Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

The Dwarf's problematic (*The Multiplayer Balancing Grudge*)

GuerrilleroGuerrillero Senior MemberEstaliaPosts: 543Registered Users
edited July 2016 in Balancing Discussions
I will try to analyze why Dwarfs are considered as most players the weakest faction in the game.

First of all, let's see the different unit types that helps an army to develop a tactic on the battlefield.

1. Infantry
2. Cavalry
3. Foot skirmishers
4. Artillery
5. Monsters
6. Magic
7. Horse archers
8. Chariots/tanks
9. Flying units

Out of 9, Dwarfs lack 5 types of units (2, 5, 6, 7 and 8). This is more than half of roster diversity unaccessible for Dwarfs. This makes Dwarfs army not only an army with 5 basic weaknesses, but also an army very predictable and easy to counter. If we compare this important factor with other factions: Chaos lack of 1 (3); Vampires lack of 3 (3, 7 and 4), Bretonnia lack of 2 (5 and 8); Greenskins lack of 0; Empire lack of 1 (5).

This doesn't make a faction necessarily weak, but as I said it makes a faction predictable. This can't be changed because it would be lore unfriendly, so this means that Dwarfs need something to balance this issue like giving the heroes and general a more effective role to introduce some surprise factor on their build.

In addition, their lack of diversity on low and mid tier units makes them even more predictable. They have a great diversity on high cost units. Only a few of high cost unit can be introduced and this is not game changing in large funds settings.

In the current state of the game, magic and cavalry are the two pillars of victory, which makes dwarfs very unsuitable for this goal.

What should be done?

To counter lack of magic: Make runnesmith cheaper (900) and increase magic resistance of dwarfs up to 50% for generals and heroes and 25% for the rest of units at least.

To counter lack of cavalry: Increase mass of infantry and decrease leadership penalty for rear charges. Increase the rotation velocity of units so skirmishers and artillery can face them while they are freely flanking around preparing for rear charges. Increase the shoot rate of both missile and artillery. Fix the stuck problem that makes artillery unable to shoot when they are moving through units. They need more cheap anti-large & anti-charge units (like spearmen for empire) more efficient missile units. Make gyro-copters more efficient against enemy skirmishers to substitute some of the cavalry function such as increasing Block missile chance, Hit Points and base damage.
Ricmorn said:


Ranged and artillery suffer from the massive firing arc nerf from previous Total Wars. This wouldn't be so terrible if the units were allowed to keep their formation, but rotate within it. Instead what happens is your cannons try to keep formation while tracking a flanking cav force. Resulting in a farcical amount of readjustment time as the cannons don't rotate, but move 3 yards back and to the left, then rotate to keep their line/box formation.


To enhance their strengths: Make melee combat last longer overall! Skirmishers and artillery cannot make more than 2 shoots before the infantry front line is routing, for then coming back when they are not useful anymore. Increase defense stats, including armor. Even if decreasing attack and weapon damage.

This MAYBE would put dwarfs in a condition of winning even though the predictable issue will never be tackled.

EDIT:
I have noticed that one of the main issues of artillery is that they are stuck (red bow and arrow symbol) half of the battle. I don't find any place where this stuck mechanic is explained so I just think it gets stuck when they have no sight line or when there are many units around it. I am not sure though so I would appreciate someone to explain it.

EDIT 2:
Added some ideas "To counter lack of cavalry" that affect gyro-copters.
Malekith is the true Phoenix King and Wood elves can suck my Widow-maker

AZoReu8.png
Post edited by Guerrillero on
«1

Comments

  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    To enhance its strengths: Make melee combat last longer overall! Skirmishers and artillery cannot make more than 2 shoots before the infantry front line is routing, for then coming back when they are not useful anymore. Increase defense stats, including armor. Even if decreasing attack and weapon damage.
    The fact that combat is so short honestly dosen;t matter for artillery, they're not for shooting into combat, they're for shooting at the enemy before they make it to combat.

