Guardsman Promotion

[Emptiness]

Moving this discussion from the Bug thread to avoid cluttering it:

I can't figure out why my snappily dressed assassin is targeting the ranger and not the catapults or horse archers.
The ranger does not have guardsman, but other units in the stack do.

If anyone in the defending stack has guardsman then the assassins marksman ability is negated and he attacks like normal. Since the best defender in the stack is the ranger, he defends.

I usually try to promote my initial warriors with combat I - IV and then Guardsman, so that I can then upgrade them to archers and have nice city defenders that will also protect my squishies from assassins. I have to pull them away from combat as soon as I give them Guardsman, because I've found that no other unit will defend the stack with them around, no matter how wounded the Guardsman is. I once had a warrior with combat I - IV & Guardsman in a stack with 2 other warriors who only had combat I - IV. Six barbarians attacked the stack in succession and the Guardsman defended one after another, getting more and more damaged. The other two were never allowed to defend, and the Guardsman was killed.

None of the barbarians were assassins, so maybe Guardsman is behaving as you describe for assassins but not for other attackers. Or Guardsman is just not working as intended, perhaps?

Doesn't this make guardsman really OP? Just stick a low strength guardsman (so he doesn't get targeted) in a stack, and boom assassins are useless. No way to kill the guardsman unit without killing the entire stack.

Does the Guardsman have higher chance to defend normal attacks then? Or this seems too powerful of a defense against assassins. Since you could do what the previous poster said.

Afaik Guardsman has no effect on the actual combat odds, it only affects which unit in the stack is selected to defend.

 

[Jules.lt]

Shouldn't guardsmen rather always defend against marksmen but have no effect against other units?

As it is, it can make sense in a "the guy raises the alarm" kind of way, but it is indeed a bit overpowered.

 

[Emptiness]

I loaded the save that Nikis-Knight attached to his original post. The Assassin does indeed attempt to target the Ranger, even though there are a Horse Archer and an Axeman in the stack that have Guardsman. Info text shows combat odds for the attack would be 27.9%.

Then I advanced to the next turn. Sabathiel left the units in that stack where they were, and moved an Archer (with Guardsman) into the stack as well. Now, the Assassin attempts to target the archer, with combat odds calculated at 31.9%. If having a Guardsman in the stack was negating Marksman then the Ranger would still be the better defender, and the Assassin should be targeting him. Instead the target is the Archer with Guardsman, even though it is more likely to die.

The two units with Guardsman in the original stack are virtually dead; the Horse Archer is at 0.6 strength and the Axeman is at 0.5 strength. Perhaps when a unit's heath drops to some very low level it is possible for non-Guardsman units to be selected as defender instead. I would think that if none of the Guardsmen were strong enough to defend then an Assassin would target the weakest unit in the stack (especially if that is a unit with Guardsman), rather than the strongest.

 

[Yaotzin]

I assumed guardsmen would stop defending the stack from regular units when low on strength/hp, but if they keep defending it till their last breath, then it isn't OP. If they stop defending though, then they can protect a stack while being unkillable (without killing everything strong first, ie making assassins useless). As long as you can actually kill guardsmen it's fine for them to negate assassins.

ETA: Sounds kind of bugged regardless. Guardsmen need to defend the stack from non-marksmen units even if they're on 1hp if they're going to negate assassins.

 

[ExMachina]

IMO, Guardsman units should always defend before non-Guardsman units, even when on the brink of death. It's kinda lame if they can negate assassins without defending against them.

 

[Neomega]

I have seen this too. I noticed that guardsman promotion "increases chances of defending stack", so I assumed all units had a chance, and that rangers have a slightly higher chance.

 

[WarKirby]

IMO, Guardsman units should always defend before non-Guardsman units, even when on the brink of death. It's kinda lame if they can negate assassins without defending against them.

I agree with this.

If the guardsman is negating the assasin, then he should be the one defending. Otherwise, you can have one measly axeman with guardsmen, and a whole stack full of phalanxes to absorb the assassin's attacks, and prevent the mages taking damage

The assasin needs the chance to be able to kill the guardsmen.

The order of assasin attack priority should go in this order I think

1. Strongest unit with guardsman promotion
2. Weakest unit with guardsman
3. Weakest unit without guardsman
4. Strongest defender in the stack.

