i was thinking they would become uber...
but is +120% vs cities not uber too?, its about the least descriminant promotion aside from combat, and city defense
flurries already have a lower base strength right?
change beastmasters
- Thread starter daladinn
- Start date
i was thinking they would become uber...
but is +120% vs cities not uber too?, its about the least descriminant promotion aside from combat, and city defense
flurries already have a lower base strength right?
Gamestation
Introducing Servo
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 551
Indeed, flurries are actually one of my favorite national units because of how many first strikes they already can get. Getting at least 5 first strikes (all drill plus dance of blades) and stoneskin on them makes them almost invulnerable against any unit that is not a tier 4+ unit or hero.
5 all the time?
+120% vs cities is good, but that once can be countered by having City Garrison, and Guerilla. First strikes can only be countered by first strikes. (And a higher effective strenght, so that the first strikes miss)
You know when you lose a battle you definitely thought you would win? Then you go to the combat log, and check the combat rounds and you see that your unit got hit 5 times in a row at the end.
Now consider a unit with 10 first strikes. The other unit have no first strikes, but its a 6 str vs 9 str battle. Your unit is at a disadvantage on the strength side. But first thing that happens in the battle is your first strikes. (I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I'm gonna guess a bit). So 6 + 9 is 15, and 6 is 40% of 15. So each combat round it has a 40% chance of hitting. Which means it will hit approx. 4 out of the 10 first strikes.
Now I ran some tests, and it seems that in most battles, the damage you do is based on 40 (which gets divided based on strength), so each hit you land will do approx. 16 damage (40% out of 40). 16 x 4 is 64. So before the other guy even gets to hit back, you have done 64 damage. Which means he has 36 HP left, and you will only need 3 more hits to finish him off.
Since he has a slight strength advantage, he will have a higher chance of hitting you, and hit harder. 60% and 24 dmg per hit, which means he will need 5 hits to kill your unit. So this battle got maximum 7 more rounds to go. According to my calculations, our first strike unit got 53.33% chance to win after this hypothetical scenario.
All I did was prove that First Strikes are more useful versus even odds or better. The unit in my example would almost be unstoppable against even odds enemies in fact. Against a unit with the exact same effective strenght, it would hit 50% of its first strikes and do 20 damage each round (statistically). Which means 5 x 20 = 100, instagib, and no damage taken.
All this theorizing about the first strikes got me thinking about the Shield Wall. How about it gets an ability that lowers the damage taken by a certain %. Maybe to every unit in the stack (maybe even when attacking from that tile).
Regarding Shield Walls:
If you've ever fought in a real shield wall, for example in a LARP (live acting role playing), you know that it is certainly not an offensive tool. Of course, if your opponent has no shields he is screwed, but only because you can block well, while he can't and you hit him much easier.
300, well that's definitely NOT a historical movie. No need to say more.
Also, the phalanx is not a shield wall, they have long weapons normally, while shield wall soldiers have swords (compare the middle ages).
If you've ever fought in a real shield wall, for example in a LARP (live acting role playing), you know that it is certainly not an offensive tool. Of course, if your opponent has no shields he is screwed, but only because you can block well, while he can't and you hit him much easier.
300, well that's definitely NOT a historical movie. No need to say more.
Also, the phalanx is not a shield wall, they have long weapons normally, while shield wall soldiers have swords (compare the middle ages).
50C107061CA7
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 34
I question the reasoning behind making a shield wall a T4 unit. Historically, they were clumsy, terrible in woodlands, easily flanked and highly vulnerable to missle fire (a large mass of troops with forward interlocked shields can't do much against a hail of arrows but get hit by them). The only time they really worked was when you were facing a disorganized force of melee units that were accustomed to single combat, a foe who would charge at your lines with reckless abandon. So your troops needed to be quite brave as well, if not very disciplined, to effectively use the wall as a weapon. The wall was an offensive weapon; it was a coordinated attack--push, stab, push, stab. It simply didn't work standing still.
The basic idea behind a shield wall is to counter the effectiveness of your enemy's good front line troops by pushing them back into their own lines (meanwhile, your own second rankers are pushing into you and stabbing at them from over the wall). This doesn't require much skill at arms, just brute force and the hope that the integrity of the wall holds.