    Also combats short for the same reason dwarfs suck vs cavalry. Everyone uses long thin lines. Deep blocks with charge defence rule bounce cavalry, (there's literally a modifier for it in kv_rules. The more ranks you have the more effective it is. A one rank the effectiveness scalar is 1.0, it increases to 3.5 at 7 ranks deep).

    Now getting people to use less wide lines, that another issue, but given all missile infantry and even artillery can fire in as many ranks as they damm well please i see no reason the maximum rank width needs to be so high.

    EDIT: Having remembered the mass change last patch i tested it again, not as bouncy as they were, but 7 ranks stops them at 2 ranks deep into their target units, got screenies and screenies of them hitting max stretched units for comparison.
  • salsichasalsicha Posts: 3,572Registered Users
    Empire doesn't lack monsters, Demigryphs are monster units.
  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    They don't really follow the normal monster rules though. What separates monsters from the rest in TW is the large splash attacks they have. Demi's technically have splash attacks the same as cairn wraiths, but both have such small AoE area's that it takes a miracle for them to hit more than one enemy. Demi's are much more souped up cav than true monsters.
  • JastallJastall Junior Member Posts: 977Registered Users
    -They could really use 50% magic resistance, at least, on their Lords. All of them are slow as hell and have no magic to counter-snipe, making them extraordinarily vulnerable.

    -Their artillery needs buffs, full stop. Organ guns and flame cannons should rip troops apart. Cannons should effectively damage high value targets so they can damage monsters and heroes. Irondrakes need to be made useful, especially Trollhammer torpedoes.

    -Slayers need to actually be that, monster slayes that take down anything short of Arachnaroks. Currently they barely beat smaller monsters like Trolls and Crypt Horrors, and in my experience Giants trounce them. They also get trashed by any infantry above Marauders, even normal Grave Guards barely lose models to them. They need AP damage and higher physical resistance IMO.

    -Most of their infantry is fine, but is a bit too uniform. I think they need anti-large melee units, like halberds or something. And maybe a bit more charge resistance across the board. I'm fine with Dwarfs not having cavalry, but then their infantry should have special advantages to offset this big weakness.
  • popinfresh1popinfresh1 Posts: 28Registered Users
    I think we can all agree on all around balancing and when a dwarf can outrun warriors of chaos something is wrong. but really slayers needs to be worked on a lot more, but if given ap they would be to strong against chaos and vc due to lack of range and decimate them unless hp slashed in half and yes that much would probably be required and finally be a glass cannon. due to all the different arty they have it is super hard to balance because they can really easily become op because then because each arty can counter each type of unit giving them a big advantage. if all they have to do is hold the line even though that is their playstyle then the melee or ranged inf will need to be nerfed in some way so chaos and orks have a chance to break through formations to get to arty. Don't just say flank around because any competent player won't let that happen. then the dwarf inf won't be as strong as they should be (in lore standards) unless given even less troop count to already low one. predictability isn't a bad thing its once things get tough who can create the better formation and manuever correctly to use a given unit correctly. much easier said then done sadly but luckily its a work in progress and not not good enough.
  • GuerrilleroGuerrillero Senior Member EstaliaPosts: 543Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    Carl_Bar said:


    The fact that combat is so short honestly dosen;t matter for artillery, they're not for shooting into combat, they're for shooting at the enemy before they make it to combat.

    So you pay 1000 for 1 or 2 volleys? I don't think so. Arillery is also used to shoot, for example, enemy skirmishers or non engaged cavalry. And to do that they have to be protected so yes, a short combat matter a lot as long as breaking the line too quickly unable the artillery. Then the infantry always come back, but the artillery and missile (the two main strengths of Dwarfs) are destroyed.

    If artillery was only meant to be used for a couple of shoots before melee combat, then they should wipe out at least an entire elite unit to pay off their prize in two volleys, and that is not going to happen.
    Carl_Bar said:

    Also combats short for the same reason dwarfs suck vs cavalry. Everyone uses long thin lines. Deep blocks with charge defence rule bounce cavalry, (there's literally a modifier for it in kv_rules. The more ranks you have the more effective it is. A one rank the effectiveness scalar is 1.0, it increases to 3.5 at 7 ranks deep).

