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

Should Glade Guard get 360 degree shooting (or 180 range)?

2»

Comments

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    I you want to buff vanilla GG you could suggest +10 range instead of 360 (which one would assume should then carry over to starfire). Extra range doesn't have to carry over.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278

    I you want to buff vanilla GG you could suggest +10 range instead of 360 (which one would assume should then carry over to starfire). Extra range doesn't have to carry over.

    I did suggest that; +10 range would bring them up to 180 range. Doesn't mesh as well with the whole hit and run style of the WE, but it's better than what they have currently.

    As for SoA, they seem like a pretty solid unit, especially for what isn't actually supposed to be a ranged dominant faction in the first place. Solid melee, good range, magical damage and way more models than WW.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    edited October 2018
    Green0 said:

    lmao not the “not supposed to be a solid ranged faction again” argument, makes me fall every time, TW gods get to decide who is supposed to be best cav faction, infantry faction etc. faction and who should get the remaining trash. Criteria for deciding totally arbitrary too, people love to say that Bret cav iz da best but have you read lore of Chosen or Dragon Princes or Demigryphs? These guys have nothing to be ashamed of compared to the “supposedly good cav faction”.

    These aribtrary dumb arguments bro, factions are now balanced by how much we like them.

    Its almost like the game is built around asymmetry and you are conveniently ignoring that fact. Some factions, based on their roster breakdown and theme are going to have different strengths. This isnt anything new. Sure its going to be a little bit arbitrary, but every faction should have its own unique identity.

    Factions play differently. Some factions are going to have more cost effective options in certain sections of their roster and thats fine. There can be problems with this obviously.

    WE have a paper thin frontline, limited monster access, no artillery, mediocre cav, and one of the most versatile selections of archers in the game. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see why people identify them as an archer faction.

    Bret is in a similar position. Now, I think there is definitely an argument that some elements of their roster overperform too much, and there is a careful balance that needs to be struck. But I dont see the inherent issue in having Bret cav being a head above some of their competition if their roster lacks in other areas.

    In any case, its a matter of degree. Its fine that some factions have inherently better units than others in certain sections of their rosters. Its a matter of how overbearing that becomes (which is why GKs and WW in particular see a lot of argument) that determines whether or not they are balanced.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278
    Green0 said:

    ok, so long as we discuss “easy” factions with clear identity like DWF or Bret or WE it’s clear what the strengths should be, but what about factions like HE? DE? Skaven? Greenskins? Vampirates? What should they be best at? More importantly, what should they be allowed to be good at? Who decides that?

    You can’t answer any of these questions without putting A LOT of arbitrary judgment into it. More importantly, you should feel bad when you discount a unit by $100 just because “it fits the lore”. It’s not called asymmetry, there’s an exact word for this: it’s called biased view of a problem.

    I do think that you're ignoring the fact that SoA are actually better as mainline archers; they have better melee (allowing them to support the frontline), better survivability AND do more actual damage per volley them WW (Both AP and total; yes, I went and calculated using the unit stats). WW trade that in order to be a pure hit and run ranged unit; they have better accuracy and can fire all around them, but that's about it for their list of strengths over SoA.

    It seems to me that SoA are easily worth their cost, especially vis a vis WW.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    edited October 2018
    Green0 said:

    ok, so long as we discuss “easy” factions with clear identity like DWF or Bret or WE it’s clear what the strengths should be, but what about factions like HE? DE? Skaven? Greenskins? Vampirates? What should they be best at? More importantly, what should they be allowed to be good at? Who decides that?

    You can’t answer any of these questions without putting A LOT of arbitrary judgment into it. More importantly, you should feel bad when you discount a unit by $100 just because “it fits the lore”. It’s not called asymmetry, there’s an exact word for this: it’s called biased view of a problem.

    Yeah, theres going to be arbitrary judgement and obviously its going to be a bit more complicated for the versatile factions, but its a case by case discussion that has to be made anyways.

    The argument isnt as simple as "discount a unit by x because it fits the lore." The argument usually boils down to "this area of the roster needs to be stronger than average to compensate for other weaknesses." Factions usually pay in some way for their weaknesses.

    Look at the Empire. They have an arbitrary identity. The Empire has better than average cav and armor piercing skirmishers, with access to artillery. Their infantry is weak - mediocre, they have minimal access to monsters. Yet the faction as a whole is at least approaching the balance mark isn't it? They have a distinct play-style don't they?

    Yet their artillery is objectively less cost efficient than dwarfs. Their medium cav is less cost efficient than bret. Their infantry is less cost effective than everyones. It's arbitrary sure. But defining what each faction's strengths and weaknesses are going to be is an inevitable part of the balancing process.
    Post edited by Cukie251 on
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    cool_lad said:

    Green0 said:

    ok, so long as we discuss “easy” factions with clear identity like DWF or Bret or WE it’s clear what the strengths should be, but what about factions like HE? DE? Skaven? Greenskins? Vampirates? What should they be best at? More importantly, what should they be allowed to be good at? Who decides that?

    You can’t answer any of these questions without putting A LOT of arbitrary judgment into it. More importantly, you should feel bad when you discount a unit by $100 just because “it fits the lore”. It’s not called asymmetry, there’s an exact word for this: it’s called biased view of a problem.

    I do think that you're ignoring the fact that SoA are actually better as mainline archers; they have better melee (allowing them to support the frontline), better survivability AND do more actual damage per volley them WW (Both AP and total; yes, I went and calculated using the unit stats). WW trade that in order to be a pure hit and run ranged unit; they have better accuracy and can fire all around them, but that's about it for their list of strengths over SoA.

