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

How could dragons be balanced properly?

AuroraOurania#5276AuroraOurania#5276 Registered Users Posts: 29
edited August 12 in Warhammer Battle Feedback
Dragons spent quite some time early on in Total War Warhammer 2 being too strong, specifically with the healing that High Elves and Vampire Counts could provide for them, but for quite some time since, they've been very weak due to being unable to take off if anything is attacking them, while also remaining fairly vulnerable to missile fire. I saw someone in the comments on Dahv's recent video suggest giving them an ability (I think it would have to be single use, or twice on a long in melee cooldown) that pushes enemy units away from them and lets them take off. A single unit of light cavalry that can barely hit it shouldn't be enough to mean a dragon will never take off again, but currently it is. I don't think they need to be as strong as they once were, but there's a middle ground where they can be used to take down key targets without instantly being dragged down, but where making mistakes with them is still punishing.
Post edited by CA_Will on
«1

Comments

  • Theo91#7431Theo91#7431 Registered Users Posts: 2,901
    I quite like where dragons are atm. Landing them in battle, blob healing them then escaping for me isnt a good thing now.

    In the current meta, they can get their value back but only if you're patient and pick the right engagements. The current balance atm seems to be the higher value a unit is, the more important picking the right engagement is.

    For low skill players (probably like me lol), that makes infantry and cheap archers seem like the most effective unit in mp whereas high value units shine in SP where the ai is less punishing on mistakes
  • LoreguyLoreguy Registered Users Posts: 1,718
    With tail. Same as other big lizards they should use tail to keep balance.

    Jokes aside. Dragons are balanced. If you know what you are doing they are good.
  • AuroraOurania#5276AuroraOurania#5276 Registered Users Posts: 29
    The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.
  • Reym#7442Reym#7442 Registered Users Posts: 819

    The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.

    I think there will be use for them as long as you got healing, since said healing is % based now it simply mean that all the healing you were giving to let's say your star dragon got way stronger now. For those without healing as a lot of expensive large SE it may be jsut as bad as before. Last good change being the ability to pre-land so you can properly charge with your ground stuff and be a bit less isolated that way.

    For domination, it may become a bit more difficult to land anywhere as it's melee mash with enough monstrous inf/cav/else to block SEM and you may just need more presence on the ground rather than an expensive force multiplier. However the dragons with good infantry cleaning breath might be interesting to help clean a point fast with said breath attack.
    But is talking about what is appropriate to talk about in this thread appropriate to be talked about in this thread ?
  • Theo91#7431Theo91#7431 Registered Users Posts: 2,901

    The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.

    Was this discussion in reference to domination mode? that mode seems to favour factions which can either burst damage or grind damage. Both have their merits, and this seems to be largely driven on how you bring reinforcements in.

    More 'balanced' styles like Cathay and Kislev seem to struggle. Factions like DE and HE i think will find domination tricky which i think is why dragons will seem bad. in Land battles dragons i'm guessing will be more effective because the goal wont be to either grind out or quickly blitz capture points
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,678
    Dragons need more mass and armour across the board. The minimum armour should be around 70 for a sun dragon. Some of these dragon have less mass than footlords.


  • Asamu#6386Asamu#6386 Registered Users Posts: 1,518
    The problem is how strong the breath attacks are. When you can wipe half a unit of infantry from the air, that's kind of a big deal, it makes dragons really difficult to balance for a healthy place in MP, especially since they're also a flying monster, which is already problematic for balancing in itself (as far as flying monsters go, only manticores are maybe better, but that mostly comes down to them being cheap).

    They're sort of like a flying monster skirmish unit that deals heavy burst damage, which is inevitably going to be ridiculously hard to have "balanced" in a way that's healthy - seeing as both skirmishers and flying monsters are difficult to balance in their own right. Dragons need vulnerabilities and can't perform up to par for the cost in melee.

    IMO, dragons are in a good place. It's better that they're slightly on the weak side, rather than slightly too strong, because they can be so powerful in the right situations (such as vs super elite infantry like chosen, where any dragon can get ~600 value in one breath attack.)
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 18,911
    Well domination balance. Well the mode ot self need balance before any thing else. Its not complete


    Now for dragons them selves little bit more mass


    And for our rwo head dragons aka choas and frost dragons gibe more animations

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,908
    saweendra said:

    Well domination balance. Well the mode ot self need balance before any thing else. Its not complete


    Now for dragons them selves little bit more mass


    And for our rwo head dragons aka choas and frost dragons gibe more animations

    You know, this might actually be a possibility in the upcoming Warriors of Chaos update. Lets cross our fingers.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,364
    Dragons can do a better in Domination although it is map dependent. But being able to fly over terrain quickly is very valuable especially when lots of times players will just leave a cheap unit holding a distance point, so being able to trigger a quick terror break for whatever unit is coming to cap is quite useful.

    Breath attacks will still be solid if you can land them correctly as well as killing expensive models or helping duel other SEMs.
  • steam_1645114418282AvXOj0steam_1645114418282AvXOj0 Registered Users Posts: 16
    Theo91 said:

    The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.