    Now getting people to use less wide lines, that another issue, but given all missile infantry and even artillery can fire in as many ranks as they damm well please i see no reason the maximum rank width needs to be so high.

    EDIT: Having remembered the mass change last patch i tested it again, not as bouncy as they were, but 7 ranks stops them at 2 ranks deep into their target units, got screenies and screenies of them hitting max stretched units for comparison.

    Too deep formations reduce your chance of intercept a charge as your front line is smaller. A deep formation longbeards can hold almost any charge but nobody is going to front charge that. As they are deep formation they will leave gaps and enemy cav will rear charge the front infantry line or destroy missiles. Then, your anti-charge unit can go and chase the engaged cav but they have no bonification vs large. Actually, the only dwarf unit that have bonification against large are the slayers and they suck overall and are extremely overpriced.

    Dwarfs are extremely weak against cav. Their only deffense is to kill cav before they approach with missile units or gyrocopters but the ridiculous long aim and recharge time makes this task impossible when the cav is moving around flanking. They need more cheap anti-large & anti-charge units (like spearmen for empire) more efficient missile units.

    Notice that Dwarfs have nothing that Empire hasn't while Empire, in addition, has the best cavalry in the game and light magic lore, one of the best magic lores in the game (while Dwafs have no cavalry, nor magic)
    Malekith is the true Phoenix King and Wood elves can suck my Widow-maker

    AZoReu8.png
  • ricmornricmorn Posts: 204Registered Users
    edited July 2016

    I think we can all agree on all around balancing and when a dwarf can outrun warriors of chaos something is wrong.


    Patch 1 normalized/nerfed all non-slayer Dwarfen infantry to 28 speed. Now Chaos aren't slower than Dwarfs. Chaos are as slow as Dwarfs.

    I agree with the weakness to cavalry. It just seems that all the counters the Dwarfs have against them (ranged units, artillery, plenty of charge defense) don't work well enough.

    Ranged and artillery suffer from the massive firing arc nerf from previous Total Wars. This wouldn't be so terrible if the units were allowed to keep their formation, but rotate within it. Instead what happens is your cannons try to keep formation while tracking a flanking cav force. Resulting in a farcical amount of readjustment time as the cannons don't rotate, but move 3 yards back and to the left, then rotate to keep their line/box formation.

    Charge defense vs. large doesn't work well either. Nobody is going to charge straight into a braced, 6 deep line of Dwarfs. Even the AI isn't that dumb. It hits the flank. While the immunity to impact damage is welcome, the fact is that the requirement to stand still and in formation, while facing an enemy far faster than you can readjust, is just unfeasible. In order to keep facing a fast moving cav force you have to rotate/move, giving up your bracing bonus while you turn. Even if you take the charge braced, unless I'm incorrect, there is no offensive boni for the charge recipient. Cav can just flee from the far slower, and less offensive Dwarfen force. Failing a charge isn't punishing enough unless ranged units are there to fire at retreating cav. Previous total wars gave expert charge defense an attack bonus when charged, not so in Total War : Warhammer.

    There are so many requirements for defending against charges that half the time heavily armored Dwarfs turn into popping corn instead of a stout unyielding line. Making reserve units stationed near/behind artillery near useless, as to force the cav into combat they have to charge otherwise the cav just goes around. When they charge they lose their bonus, they're too slow to catch cav so now you have to reform for the new cav charge, but now the Dwarfs have charged with men spread everywhere, so the cav charges through the unbraced men, straight through to the ranged.