Anyway, if you must have the unit, I'm of the opinion that the shield wall should have a substantial attack/defense bonus versus melee (+100%?), attack/defense penalties in forest/jungle and versus archers, recon and cavalry (-50%?), and a more balanced base attack/defense (6/9?). Also, to justify it being a T4 unit, it would need a good special ability. I think the option to form a turtle would be nice. Say, when fortified, a shield wall gets a substantial defense bonus versus archers (and maybe cav & recon, too), negating the base penalty and then some (+100%?). I don't know what else makes sense for this unit. Free courage promotion maybe?
The basic idea behind a shield wall is to counter the effectiveness of your enemy's good front line troops by pushing them back into their own lines (meanwhile, your own second rankers are pushing into you and stabbing at them from over the wall). This doesn't require much skill at arms, just brute force and the hope that the integrity of the wall holds.
Anyway, if you must have the unit, I'm of the opinion that the shield wall should have a substantial attack/defense bonus versus melee (+100%?), attack/defense penalties in forest/jungle and versus archers, recon and cavalry (-50%?), and a more balanced base attack/defense (6/9?). Also, to justify it being a T4 unit, it would need a good special ability. I think the option to form a turtle would be nice. Say, when fortified, a shield wall gets a substantial defense bonus versus archers (and maybe cav & recon, too), negating the base penalty and then some (+100%?). I don't know what else makes sense for this unit. Free courage promotion maybe?
I like the beastmaster ideas. If we allowed the beastmaster to have animals "join" them like a great commander, perhaps add 1/2 their exp total to the beastmaster? Also, if they are released, the bm would "loose" a certain amount of exp that would then be granted to the animal (say something like 5-10 exp if its available).
I like the idea also of allowing the bm to make dens for animals that are aligned with your civ instead of barbar.
I like the idea also of allowing the bm to make dens for animals that are aligned with your civ instead of barbar.
MayNilad Man
King
Spoiler :
50C107061CA7 said it better than I could.
Blakmane
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 447
The Greek phalanx is more equivalent to the FFH unit spartatoi, which is an offensive unit.
The shield wall tactic was pioneered by the romans, not the greeks. They employed the 'turtle' form of defence and gradual attack, that was virtually immune to arrow fire. It involved large interlocking shields that made an entire 'shell' over the regiment, with just enough room to put a sword or spear through to poke any opponents foolish enough to come close.
Incidentally, this tactic was easily defeated by hunnish horse archers, who would come just close enough for the romans to break formation and charge, before pulling back and filling them with arrows (you only have to kill a few of the regiment for holes to start appearing in the wall, so one foolish charge by a turtle and it's game over). Also, they would often just ride around the turtles and pillage the supply trains instead. Turtles were also susceptable to ordinance such as small catapults and scorpions, because they moved only at a slow march.
*edit*
for starters you could make shield walls incapable of recieving any 'mobility' promotions. Possibly even make them incapable of using roads, so they cannot be easily relocated to defend other cities.
TheBoatman
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 298
I like the beastmaster idea of joining animals.
The shield wall could give 25% defence bonus to whole stack, have double fortified bonus as suggested above by BCalchet and be immune to first strikes.
Flurry could have windwhirl spell and slight lightning damage, together with current blitz and 2 moves.
The shield wall could give 25% defence bonus to whole stack, have double fortified bonus as suggested above by BCalchet and be immune to first strikes.
Flurry could have windwhirl spell and slight lightning damage, together with current blitz and 2 moves.
50C107061CA7
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 34
Troops in a shield wall--the historical shield wall, mind you--were densely packed together several ranks deep (more ranks = more driving force); once in such a closed formation, they could easily move in only one direction (forward). Moreover, their large shields were used to press into the guy in front of them (friends were pushed forward, foes backward) and could not be made to provide any cover overhead. Thus, troops in a shield wall were utterly defenseless against a rain of arcing missile fire.
Such formations--closed, defenseless and having limited mobility--were an archer's wet dream. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Tactics, like employing skirmishers to deal with archers and bolster the flanks of a shield wall, were used to compensate for the inherent weaknesses of the shield wall; but, interestingly, it was advances in plate armor that marked the end of closed-formation combat and a revival of the open line (interesting because plate armor (lames) is a prerequisite for the shield wall in FfH)...Plate had mixed results until gunpowder: the pike hedgehog closed things up again and gave early gunners a safe place from which to decimate the armored knight...Armies subsequently dropped heavy armor, the hedgehog disappeared, and we begin to see mobile, closed lines of guns opposing mobile, closed lines of guns. But, like I said earlier, that's all history. This is a fantasy game.
