Advise on protecting a Stack from Assassins?

[Fafnir13]

I don't understand balance complaints on assassins. Yes, they target weak units. Horay. But what about the strong ones? Those guys are still going to be a problem. I suppose assassins could just fodder them to death, but that's not really different from any other massed unit in the game. Of course, certain units are going to be more vulnerable to them, but isn't that kind of the point?
I will freely admit that I have not seen too many assassins in action. They're not on a tech tree I tend to follow and the AI doesn't ever try to mass them to great extent in my games. Sucks to lose my catapults, but I find direct damage dealers (ring of fire/tsunami/maelstrom) to be more efficient anyways.

 

[Blackmantle]

Well, if you face an AI superstack of them at a higher difficulty you might understand why some people complain. (had one that once around Turn 200 (deity level) against svarts once and henceforth i could at least grasp what people were complaining about. Even though i still disagree with it being anything of a serious problem...)

"Problem" is that they really obliterate smaller stacks (even of rather powerful units) if massed since they
a) are immune to first strikes,
b) have one themselves (or 2 in case of leaders with or the Sidar),
c) they poison units they fight + damage (and they do damage most units they fight) making them weaker still and hugely inflates the time they take to heal...,
d) kill units that get damaged rather fast since they attack them with priority (which they consistently do since of having more strikes in any case save attacking first strike immune units themselves in which case they are on par. Also that makes drill / first strikes very powerful for Assasins and especially Shadows / more powerful recons with marksmen promotion)
e) they level rather easily / safely + fast since they usually fight weaker targets with priority and thus get more kills on average on offense (which yields much more XP) than most other units... (this is much more important for non-reload games and especially AI than it is for a usual player in an everyday game...)
Those things combined work out in a rather nasty way (especially for Svarts obviously).

But i think its fine if the AI at least gets one tool it can use to devastating effect and that's not civ-specific (its not the only one but there are not that! many...).
In fact that imo is! something that strongly! speaks for! assasins in their current form (and having at least some AI prioritize poisons a bit more might improve it quite a bit... ) not against them...
As a player its much harder to mass them to that degree (even though its easier to combine them with other decent butt-kickers using them more effectively... but the AI needn't care for that part... )

If massed and/ of highly experienced it really is an outstanding unit for its time and place in the game... (but that is true to a degree for the recon-line as a whole.
Especially for combat-oriented leaders or civs with a strong recon-line. Most notably Svartalfar and Sidar of course or for civs running FoL (or both. )...
And assassins wouldn't be half as scary if they wouldn't offer so much synergy with Rangers + Satyrs if combined in one bick pack of butt-kicking goodness... Since on their own they really suck at attacking cities ... unless those are defended in a woefully inadequate way. Or to a lesser degree on defense.)

But the whole thing is only true if be-lined to a certain extent. But quite some units of that tier are powerful if be-lined (champions and mages spring to mind without much delay...) so imo the "all things overpowered leads to some way of balanced" works out sorts of ok here... (onedreamer might disagree with that statement. )


If you want some quick and dirty fix of firsthand experience, fire up a game with unrestricted leaders on immortal / deity (or monarch/emperor if you don't usually play immortal or above) with 8 players on a normal erebus map with low sea-level
and pre-assign (so no random leader) the 7 AI as follows:

Fearyl of Svarts
Sandalphon of Sidar
Tasunke of Svarts
Amelanchier of Svarts
Hannah of Svarts
Mahla of Svarts
Decius of Svarts (or Falamar/Sabatiel of Sidar once the AI gets taught how to wane units and settle shades in a meaningful way)



then you are sure to get some firsthand experience about fighting large numbers of assasins (the weights are still done for leaders but i belive the above cast should at least prioritize and offer some synergy with poisons...)

 

[nealhunt]

It's not the power of assassins that is the problem. It's the "fun factor."

They target high value units which the player has put a tremendous amount of effort into creating. That would be fine, except that there's no practical way to protect against it.

Guardsman is basically only effective if you have a large number of units with it. Otherwise, the Guardsman defends against pretty much everyone until it dies, then the assassins attack as normal. Basically, only Bannor can mount an effective Guardsman defense and it requires a melee unit army. Any other civ or army combination renders the promotion useless.

The only other option is racking up a huge stack of cheap units for assassin fodder. Of course, that has numerous problems as well. The production and maintenance costs are obvious but if it were just that simple, it would probably be okay. It's not that simple. You have to move all those fodder units around. If you can't immediately counterattack (for any of a number of reasons), the fodder becomes a free XP farm.