    I think the non-braced mass for heavy infantry needs to be turned up a bit. I remember, in a siege I played as chaos, watching retreating Outriders bowl over pursuing Chaos Warriors with halberds. They were tossed around like Crossbowmen when they're not in formation.
  • TreliantTreliant Posts: 197Registered Users
    Dwarfs actually have many of the tools you say they are missing they just suck at the moment. Gyro copters are dwarf cavalry/skirmish they just are not effective yet. Also have people tried using slayers since last patch? In my custom battle trials they are really effective against large targets, even giving Demi's with lances a bloody nose depending on the charge outcome. Honestly a bump to artillery range, more effective gyros and some anti sniping options for lords/heroes and the dwarfs would be in a really great place.
  • GuerrilleroGuerrillero Senior Member EstaliaPosts: 543Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    @Ricmorn That's exactly what I think. Thanks to put it clear.

    @Treliant Gyrocopters are not cavalry as they can't intercept enemy cavalry. They are flying artillery and their use is very limited. If the enemy has flying units they turn useless. They are very weak against enemy shoots also. They perform very well against Chaos tho (no skirmishers and a single trash flying unit that nobody includes in their build).
    Malekith is the true Phoenix King and Wood elves can suck my Widow-maker

    AZoReu8.png
  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    Even if you take the charge braced, unless I'm incorrect, there is no offensive boni for the charge recipient.
    Actually there is, they reflect charge damage back at the cav and can even cause knockdown if they reflect enough.

    The whole point about cav being able to work around for forever more is well made, but i think the issues lies in the fact that quarrelers and thunderers with shields lack the charge defence too. Having missile units that can act as rear and flank guards is important. Dwarfs really want to form a double sided line with units cover the flanks too in the real world, but they can't cover enough with a mixed force because they just can't bring enough units, even if they had unlimited funds, they need more than 20 units, and really more than 40. I'm also beginning to really suspect the quarrellers with great weapons and thunderers are badly overpriced atm. They're weaker than dwarf warriors similarly armed in melee yet they have limits in range capabilities, (quarrellers with GW are no better than sword and board ones and thunderers can't fire in an arc which requires them to be in the front rank), that don't justify them paying full price for both.

    Artillery doesn't need more range, it does fine for cost barring the flame cannon, they don't get a lot of volleys ofc, but they'll do plenty of damage in that timeframe.

    Gyro's absolutely need a lot more love. They need to be pushed to hit harder and faster, a means of forcing the enemy not to be too circuitous and hang back too far or maneuver too much.

    Really though like i said on some level as well they need to desperately address the whole issue of long thin lines being preferred by everyone. Adress that make everyone want deep blocks not just dwarfs and a lot of the dwarf issues will start lessen bcause dwarfs are made for fighting deep not broad. They're not the only units hurt by it, but they are the faction as a whole hurt by it.
  • ricmornricmorn Posts: 204Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    Carl_Bar said:

    Even if you take the charge braced, unless I'm incorrect, there is no offensive boni for the charge recipient.
    Carl_Bar said:

    Actually there is, they reflect charge damage back at the cav and can even cause knockdown if they reflect enough.

    Interesting. I haven't seen that in any tests I've done. Unless you're talking about the melee attack+damage bonus of the charge stat I haven't seen any impact damage reflection. They resist the impact better but the damage to cavalry seemed to be all from the fact there were units standing and hitting back rather than being on the ground.

    I agree on the Gyros and especially on GW Quarrelers. Gyros at times just feel I could've had something different and better in their place unless I'm facing a Doom Diver/Hell Cannon. GW Quarrelers are not worth it at all. Lose 30% missile block and 10(!) melee defense. With 16 base melee attack they're not doing much unless they're rear flanking...which they should be shooting when in that position anyway.

    While Thunderers are fairly annoying to micromanage they can do serious damage if left alone and firing at a desired target. Problem is getting that proper angle is difficult while fending off the cav.

    Agree on the deeper lines as well. Spaghetti lines of Attila/Rome being gone is nice, but the issue with making lines deeper goes back to your previous point. The deeper the line the less room it takes up (of course) so the more compact the battle line, but the range + 2nd line + artillery still need protection from the shrunken line. I don't know if a ham-handed stat buff for deeper lines or the ability for deeper formations to "split" the thinner lines to get flank boni would work. Not too sure on solutions.

    Ranged+artillery being able to rotate would make my day at least. Watching them lose massive amount of uptime on flanking units is infuriating, as ranged are intended to punish units taking time to position.