So, if I'm to believe the game, a shield wall is a mass of troops on foot, in full plate, bearing massive shields. Is that the right mental image? If so, I don't get it. Tactically, they'd be pretty useless. Take away his mobility, and an armored knight is at a severe disadvantage ("My horse, my horse...My kingdom for a horse..."). If they're in closed ranks, just flank and encircle them; there is no way they could move quickly enough to deal with an attack from two flanks--particularly the right and the rear. They'd be crushed. If they're in open ranks...well, they're not a shield wall then, are they? They're just guys in plate armor wishing they had horses.
50C107061CA7
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 34
The Roman testudo was a fairly effective defense against missile fire, but it really was only used in sieges, when facing a fortified position...it was rarely used effectively when facing an opponent on the field because it was slow and made hand-to-hand combat very difficult. Heavy, mobile shock troops could easily break up a testudo formation.
Also, the Roman legions, compared to the medieval knight, were relatively lightly armored and, therefore, much more mobile on foot. It would be ugly to see a bunch of guys in full plate armor try to pull off the same maneuvers as a roman legion. I'd go so far as to say it would be suicidal.
EDIT: the testudo (tortoise) is different from a shield wall, BTW. A shield wall was one or more long ranks of troops with interlocking shields (the roman standard was three ranks, but this was variable in all cases, as more ranks = more shock power); this formation was used offensively, in the manner I described above. The testudo, on the other hand, was a very tight block of men (resembling the creature that gives it its name) and it was only used for defense--specifically, versus archers. The romans used both tactics.
TheBoatman
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 298
BTW who of you is talking of which? Shieldwall or turtle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shieldwall.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Testudo-rtw.jpg
Shieldwall was a primitive melee tactics, while turtle was mainly siege tactics. I would rather see FFH2 shield wall to be some special kind of defensive unit, but I don't know how to imagine that.
Edit: A new idea -- ffh2 shieldwalls could work like ships, they could choose one of promotions which would give them 100% defense against melee, mounted, archery or disciple units. The backstory could be a shield oriented martial art, which would allow them to defend against any unit if in the right formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shieldwall.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Testudo-rtw.jpg
Shieldwall was a primitive melee tactics, while turtle was mainly siege tactics. I would rather see FFH2 shield wall to be some special kind of defensive unit, but I don't know how to imagine that.
Edit: A new idea -- ffh2 shieldwalls could work like ships, they could choose one of promotions which would give them 100% defense against melee, mounted, archery or disciple units. The backstory could be a shield oriented martial art, which would allow them to defend against any unit if in the right formation.
50C107061CA7
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 34
It's like you read my mind, Boatman: you got this post in as I was editing my own.
I think the best solution for a T4 melee unit may be to combine the functionality of both the shield wall & spartatoi and make one unit capable of both strong offense and strong defense--but not at once. The player would have to choose how to employ the unit, offensively or defensively.
EDIT: How about this? Eliminate Shield Walls & change Spartiatoi
Spartiatoi
Strength: 8
requires:
Mithril Working
Lames
Weaponsmith
Armorer
base bonuses/penalties:
free courage promotion
+75% versus melee units (str 14)
-25% versus archers (str 6)
-25% versus mounted (str 6)
when fortified (cumulative with base bonuses/penalties):
-75% versus melee units (str 8)
+100% versus archers (str 14)
-25% versus mounted (str 4)
Not a national unit (due to high cost of requirements + inherent vulnerability to mounted units)
Or, make it a national unit but allow it to move and/or attack when fortified (max movement 1, regardless of terrain/improvements)?
MayNilad Man
King
I kowtow to Boatman's and 50C107061CA7's knowledge of history.
I think the idea that the shieldwall act as a mobile fortress would probably fit in more in terms of flavour. The functionality of it comes from being able to either increase the defending strength of a stack or getting defense bonii from the members of the stack or maybe even reducing or nullifying collateral damage.
I think the idea that the shieldwall act as a mobile fortress would probably fit in more in terms of flavour. The functionality of it comes from being able to either increase the defending strength of a stack or getting defense bonii from the members of the stack or maybe even reducing or nullifying collateral damage.
Similar threads
- Poll