And, of course, the AI often can't use them effectively. They're an all-or-nothing gambit. Once you finally do manage to survive the assassin stack-o-doom (by sheer numbers or maybe some collateral or area damage) and counterattack, you've basically beaten the civ. Without a proper stack assassins are a total waste of resources but the AI continues to throw single or small groups of assassins with minimal cover units over and over and over.

Assassins aren't overpowered in the grand scheme, they are just annoying.

 

[fuzzy_bunnies]

Assassins aren't overpowered in the grand scheme, they are just annoying.

Exactly.

Maybe this is a twofold problem. The problem may not be that they're overpowered but that their primary target is a unit that literally takes a hundred turns to "mature" with no real way to defend against them.

Suggestion: What do you think about reworking the "guardsman" promotion so that it actually puts the unit lower on the defender list in general (sort of how channeling reduces the defender priority) but always makes it defend first if attacked by a unit with marksman?

That way the unit is sort of a "bodyguard" type of unit that doesn't rush to the defense if the group is attacked but stays back to protect the soft and squishy targets unless every other defender is almost dead then it will step up.

 

[Blackmantle]

Well if it could work out that way it would be neat.

But someone would need to provide the code since i doubt the team would put much resources into it with Guardsmen now working...

Disagree that those units should defend later in generals though, just have it apply only vs. Units with Marksmen should do fine imo...

@ nealhunt: It should be OK for all aggressive civs as well. Marksmen is not that hard to reach if im not utterly mistaken neither are free xp in margins of 2-6...


So with Guardsmen now working i can't see how its fair to call that there is no effective counter (might be even easier than massing workers / hawks save for the slaves from undercouncil). Its just not an utterly cheap one. Pyre Zombies / mega-stacks of cats + other units mixed in are harder to counter the time they usually arrive and those are still managable some of the times...
One promotion on a tree which is often preferable anyways isn't the end of the world honestly...

And some things which are annoying if massed should be fine overall in a game as big as FFH2. Dark fantasy isn't really supposed to be like a fluffy garden party in spring or a walk in the park in summer, is it? (in fact most AI super-stacks are rather annoying. Isn't that the point, sorts of?)

The AI often being dead (not altogether in my experience but it may happen to some degree...) after losing a super-stack is a different problem (of AI-ability and distribution of troops) altogether imo...



Another possible suggestion using existing resources and possibly beefing up a feature in some need of a makeover anyways:

Have the defender trait grant guardsmen instead of homeland to all units of the melee line (and possibly mounted line + recon line as well even though that last thing might be a bad idea) and unify the effects of the homeland and guardsmen promotions + axe homeland promotion...

Or just add Guardsman promotion to all melee-Units defender-leaders build without axing homeland for all units...

How does that one sound? (It might infringe on a bannor-perk a bit!, but is that a huge problem?)

 

[nealhunt]

Hello Blackmantle:

@ nealhunt: It should be OK for all aggressive civs as well. Marksmen is not that hard to reach if im not utterly mistaken neither are free xp in margins of 2-6...

To do that you need 10XP so you're still talking about fairly intensive management. Even with fairly restrictive conditions to generate initial XP bonuses you must move those units around farming XP before they're Guardsmen. Based on the threads I've seen, lots of people on here get a big kick out of farming XP. I'm just not one of them.

So with Guardsmen now working i can't see how its fair to call that there is no effective counter

I didn't say there aren't effective counters. They are effective. I said they aren't practical. The counters require extra management in a game that already has plenty of micromanagement. Assassins force a choice of "annoying and tedious game play" or "get all your prized units picked off".

I think I posted earlier in this thread that my choice in that situation is usually based on whether I want to put up with the aggravation of working up the defense, rather than whether it's a good move in terms of game strategy. It's always a good strategy. It's not always worth the hassle.


Of course, that's all just my opinion. For me the game should become increasingly "macro" as it progresses. Otherwise, managing a large empire becomes tedious instead of fun.

 

[Blackmantle]

We sure can agree to disagree on preferences of micro vs. macro here.
That is just one conflict of preferences that is awfully hard to mediate and balance...