    Was this discussion in reference to domination mode? that mode seems to favour factions which can either burst damage or grind damage. Both have their merits, and this seems to be largely driven on how you bring reinforcements in.

    More 'balanced' styles like Cathay and Kislev seem to struggle. Factions like DE and HE i think will find domination tricky which i think is why dragons will seem bad. in Land battles dragons i'm guessing will be more effective because the goal wont be to either grind out or quickly blitz capture points
    Nope, 1.2 fixed the melee grind. SL is the weakest faction in Dom right now and they have highest burst dmg, go figure.
  • Spellbound1875#4610Spellbound1875#4610 Registered Users Posts: 1,903

    Theo91 said:

    The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.

    Was this discussion in reference to domination mode? that mode seems to favour factions which can either burst damage or grind damage. Both have their merits, and this seems to be largely driven on how you bring reinforcements in.

    More 'balanced' styles like Cathay and Kislev seem to struggle. Factions like DE and HE i think will find domination tricky which i think is why dragons will seem bad. in Land battles dragons i'm guessing will be more effective because the goal wont be to either grind out or quickly blitz capture points
    Nope, 1.2 fixed the melee grind. SL is the weakest faction in Dom right now and they have highest burst dmg, go figure.
    Fixed implies no further tweaking is necessary which I don't think is true. It's certainly better on patch 1.2, but that's largely because missile units can now reliably deal damage, not because missile units are in general efficient at contesting points. As a supporting tool for infantry they're able to be effective but quite often bringing additional infantry is a superior option based on how capture weight rewards quantity of infantry units. Kislev embodies this pretty well actually since in spite of being a missile heavy army they still are very prone to melee grinds to win games, with missiles being used to help keep enemy infantry off of points. After winning a point missiles become a substantially more effective tool, but that's because they're very good at keeping units off of points when supporting your own infantry, not because shooting factions off of a point is currently efficient.

    Note that Slaanesh can be the weakest faction while it is still true that infantry grinds are favored. Slaanesh has the least sticky infantry out of any faction in game 3. Cathay infantry is pretty resistant to damage and Celestial Dragon Guard are a respectable holding infantry at their price and Slaanesh is uniquely vulnerable to missile units which allows Cathay to go fairly wide against the faction while still getting value out of their missiles. Kislev also sees a big benefit from this, being quite proficient at getting missile value while still favoring melee grinds. Effectively, burst damage isn't an effective tactic when the capture weight of your burst damage units makes them unable to capture points without having erased all of the enemy units on a point.

    Again, it's substantially better than 1.1 but as long as every infantry unit has the same capture value, and that capture value is at least double any non-infantry unit in the game, infantry will not just be optimal, but will be necessary to capture and hold points. Cheap infantry will be too efficient at holding against anything that isn't just better infantry because mid tier cav or war beasts counts as 1/4 the capture value of 2 low tier infantry units, despite having the same cost. It's a very addressable issue but if we don't acknowledge it's presence than it won't get addressed.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,364

    Theo91 said:

    The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.

    Was this discussion in reference to domination mode? that mode seems to favour factions which can either burst damage or grind damage. Both have their merits, and this seems to be largely driven on how you bring reinforcements in.

    More 'balanced' styles like Cathay and Kislev seem to struggle. Factions like DE and HE i think will find domination tricky which i think is why dragons will seem bad. in Land battles dragons i'm guessing will be more effective because the goal wont be to either grind out or quickly blitz capture points
    Nope, 1.2 fixed the melee grind. SL is the weakest faction in Dom right now and they have highest burst dmg, go figure.
    Fixed implies no further tweaking is necessary which I don't think is true. It's certainly better on patch 1.2, but that's largely because missile units can now reliably deal damage, not because missile units are in general efficient at contesting points. As a supporting tool for infantry they're able to be effective but quite often bringing additional infantry is a superior option based on how capture weight rewards quantity of infantry units. Kislev embodies this pretty well actually since in spite of being a missile heavy army they still are very prone to melee grinds to win games, with missiles being used to help keep enemy infantry off of points. After winning a point missiles become a substantially more effective tool, but that's because they're very good at keeping units off of points when supporting your own infantry, not because shooting factions off of a point is currently efficient.

    Note that Slaanesh can be the weakest faction while it is still true that infantry grinds are favored. Slaanesh has the least sticky infantry out of any faction in game 3. Cathay infantry is pretty resistant to damage and Celestial Dragon Guard are a respectable holding infantry at their price and Slaanesh is uniquely vulnerable to missile units which allows Cathay to go fairly wide against the faction while still getting value out of their missiles. Kislev also sees a big benefit from this, being quite proficient at getting missile value while still favoring melee grinds. Effectively, burst damage isn't an effective tactic when the capture weight of your burst damage units makes them unable to capture points without having erased all of the enemy units on a point.