    Oh, and I was a little wrong on Dwarf speed. CA cut their speed on all non-hero infantry by 2, so Dwarf Warrior/Quarreler level is 28. Elites such as Firedrakes/Longbeards/Ironbreakers are 26.
  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    Let me dig up the relevant data entries in kv_rules. Not really looked at the specifics before maybe dwarfs even 7 deep don;t meet trigger requirements, not sure.

    Ok had a digm, missed some entries further down, looks like reflection is a seperate property from defence and thus isn't being used atm. Pity, would absolutely help dwarfs a lot. I could be wrong it's hard to tell, it's called charge reflector in the unit special abilities junctions tables, but it's not clear if actual reflection properties are enabled for all charge defence.

    The lack of charge defence for slayers is a big part of why they suck vs big units btw, they take massive damage from the initial charge.
    Agree on the deeper lines as well. Spaghetti lines of Attila/Rome being gone is nice, but the issue with making lines deeper goes back to your previous point. The deeper the line the less room it takes up (of course) so the more compact the battle line, but the range + 2nd line + artillery still need protection from the shrunken line. I don't know if a ham-handed stat buff for deeper lines or the ability for deeper formations to "split" the thinner lines to get flank boni would work. Not too sure on solutions.
    I know from campaign play that it's entirely possibble at default unit widths to setup such that you've got a solid front line, 4 artillery and can still surround those units with enough missile troops to the sides and rear to protect them. But you need a full 20 card army and missile troops don't bounce cav the way lother shield equipped dwarfs do. I think maybe the dwarfs are paying a bit too much for their infantry, their lack of mobility almost forces them to form a turtle and that requires more units to be effective and lets the enemy position their units for best effect vs various units. In effect the enemy is able to use their units more efficiently than dwarves.

    I think thats kinda what i'm getting at with thunderer's too, they're going to be forced into combat long before they can fully utilize their guns, yet they pay so much for the dual capabilities they're not really adequate at either.
  • GuerrilleroGuerrillero Senior Member EstaliaPosts: 543Registered Users
    Ricmorn said:


    Ranged+artillery being able to rotate would make my day at least. Watching them lose massive amount of uptime on flanking units is infuriating, as ranged are intended to punish units taking time to position.

    May CA read that.

    I have to say that counter charge units is not the only thing that Dwarfs need to prevent enemy cavalry from destroying the rear, but also anti-large units. Only Slayers (elite unit) have anti-large bonus and that is alarming for a roster that lacks of cavalry.

    The usual tactic atm for Dwarfs is keeping as many infantry in reserve as possible in order to intercept rear charges. The truth is that these little stunties are too slow to intercept cavalry, specially in deep formation and of course, most of times they won't be embraced or facing the charge. Their function is though to attack cavalry when this engage the rear of the frontline, or the range troops. Having anti-large bonus in some units (for example in GW units) would help a lot to protect the rear from enemy cav and cover this big lack in the Dwarf roster.
    Malekith is the true Phoenix King and Wood elves can suck my Widow-maker

    AZoReu8.png
  • MadDemiurgMadDemiurg Posts: 2,369Registered Users
    Well, there's a lot of overlap in the actual roles of the 9 unit types you've listed, but dwarves are indeed too predictable. The only real variable is how much range they take.

    I do support fixing/buffing the rotation of arty and ranged units across the board, they feel clunky and awkward to use.

    More efficient missile units - well, imo dwarves already have the best missile units, maybe these are just not that great in endgame/qb armies in general. Boost to rotation/targeting will make them bit more viable.

    Increasing infantry mass - I think it's a good unique advantage to give to dwarves, it could have unexpected implication in the current game engine with spells etc.

    +25% magic res to dwarven lords and heroes sounds ok, but sniping needs some tweaks in general, and then not sure it would be necessary.

    Dwarven artillery still needs a boost or a price cut across the board for the most part, it rarely pays off and is supposed to be the main strength of the army.