Didn't realize that combat 3 was a prerequisite. If that is true 10 XP are rather doable still (i do get this one done or at least to 8 easily as Sidar and early.). But that could be fixed by simply reducing the prerequisite to combat 2 which i think would be sensible unless it would gimp assassins to much. Haven't run all to much tests with that one...
And no i don't mean XP-farming. I mean apprenticeship + conquest + form of the titan + command post + other things you care to add (so at worst one fight per unit and at least apprenticeship + form + command post are viable for most civs for at least some part of the game...). Its more powerful than many players reckon. Especially for my favorite civ the Sidar which i play most regularly of the lot. But not all bad for quite some others...

I for one do like sensible! micro quite a bit (having even drawn some fun from large-scale terraforming with coves as the Lanun after the distance thing worked. Even if that was a bit borderline even for me... You get the picture...) and while i can understand your problems with that part i for one find that kind of forced micro utterly sensible and even an enjoyable part of the game....

(I also treasure my highly experienced units very much usually (not so much the higher-tier arcane units though since as mentioned above my units usually start with lots of XP right upon building...). But for non-reload immortal+ games (especially true for non-reload deity level games of course) it doesn't really work out in a good way. There you have to just suck up the loss or you reload. You will! lose treasured units and get pissed otherwise...
Once you try such games (if you care to do in the first place) there is no other way than to learn to live with the losses... And that is a hard part... I hated battles with below 95% ever after . I can tell you that. )


But then you better wait for a modmod that goes for a more macro / streamlined approach (I'm sure one with that in mind will! come along soon enough. Especially if enough players request it, which sounds rather likely.) since FFH2 is rather micro-heavy in its overall design in my view (i might be wrong with that evaluation but I'm rather certain on that matter...).

Also such a mod might be quite interesting for competitive multiplayer (if you like that aspect its easy to spot where your problems come from) since it would help keeping the games shorter which seems to be a rather big concern for the multiplayer crowd (utterly understandable and even i could picture getting something from that if i one day get down to playing a game of coop or three... )
I would be all for that and the requirements are! just different so not much point in arguing that...

Since Civ 4 in general and FFH2 in particular is seemingly modded so easily (merely an observation, being a nonmodder myself. Lazy me .) i don't see a strong need to do a make or break attempt at getting the level of micro as small as possible...

 

[fuzzy_bunnies]

So with Guardsmen now working i can't see how its fair to call that there is no effective counter (might be even easier than massing workers / hawks save for the slaves from undercouncil). Its just not an utterly cheap one.

Wait, are you talking about the thing that says that having a guardsman in the stack negates the marksman promotion? Because I think that's how he said it worked but that guardsmen are still flagged to rush out and be the first defender (and die)... so IMO its not quite working as intended unless you make that change.

 

[Blackmantle]

No, i mean that even with having those units defend with preference against all units including marksmen (it didn't work out at all vs. Marksmen until the last patch or 2 (thanks Xienwolf. )), massing units with Guardsman works out as an effective counter. Say 5 Champions with Combat 3 + Marksmen.
One unit with that promotion negating Marksmen in a serious way would gimp units with Marksmen by far to much. (and the thing with defending just against marksmen honestly feels meta a lot. So i couldn't really call that intended. If anything its a mechanical thing to balance the lot...)
Also there is some use for that feature the way it is. (sometimes you don't just want to defend vs. Assasins or have your most powerful unit defend the stack. Say Auric Ascended Why make it difficult just to cover 2 fringe circumstances when it can be covered by one promotion?)

(by trying to start with much XP right out of the box and getting 5 of those in a Stack of 10. Combat 3 isn't all that bad a path to go before... I do think that it might! be Ok to lower the requirement to combat 2 though unless! it would gimp assassins to much. Remember that assassins can do only that reasonably well. They are subpar by all other counts... Mages are much more versatile while being a bit less powerfully concentrated on one sole aspect. So I'm fine with it... If marksmen is to easy to counter it gets rather useless. You can compare that to invisibility in multiplayer on maps with lots of peaks. I heard that that feature doesn't work out very well there sadly because hawks are so cheap + early + powerful. Wan't to talk about overpowered. Talk hawks, easily the most overpowered and unbalancing unit in the game. Now that one needs a nerf. Badly...)

Yes, you do have to mass them. I just don't find that all so much of a big deal. Getting a unit fit to be able to pick it isn't that hard honestly (even with a requirement of Combat 3 for Guardsmen). You just have to be determined to do it (and the OP implies that the problem for the one who opened that thread is serious enough to be determined to find a solution.)...

And i do like your suggestion to a certain extent (not fully though, how much i did outline above ).