I believe it's very unfair that one guardsman in the stack, allows a stronger non guardsman unit to be the defender.

 

[Keeper_GFA]

But lots and lots of people complained when it was like that.

 

[WarKirby]

What did they complain about? Why is that a bad way for it to work ?
The purpose of guardsmen is to protect your mages. They should personally always jump in the line of fire, and die to save the weaker units.
Unless the unit with guardsman IS the weakest unit in the stack, in which case the asassin should get to do their job as normal, killing the weakest.
If you're going to give guardsman promotion to anything, you should consider it expendable.

I'm not really sure how guardsman should affect attacks from non asassins, if at all. I'm mainly concerned with asassins here.

 

[Darksaber1]

What did they complain about? Why is that a bad way for it to work ?
The purpose of guardsmen is to protect your mages. They should personally always jump in the line of fire, and die to save the weaker units.
Unless the unit with guardsman IS the weakest unit in the stack, in which case the asassin should get to do their job as normal, killing the weakest.
If you're going to give guardsman promotion to anything, you should consider it expendable.

I'm not really sure how guardsman should affect attacks from non asassins, if at all. I'm mainly concerned with asassins here.

It was back about two month's ago when a bunch of people were complaining about the uselesness of Guardsmen, because the AI used mega stacks of assasins, and beat any unit with Guardsmen to death then killed the mages. I guess chaning to this style was thought to make people happy, since the guardsman didn't die first.

 

[WarKirby]

I've never seen the AI use mega stacks of asassins, but if they do bring that many assasins then your mages SHOULD die unless you have a hell of a lot of guardsmen.

Or you could pre-emptively kill the asassins. They have low defence strength, and are easily found even when hidden with hawks/floating eye/empyrean priests. Or you could spam the area with maelstrom. The AI isn't usually very good at giving units Mobility promotions, are they ? I usually see combat or city attack.

But if you bring a mega stack of ANYTHING, your enemy is going down. Maybe asassins should just have a higher maintenance cost so that tactic is less feasible, given that they're highly skilled special agents, rathern than rank and file troops.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

The main complains at that thread were:

1) A unit with gurdsman would defend to death, not only against assisins, but any unit. So, The AI was just using their mellee units to bring down the guardsman, then the assissins picked off the mages and wounded. Making guardsmen useless.

2) The other thing was that, even in stacks with many guardsmen, it seems that each one was fighting to the death before the others were used. There was no selection of guardsmen based on their health.

So, it was not about megastacks of assissins. But, mostly the #1 reason it was the complain for. This is why it was done so that Guardsman negates the marksman ability. It makes sense in a way that, the road to assisination is closed, so the alarm goes off and the assissins have to confront the others as normaly.

I like better the new mechanic than the old, but I would prefer if it is changed so that marksman have primary target a unit with guardsman. And make guardsman less likely to defend a stack. The purpose of a guardsman is defence against assissination. Not defence of the whole stack.

 

[Yaotzin]

The main complains at that thread were:

1) A unit with gurdsman would defend to death, not only against assisins, but any unit. So, The AI was just using their mellee units to bring down the guardsman, then the assissins picked off the mages and wounded. Making guardsmen useless.

I can see only 3 options with guardsman.

1) Make them negate marksmen, and only defend the stack if they're the strongest defender.
2) Make them always defend the stack.
3) Make them only defend against marksmen units.

The "problem" with 2 is regular units can kill them then assassins can kill the mages. I fail to see the problem with this. Your mages should not be invincible. If I have enough units to kill your guardsmen, then kill your mages, then kill the rest of your stack, then you deserve to lose.
3 isn't helpful, because assassins have no prayer against powerful melee units (guardsmen are kind of powerful by definition, since it requires Combat IV). I'd have to build so many assassins that they are no longer a cost effective counter to mages. i.e. they would be useless.
1, the current case, is the worst of all. It allows me to build a guardsman scout (strength 2), which will never defend the stack, but will make the stack immune to assassins, shadows, marksmen, and any unit with the promotion.

2) The other thing was that, even in stacks with many guardsmen, it seems that each one was fighting to the death before the others were used. There was no selection of guardsmen based on their health.

Shouldn't be difficult to fix.