    Viable mobile units would help too, gyros could use a damage buff but only if they get a simultaneous speed nerf, little **** are almost impossible to catch atm and they are ranged flyers.

    As far as anti large goes Slayers should get charge defence imo, that along with thunderers should cover the anti large needs for the most part.

    Team Skaven

    Team O&G

  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    I have to say that counter charge units is not the only thing that Dwarfs need to prevent enemy cavalry from destroying the rear, but also anti-large units. Only Slayers (elite unit) have anti-large bonus and that is alarming for a roster that lacks of cavalry.
    There's definitely a point to be made here, again this comes back to a combo of cost per unit and army size limits, dwarves have to cover so many roles it;s an issue.

    Maybe all shield infantry should get charge defence vs all whilst GW infantry get it only vs cav, at the end of the day bonus vs large isn't worth a fart in a windstorm vs heavy cav, they have too much armour to care about non-AP damage.
  • GuerrilleroGuerrillero Senior Member EstaliaPosts: 543Registered Users
    @Carl_Bar Is bonus vs large only applied on non-AP damage? I didn't know that. Anyway, many large units don't have armor like varghais or greenskin cav. It would be useless against Empire and Bretonnia if what you say is right.
    Malekith is the true Phoenix King and Wood elves can suck my Widow-maker

    AZoReu8.png
  • ricmornricmorn Posts: 204Registered Users
    edited July 2016

    @Carl_Bar Is bonus vs large only applied on non-AP damage? I didn't know that. Anyway, many large units don't have armor like varghais or greenskin cav. It would be useless against Empire and Bretonnia if what you say is right.

    Bonus vs. large/infantry and charge bonus damage are all non-AP damage.

    Assuming the patch didn't change it too much. Here's a good read https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/4o1zoq/how_does_bonus_damage_and_armor_actually_work/
  • RakdosRakdos Posts: 238Registered Users
    @Carl_Bar Is bonus vs large only applied on non-AP damage
    Hm, does it mean, that chaos warriors(gw) fights against DGK at least equal as CW(halberds)? I d'not know their attack speed unfortunatelly.
  • ricmornricmorn Posts: 204Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    Rakdos said:

    @Carl_Bar Is bonus vs large only applied on non-AP damage
    Hm, does it mean, that chaos warriors(gw) fights against DGK at least equal as CW(halberds)? I d'not know their attack speed unfortunatelly.

    I think the halberds actually attack a little slower than the GW. That plus the bonus vs. large, despite being lowered by armor, still make halberds much better against DGK and cav. Halberds also have charge defense, but again charge defense is only applied when braced and facing the target i.e. frontal charges.

    Edit: Slower not faster.
  • RakdosRakdos Posts: 238Registered Users
    @Ricmorn
    If the difference is small, I defently change several CW(halberds) on CW(gw), because the last fights much better against greatsword.
  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    As far as i can tell halberds attack a lot slower than GW and the mitigation means that anything >90 armour takes less damage a swing, (85 is probably a truer value, mitigation allways truns a bit higher than pure armour roll = mitigation percentage). But i have heard that the bonus also boosts their melee attack, again from what i've figured the not a huge boost but may account.

    Swing rate AFAIK is 3.8 + attack time. GW are 3.8 attack time, Halberds 6. I'm about to go play some magic with a cousin but i'll run some tests on how the two perform vs various units afterwards and find out for sure if there's somthing unexpected and unstated going on.
  • ricmornricmorn Posts: 204Registered Users
    Carl_Bar said:

    As far as i can tell halberds attack a lot slower than GW and the mitigation means that anything >90 armour takes less damage a swing, (85 is probably a truer value, mitigation allways truns a bit higher than pure armour roll = mitigation percentage). But i have heard that the bonus also boosts their melee attack, again from what i've figured the not a huge boost but may account.

    Swing rate AFAIK is 3.8 + attack time. GW are 3.8 attack time, Halberds 6. I'm about to go play some magic with a cousin but i'll run some tests on how the two perform vs various units afterwards and find out for sure if there's somthing unexpected and unstated going on.