Oh and a stack of mounted works just as well as against pyres if the assassins are not stacked up with other solid units. Cats are not all that useful in comparison but also work if you bring enough. (they are not the ideal targets for assassins since they are immune to their poison so that might be another adequate and timely counter independent of resources...)

Also assassins are a rather solid counter to assassins. No big surprise here. But effective still...

 

[nealhunt]

We sure can agree to disagree on preferences of micro vs. macro here.
That is just one conflict of preferences that is awfully hard to mediate and balance...

Yep.

To be honest, I don't mind the occasional bit of micromanagement. A few terraforming druids/mages/FoL Priests really isn't bad, for instance. It's the combination of micromanagement and limited choice of strategy options and the sniping of irreplaceable units (or at least very difficult to replace units) all at the same time that bothers me about assassins.

Also assassins are a rather solid counter to assassins. No big surprise here. But effective still...

Assassins are only good against other assassins when they have superior visibility and mobility, i.e. on the defense. They aren't much good in an invading stack because the defender's assassins can move in from well out of range to get the first attack.

===

I was actually thinking about making Guardsman more accessible as a way to make it more reasonable to defend against assassins.

One thing which popped into my head would be to leave melee units with a CIII prereq but allow archery units to take Guardsman freely (no prereq). That would provide another option for getting defenders in place and give the archery line an additional use, which people seem to think it needs.

Thematically it would tie into the Ljosalfar v Svartalfar conflict, as their favored military lines would be in opposition (archery v recon). To a limited extent it would help the Defensive trait practically and thematically, as the bonus to archery range production would get them closer to having readily available Guardsmen archery units.

Other ways would be to have the Guardsmen and Sentry promotion lines entwined in some way or a wonder (world or national) that grants the promotion to units built in the city.

All of that would require a bit of forethought and planning. Any of them could produce a viable Guardsman stack to hide priests and mages in. None of them would make Guardsman completely ubiquitous, rendering assassins pointless.

 

[Blackmantle]

That lets an idea spring to mind.
Let all Units of the Archery-line (or at least Archers, Longbowmen and Crossbowman + perhaps Arquebusiers) start with Guardsmen out of the box.

Would finally give them a sense and make them not just good city defenders but preferable terrain-defenders as well not just confined to cities. (added Forest-defense of 25% might be another good addition then if perhaps a bit unthematic?)
I wouldn't see that one as even potentially unbalancing given how weak they are usually. (And if Arquebusiers + possibly Nightwatch are excluded shortcuts are not possible anymore since those 2 already feel roughly powerful enough imo. Also assassins with Guardsmen by default would be rather odd and weak... )
If they really start with it it also expand beyond sheer protection from Assasins...

Finally a sensible and! thematic and! possibly fun use for archers/units of the archery line not currently covered elsewhere... (and that line really sucks currently in terms of both power and! fun...)

That's so solid an idea that i might even add that one myself if its doable in XML (i only have office XP though so it might not work out since i heard one whould need Office Vista for that and i don't have a few hundred bucks to spare...) unless it makes it into the main-mod of course. Which i would very much appreciate...

Thanks for the suggestion... I think that's a really terrific one. And i fully support it. (Wouldn't even infringe on the Bannor in a wholesale way, since they still would get their superior melee units to do just that without the need to divert resources in an unnecessary way or bringing more units unfit for the job and thus adding unnecessary support just to get the units you want to defend do so... )


Only slight problem with that is that it might gimp the AI a bit (since it might! have a hard time defending their wounded archers). But I'm not even sure if that's a big one since the AI seems build quite some of them if it does care to do so at all usually even now (and it sure is far from hard to teach to mass them if works out as a problem...)...

The difference for the Ljosalfar shouldn't be that much of one anyways beyond units of the marksmen lot... since they prioritize archers anyways...

Also given the cost and power of archers it still would far from make assassins useless (on average assassins still should win since they have specialized promotions which archers can't take + have the edge on mobility...). So unless i have bluntly missed something it should be a terrific change...

Doesn't change that the prerequisites for bowyers tech and marksmen-unit should be modified since they seem nonsensical and unnecessarily gimping those 2 things. At least imo... (Im not sure if after such a change, Tier 2 Archers would still need access to copper weapons as i said elsewhere. That might likely seems to be unbalancing then...)

 

[notque]

That's a really great idea, Archery line with Guardsman. Since Assassins also counter first strike, it would be a back and forth there too.