    It seems to me that SoA are easily worth their cost, especially vis a vis WW.
    Calculate again and take accuracy into account.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    edited October 2018
    cool_lad said:

    Green0 said:

    ok, so long as we discuss “easy” factions with clear identity like DWF or Bret or WE it’s clear what the strengths should be, but what about factions like HE? DE? Skaven? Greenskins? Vampirates? What should they be best at? More importantly, what should they be allowed to be good at? Who decides that?

    You can’t answer any of these questions without putting A LOT of arbitrary judgment into it. More importantly, you should feel bad when you discount a unit by $100 just because “it fits the lore”. It’s not called asymmetry, there’s an exact word for this: it’s called biased view of a problem.

    I do think that you're ignoring the fact that SoA are actually better as mainline archers; they have better melee (allowing them to support the frontline), better survivability AND do more actual damage per volley them WW (Both AP and total; yes, I went and calculated using the unit stats). WW trade that in order to be a pure hit and run ranged unit; they have better accuracy and can fire all around them, but that's about it for their list of strengths over SoA.

    It seems to me that SoA are easily worth their cost, especially vis a vis WW.
    SoA might be worth their cost, but that doesn't make them a good unit. When you get into a lot of the duel specialization stuff the HE have, a lot of the time you'll end up with a unit thats just too expensive to be useful. I think most HE players would rather have a unit thats a bit worse in melee, but also cheaper.

    When you say "mainline archers" its an oxymoron. There are no mainline archers. If you put sisters in the mainline, they get off a couple of volleys and fight in melee, not fufilling the large portion of their cost thats tied into their ranged capabilities. Likewise if you put them in the back, the fact that they outfight most mid-tier infantry becomes pointless. Sure, there are situations where they can make use of this, but the majority of the time it just isn't super effective. Having an armor penetrating archer that can fend of bats for 900 would be way better for the elven roster than an archer that can fend off swordsmen at 1100.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,517
    edited October 2018
    Nah I dont buy the (ur not this faction so u cannot have this) utterly and total horse crap. Dont know which genius started that bs. Brets cant even have a good cav to begin with lol, so much for this nonsense faction bs.

    Beastman, good inf? yep lets nerf the heck out of them. Orks good melee? frikking nerf waagh to the grounds lol. Vamps good at something? immediately goes find a mortis and bash it with nerfhammer lol. Chaos great with shaggoths? lets nerfhammer it lol, bashed chosens too while they r at it. Empire having a tank ultimate? no can do bro, lets overpriced it like nuts.

    Any faction remotely having anything good, whiners immediaely goes to them, spam dozens of thread at em and watch them immediately goes to the bottom.

    Liz and skaven a predominatly skirmish faction? lets nerf the fork out of them lol, liz dino faction? no can do, nerfed all the trex to dusts. Tombs great at construct? nah, nerf em.

    They can keep all the useless pilgrims, blessed treb, garbage hippo knights, useless warpcannons, trash scream skull cat, casket of LOLOL, hugely overpriced minos, super high hp ghosts, marvelous bacon riders, feral manticores, by all means keep the useless stuffs lol, we just gonna nerf anything that works to oblivion. Liz and skaven knows best lol
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Registered Users Posts: 1,950
    yst said:

    Nah I dont buy the (ur not this faction so u cannot have this) utterly and total horse crap. Dont know which genius started that bs. Brets cant even have a good cav to begin with lol, so much for this nonsense faction bs.


    One of the biggest issues with this game is the fetishization of asymmetric balance.

    Rangers* should be revamped into a Gutter Runner-esk unit IMO. Loose formation, Snare-Net ability, Fire whilst moving, 360 degree arch for Throwing axes, with adjusted stats to reflect the new performance. But no, this has to be exclusively a skaven model structure.

    It doesn't mater that there is a ridiculous amount of overlap between Quarrelers and Rangers, it doesn't mater that Rangers are known for not having the same modus operandi of the standard rank and file dwarf soldiers. It doesn't mater that this structure is perfect, by design, for a faction that lacks cavalry.

    *Not including Bugmans.

    I'll say the same thing about base Slayers but I don't want to go into it.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,739
    Totally agree, the game is (and will become even more) so big with all these factions, at some point all this assymetric balance stuff must be toned down a bit.
    Prettiest of the foot overlords.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 7,116

    yst said:

    Nah I dont buy the (ur not this faction so u cannot have this) utterly and total horse crap. Dont know which genius started that bs. Brets cant even have a good cav to begin with lol, so much for this nonsense faction bs.


    One of the biggest issues with this game is the fetishization of asymmetric balance.

    Rangers* should be revamped into a Gutter Runner-esk unit IMO. Loose formation, Snare-Net ability, Fire whilst moving, 360 degree arch for Throwing axes, with adjusted stats to reflect the new performance. But no, this has to be exclusively a skaven model structure.

    It doesn't mater that there is a ridiculous amount of overlap between Quarrelers and Rangers, it doesn't mater that Rangers are known for not having the same modus operandi of the standard rank and file dwarf soldiers. It doesn't mater that this structure is perfect, by design, for a faction that lacks cavalry.

    *Not including Bugmans.

    I'll say the same thing about base Slayers but I don't want to go into it.
    I don't neccicarly agree with you suggestions but the overlap between Quarrelers, Rangers, and Bugman's Rangers is really high.
Sign In or Register to comment.