    Chosen Halberds are 6. Chaos Warriors halberds are something around 4.2. Don't ask me why Chosen are so much slower.

    Anyhow that's all far off topic. Dwarfs just don't have many "strategic deniers" like Net of Amyntok. I'd certainly love if the Runesmith had some way to stop enemies in their tracks, but lack of magic is the Dwarfen weakness and it'd be better to find another way. Adjusting to the enemy's moves can only go so far. Especially since the Dwarf unit speed nerf. Go into a custom battle and watch your Longbeards "run" on a flat plain. They don't. They start running when going doing a hill, but otherwise they just sort of walk very quickly.

    Though seriously watching a mass of cavalry full gallop to the rear of the line only to get Netted and bogged down with 0 charge bonus is too satisfying.

    Guerrillero helpfully edited the OP to add in plenty of the concerns. I think it's all a good starting point. We'll see in patches to come and how the new races will mesh in.
  • Karadar_UKKaradar_UK Posts: 191Registered Users
    Maybe if dwarfs need alot less unit rank depth to not get thrown around on a charge or maybe even melee units can't be knocked flying by cavalry. I hate forming line and then a chariot or cavalry just run in, knock u aside and go straight thru to your missle units, u can't stop it, its worse for dwarfs than any other faction because they are so slow to get back to formation.

    Maybe just lords and stuff be knockdown immune, it gets so frustrating watching ungrimm go flying when anyone charges him.
  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    @Karadar: Whilst Dwarfs suffer from it the most, the issue of charge defence vs large infantry not being too effective without deep ranks is somthing that affects all infantry with that.

    Done the tests and Halberd Chosen do come out a fair way ahead, (test was two units of triple gold non-lance chaos knights vs chosen without veterancy, modded routing and lord leadership efects out so i could snipe the enemy lord and keep mine out without mucking up the test). Both times 55 chosen died, but GW's only killed 40 before they ran, Halberds 57. Some quick math doesn't make that make sense if we assume it is just a bonus to melee attack as well, GW's would still have around a 10% DPS bonus, if however we assume it applies to melee defence as well then the math says that the DPS outputs of both sides would be in line with the observed numbers.

    That definitely changes things a lot. It makes bonus vs X a lot more powerful, a slight increase in hit rate isn't worth a lot, and a slight decrease in hit rate isn't worth a lot, but the two multipliers multiply with each other and the even smaller damage per second boost of the extra damage to create a quite large final multiple.
  • GuerrilleroGuerrillero Senior Member EstaliaPosts: 543Registered Users
    Carl_Bar said:

    @Karadar: Whilst Dwarfs suffer from it the most, the issue of charge defence vs large infantry not being too effective without deep ranks is somthing that affects all infantry with that.

    Done the tests and Halberd Chosen do come out a fair way ahead, (test was two units of triple gold non-lance chaos knights vs chosen without veterancy, modded routing and lord leadership efects out so i could snipe the enemy lord and keep mine out without mucking up the test). Both times 55 chosen died, but GW's only killed 40 before they ran, Halberds 57. Some quick math doesn't make that make sense if we assume it is just a bonus to melee attack as well, GW's would still have around a 10% DPS bonus, if however we assume it applies to melee defence as well then the math says that the DPS outputs of both sides would be in line with the observed numbers.

    That definitely changes things a lot. It makes bonus vs X a lot more powerful, a slight increase in hit rate isn't worth a lot, and a slight decrease in hit rate isn't worth a lot, but the two multipliers multiply with each other and the even smaller damage per second boost of the extra damage to create a quite large final multiple.

