters near you, or if they all get killed before you get a unit capable of taming it? You never get to build your monster.
The breeding grounds and aerie strategic resources always work fine.

Some of the monster-taming promotions from FFH are even in the mod atm IIRC, you can can capture monsters if they're around.

But do we really want a dwarf cannon, organ gun, flame cannon and mortar all available at cannons tech? The organ gun should probably also require steam power or advanced engineering. Maybe the flame cannon would also require engineering?

Click to expand...

i should actually be tempted to allow these units to be avaliable slightly earlyer, perhaps a Dwarf Mechanics technology could split them up between 2 techs?

im not overly stuck with the idea or mortars in particular. it was just ideas afterall.

i should actually be tempted to allow these units to be avaliable slightly earlyer, perhaps a Dwarf Mechanics technology could split them up between 2 techs?

Click to expand...

We could move something to invention. Maybe the flame cannon, and tune its stats down?
Or, the regular dwarven cannon, given that they are the inventors of black powder and so should have the first access to it?

I'd rather use the existing techs than create a new one.

We could move something to invention. Maybe the flame cannon, and tune its stats down?
Or, the regular dwarven cannon, given that they are the inventors of black powder and so should have the first access to it?

I'd rather use the existing techs than create a new one.

Click to expand...

ok, both good calls.

flame cannon is a recent invention according to the fluff though.
so should definately req adv engineering.

should have a promotion "unreliable" + %value, that links to a python method to determine misfires. (maybe also a catastrophic bool)
a misfire can be as simple as cant attack this turn to damages itself, maybe even collateral.

how about: cannot attack if damaged? or something similar.

So how about:
Grudgethrower at mathematics. Same as catapult, but 6/2 instead of 5/1.
Dwarf cannon at invention (which is when other factions should get bolt-throwers). Same as other factions cannons (8/2). (Earlier tech requirement instead of more powerful).
Flame cannon at cannons. Strength 8/4, no bombardment, does +25% vs melee units, does collateral damage, 10% high
Organ gun at Rifling and engineering. Strength 9. 2-3 first strikes. Cannot attack. Cannot get terrain or fortification bonuses (stops it from becoming a citydefender; its really a field weapon.

If you really wanted a bolt-thrower, we could move the cannon back to cannons tech, put the bolt-thrower at invention, put the flame cannon at cannons tech and advanced engineering tech, and make it say 9/4.

should have a promotion "unreliable" + %value, that links to a python method to determine misfires. (maybe also a catastrophic bool)
a misfire can be as simple as cant attack this turn to damages itself, maybe even collateral.

Click to expand...

Eh. Not that much fun. Weren't you the one saying that dwarven things shouldn't include randomness?
Is a misfire really going to take the cannon out of action for a year - or for an entire major battle? These seems like a tabletop mechanic that doesn't really fit here; its makes some sense when its an individual shooting round in a tabletop game, but not at the level of battle we're simulating.

how about: cannot attack if damaged? or something similar.

Click to expand...

This is unlikely to work well, given the large number of spells and such that damage every unit in the stack a little. You risk having situations where the AI gets stuck in a healing loop and is never able to attack with it.

or even just giving the flame canon a fire 'spell' that has a miscast chance representing a misfire.

or even just giving the flame canon a fire 'spell' that has a miscast chance representing a misfire.

Click to expand...

Instead of making it a combat unit, make it like a mobile fireball summoner?
I guess thats possible. I'd prefer to just keep it as a regular combat unit though, so it can die sometimes in combat.

Instead of making it a combat unit, make it like a mobile fireball summoner?

Click to expand...

why not both?