So, it was not about megastacks of assissins. But, mostly the #1 reason it was the complain for. This is why it was done so that Guardsman negates the marksman ability. It makes sense in a way that, the road to assisination is closed, so the alarm goes off and the assissins have to confront the others as normaly.

Anything can be justified from a flavor point of view. What's important is how imbalanced it is. It allows one unit with one easy to get promotion to negate a high tier promotion, along with assassins, shadows, and marksmen. This makes those units completely useless.

I like better the new mechanic than the old, but I would prefer if it is changed so that marksman have primary target a unit with guardsman. And make guardsman less likely to defend a stack. The purpose of a guardsman is defence against assissination. Not defence of the whole stack.

So my assassins are supposed to try to kill phalanxs? Guardsman is only one promo, you can give it to all your powerful units, and make your mages immortal.

At the moment, the only way to kill a stack of melee units + mages is.....a bigger stack of melee units + mages*. How fun. Mages have to have a counter, they're far too powerful to not.


*with a few exceptions, like OP puppets.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

*post*

You forget Guardsman is gained after combat III.
And it does not make your/mine assissins useless, you just need more of them. Assissins are relativelly cheap and you should expect them to die often. I would say 3 assissins are good enough to take down a champion, expect double for phalanxes...

EDIT:
In addition, you/I should use catapelts/fireballs more effectivelly, since, this way, it would make easier for my /your assissins to get past the guardsman. It encourages mixed unit stacks.

Another idea could be making guradsman have a percentage of blocking the marksman, relative to the level difference between the Guardsman and the marksman. Experienced guardsmen should easily be able to block an inexperienced assissin. 25% - 100% percent should be a fair range.

 

[WarKirby]

Who defends amon guardsmen should be prioritized according to their odds on the defence, same as with all units.

I think for the purposes of calculation, the guardsmen should be considered kind of a secondary stack, as far as the asassins are concerned. When they try to attack the main stack, their attack is processed on the "guardsman stack", so the strongest among the guardsmen would be selected, but if a guardsman is at 0.1 health and he's the only one there, he should still defend to the death before other units - against assassins only

I think for simplicity, the guardsman promotion should have no effect at all, where asassins aren't concerned.

Also, my continued use of Asassin refers to any unit with the marksman promotion, not necessarily the unit named Asassin.

 

[slowcar]

i second this idea, let assassin-units target the guardsmen first, followed by the weakest units in the stack.
normal units should not be influenced by guardsmen in any way.

i picture it like a palace guard around the camp-tents of the leaders/mages. a regular attack would be fought back (or not) at the palisades, only assassins would sneak into the camp and they would have to overcome the guards.

 

[ExMachina]

IMO, Guardsman units should always defend before non-Guardsman units, even when on the brink of death. It's kinda lame if they can negate assassins without defending against them.

I'm gonna refine this to take into account the various points people have brought up. This is what I see to be the best solution regarding Guardsman:

1. Units with Guardsman should always be the first to defend, even when the attacker does not have Marksman. This would allow a Guardsman to prevent your heroes (or other high Str units) from being attacked, keeping them at full health at the expense of the Guardsman. It would also discourage people from giving Guardsman to weak units.
2. Guardsman should be available to archers and have no prerequisites. This would make the promotion much more easily attainable, since you'll need more of them to defend your stacks (and it would make archers more useful outside of cities).
3. Guardsman should have some secondary bonus, such as +10% Defense. Maybe combine Defensive (double fortify) with Guardsman, since Defensive is pretty horsehockey on its own (and they go pretty well together flavorwise).

Some people would see #1 as being solely detrimental, but there are times when it could be useful: Guardsman units could protect Auric the Ascended from Godslayer-wielding Goblins, could prevent hordes of weak units from wearing down your heroes while you're trying to take a city, etc.

 

[WarKirby]

I'm gonna refine this to take into account the various points people have brought up. This is what I see to be the best solution regarding Guardsman:

1. Units with Guardsman should always be the first to defend, even when the attacker does not have Marksman. This would allow a Guardsman to prevent your heroes (or other high Str units) from being attacked, keeping them at full health at the expense of the Guardsman. It would also discourage people from giving Guardsman to weak units.
2. Guardsman should be available to archers and have no prerequisites. This would make the promotion much more easily attainable, since you'll need more of them to defend your stacks (and it would make archers more useful outside of cities).
3. Guardsman should have some secondary bonus, such as +10% Defense. Maybe combine Defensive (double fortify) with Guardsman, since Defensive is pretty horsehockey on its own (and they go pretty well together flavorwise).