    That's a very interesting result. Should we conclude, in order to stay on-topic, that some Dwarf units need bonus vs large?
    Malekith is the true Phoenix King and Wood elves can suck my Widow-maker

    AZoReu8.png
  • TreliantTreliant Posts: 197Registered Users
    To be fair dwarfs only lack melee anti large. They have quite a few ranged units that are supposed to fit that role. Troll hammers, brimstone guns, artillery, thunderes, quarrellers. The big issue for these units is their lack of range, accuracy, fire rate, inability to fire over the lines, maneuverability. If you ever manage to get troll hammers to fire off a flank volley say goodbye to whatever they shoot at. As has been mentioned this units poor maneuverability low range and brutally slow firing time mean they just don't function for cost. If they had the ability to hit charging cavalry before they reached the line they would be a lot more enticing. As it is by the time the torpedo volley is fired cavalry are already chewing your line to pieces.
  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    That's a very interesting result. Should we conclude, in order to stay on-topic, that some Dwarf units need bonus vs large?
    I'm not sure, i'm putting together a dwarf overhaul mod now and thats somthing i'm thinking on hard. Part of the thing to remember is that slayers do exist, they may be borked 5 ways to hell but if they ever get fixed it would only take the addition of charge defence vs large to make them quite effective as a fast moving, (by infantry standards), anti-flanking unit.

    On the flip side i think we have to acknowledge that reality lets the enemy put their cav charges in where they wish and dwarfs don't have enough money or especially enough card slots, (max of 20 different units in an army, 19 after you take fof lord), to be fielding seperate defence and offence units. That strongly suggests warriors, longbeards, and hammerers should probably have charge defence vs large too so you don't need to screen them behind other units against cav. Yet dwarf warriors and longbeards with shields, (ironbreakers have those bombs), need somthing to differentiate them from their GW counterparts, and whilst both charge defence vs large and better shields, (i'm gonna raise em to 60% block chance vs missiles), might help with that, Bonus vs large so long as they don't supplement slayers as the premier hard kill unit would not be a bad way to do that.

    I think we also have to be honest and acknowledge that quarrelers and thunderers are going to have to bear the brunt of fending off cav attacks and the like to the rear, there simply isn't the unit slots, never mind the funds to use dedicated melee units for that over the whole rear and non cav cannot adjust fast enough, those missile units have to be able to turn and present solid walls of infantry to the sides and the rear. And they're melee stats and abilities need to reflect that. A slightly lower base melee damage but a bonus vs cav to go with better melee attack and defence would be a good thing, even if thunderers might have to take an ammo count cut to make that work cost wise.

    Simply put dwarves are a very defensive army and their unit abilities and costs for those abilities need to start reflecting that.

    And thats before we get onto specialist units like gyro's for harrying or artillery and irondrakes for heavy firepower, then again maybe it's irondrakes that should be the dedicated missile units whilst the quarrelers and thunderers are the hybrids rather than direct missile units. It would certainly give them more of a role.
  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    Just thought id share and interesting little discovery, decided to setup a test with a variety of dwarf ranged units, (no modding beyond arty having wider arcs for anything tested, and even that didn't matter), to see how they performed, was very surprised to find troll hammers are surprisingly capable vs infantry units, even shooting into melee passably well. They're not awesome at the latter as they do scatter 30% worse than crossbow bolts, but they still surprised me with how well they did. Wondering if anyone's seriously tried them as an indirect AP missile unit rather than a dedicated anti-large...

    Flames where really bad though, again surprisingly good at shooting into melee, though they could be better, their low arc and high collision radius are a bit of an issue, and their damage output on what they hit was abysmal.
  • TreliantTreliant Posts: 197Registered Users
    Carl_Bar said:



    Flames where really bad though, again surprisingly good at shooting into melee, though they could be better, their low arc and high collision radius are a bit of an issue, and their damage output on what they hit was abysmal.

    Only against armour. Low armour units disintigrate when they take an iron drake barrage in my experience anyways. Don't bother with anything above 40 armour though.
  • Carl_BarCarl_Bar Posts: 500Registered Users
    This was low armour units, mix of night goblins, orc boys and orc big un's.

    Screenshots for you in fact, the second was a more specific Trollhammer test, still not worth 1200 IMO, but a lot more effective vs infantry than i've heard anyone give them credit for:



    Note: Thunderers were used as front line interspaced with the hammerers, everything else behind the main line.


Sign In or Register to comment.