Some people would see #1 as being solely detrimental, but there are times when it could be useful: Guardsman units could protect Auric the Ascended from Godslayer-wielding Goblins, could prevent hordes of weak units from wearing down your heroes while you're trying to take a city, etc.

This solution would mak asassins worthless. Someone could just give Guardsman to every single unit they have, and an asassin would have to go through the entire stack before getting to the mage, that defeats the purpose of an assasin.

It also doesn't make sense for it to not have prereqiuisites. Consider, these are trained guards. They have the discipline to keep silent and watchful, where other solders are laughing drinking, playing cards. They're trained in how to block incoming arrows and shield their charge. They would need a level of self discipline that not everyone is capable of. Maybe having combat III as a prereq is too much, but having no prerequ at all would make asassins worthless, AND it would make the bannor civ trait worthless. One less reason to play them, when one of their unique advantages is easily acessible by all.. I'd support changing it to combat II though.

You have to consider that there are two types of enemy here. The horde of soldiers that charges you from the front, and the stealthy asassin that flanks your camp, sneaks in through a hole in the palisade, and puts a knife in your back. THey require different kinds of training to deal with, and I don't think guardsman should be a catch all. The problem of defending powerful heroes from being worn down is a different one. Maybe it should have a different promotion. trying to lump them together is just going to destroy the asassin mechanic, or make asassins horribly overpowered by making it easy to destroy guardsmen with lesser units first.

 

[WarKirby]

A thought, as to the hero problem.

Rather than having a guard promotion for it, how about a promotion for the hero instead. Something that gives them a mentality of staying out of frontline fighting, and reducing their chance to defend the stack in a similar way to mages.

Also, auric. He has "more likely to defend the stack" in the avatar promotion. Making him always defend is a deliberate design decision, and if ytou think it#s a problem, then that part needs to be removed. Suggesting ways for other units to defend him is the wrong line of thinking. It's entirely ignoring the problem and lookign for a roundabout solution.

 

[ExMachina]

This solution would mak asassins worthless. Someone could just give Guardsman to every single unit they have, and an asassin would have to go through the entire stack before getting to the mage, that defeats the purpose of an assasin.

It also doesn't make sense for it to not have prereqiuisites. Consider, these are trained guards. They have the discipline to keep silent and watchful, where other solders are laughing drinking, playing cards. They're trained in how to block incoming arrows and shield their charge. They would need a level of self discipline that not everyone is capable of. Maybe having combat III as a prereq is too much, but having no prerequ at all would make asassins worthless, AND it would make the bannor civ trait worthless. One less reason to play them, when one of their unique advantages is easily acessible by all.. I'd support changing it to combat II though.

First of all, it would not make assassins worthless because non-assassins would be able to kill the Guardsman. Also, giving Guardsman to every unit you have would mean using up promotions that could be used for something else (+20% Str, +30% City Attack/Defense, +40% vs. ____).

As for the Bannor trait becoming worthless, that would be akin to saying Aggressive is worthless because it gives out a basic promotion without prereqs. A free promotion is a free promotion. Not to mention the fact that more units with Guardsman would now be required to protect your mages, or that Guardsman would have additional uses besides blocking assassins. The Bannor would actually have a use for having Guardsman on all their melee/archers, instead of only needing it on a few to block assassins.

You have to consider that there are two types of enemy here. The horde of soldiers that charges you from the front, and the stealthy asassin that flanks your camp, sneaks in through a hole in the palisade, and puts a knife in your back. THey require different kinds of training to deal with, and I don't think guardsman should be a catch all. The problem of defending powerful heroes from being worn down is a different one. Maybe it should have a different promotion. trying to lump them together is just going to destroy the asassin mechanic, or make asassins horribly overpowered by making it easy to destroy guardsmen with lesser units first.

IMO it would be insane to have a separate promotion for such an obscure strategy. And your last sentence doesn't make sense: it's going to be both overpowered and underpowered?