    Again, it's substantially better than 1.1 but as long as every infantry unit has the same capture value, and that capture value is at least double any non-infantry unit in the game, infantry will not just be optimal, but will be necessary to capture and hold points. Cheap infantry will be too efficient at holding against anything that isn't just better infantry because mid tier cav or war beasts counts as 1/4 the capture value of 2 low tier infantry units, despite having the same cost. It's a very addressable issue but if we don't acknowledge it's presence than it won't get addressed.
    Some of this is the intended result of the game mode, not a feature to be fixed. When you have to stand on a point to capture it, that will always create a different dynamic between melee and ranged than existed previously where ranged units using all ammo in the end game was the optimal play.

    Ranged units have received some compensation for this that helps them in other parts of the game (terrain more important and chokes mean they are often harder to compromise and have better positions to fire from, being able to keep artillery near reinforcement points allows it to be much easier to protect) but now they are not a late game win condition, they are a "kill units in the early/mid game unit or provide support when pushing forward off points". It also means that hybrid units now have a more interesting use cases where they can engage on points in melee much more readily depending on what is most important in the moment.

    I think cavalry getting a capture weight bump to 4 might be warranted, but cav is still excellent in Dom due to how important movement between points is as well as the difference in time from reinforcing to getting into combat.

    In terms of cheap infantry (<500) being too good at holding, I'd say most cheap infantry currently is quite bad at holding (gnoblars/peasant spears/marauders). They have decent cap weight but rout so quickly it doesn't matter. And part of the balance is that, yes, when fighting on a point an infantry unit will outcap a cavalry one. But cavalry are much quicker and can engage before the infantry get to the point to make it about trading/follow up. Unbreakable units are of course much better at holding and there are lots of those in the mid range for infantry currently (+Spawn) but I think these factions are in for a bit of a rude surprise against the more fleshed out factions in IE.

    Much of the observed gameplay is a result of unbreakable rosters and limited rosters as opposed to anything requiring domination-wide fixes. A small bump to cavalry cap weight should be on the cards if how IE plays warrants it, but ranged units are doing well now in the context of the factions we have.
  • Spellbound1875#4610Spellbound1875#4610 Registered Users Posts: 1,903

    Theo91 said:

    The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.

    Was this discussion in reference to domination mode? that mode seems to favour factions which can either burst damage or grind damage. Both have their merits, and this seems to be largely driven on how you bring reinforcements in.

    More 'balanced' styles like Cathay and Kislev seem to struggle. Factions like DE and HE i think will find domination tricky which i think is why dragons will seem bad. in Land battles dragons i'm guessing will be more effective because the goal wont be to either grind out or quickly blitz capture points
    Nope, 1.2 fixed the melee grind. SL is the weakest faction in Dom right now and they have highest burst dmg, go figure.
    Fixed implies no further tweaking is necessary which I don't think is true. It's certainly better on patch 1.2, but that's largely because missile units can now reliably deal damage, not because missile units are in general efficient at contesting points. As a supporting tool for infantry they're able to be effective but quite often bringing additional infantry is a superior option based on how capture weight rewards quantity of infantry units. Kislev embodies this pretty well actually since in spite of being a missile heavy army they still are very prone to melee grinds to win games, with missiles being used to help keep enemy infantry off of points. After winning a point missiles become a substantially more effective tool, but that's because they're very good at keeping units off of points when supporting your own infantry, not because shooting factions off of a point is currently efficient.

    Note that Slaanesh can be the weakest faction while it is still true that infantry grinds are favored. Slaanesh has the least sticky infantry out of any faction in game 3. Cathay infantry is pretty resistant to damage and Celestial Dragon Guard are a respectable holding infantry at their price and Slaanesh is uniquely vulnerable to missile units which allows Cathay to go fairly wide against the faction while still getting value out of their missiles. Kislev also sees a big benefit from this, being quite proficient at getting missile value while still favoring melee grinds. Effectively, burst damage isn't an effective tactic when the capture weight of your burst damage units makes them unable to capture points without having erased all of the enemy units on a point.

    Again, it's substantially better than 1.1 but as long as every infantry unit has the same capture value, and that capture value is at least double any non-infantry unit in the game, infantry will not just be optimal, but will be necessary to capture and hold points. Cheap infantry will be too efficient at holding against anything that isn't just better infantry because mid tier cav or war beasts counts as 1/4 the capture value of 2 low tier infantry units, despite having the same cost. It's a very addressable issue but if we don't acknowledge it's presence than it won't get addressed.
    Some of this is the intended result of the game mode, not a feature to be fixed. When you have to stand on a point to capture it, that will always create a different dynamic between melee and ranged than existed previously where ranged units using all ammo in the end game was the optimal play.

    Ranged units have received some compensation for this that helps them in other parts of the game (terrain more important and chokes mean they are often harder to compromise and have better positions to fire from, being able to keep artillery near reinforcement points allows it to be much easier to protect) but now they are not a late game win condition, they are a "kill units in the early/mid game unit or provide support when pushing forward off points". It also means that hybrid units now have a more interesting use cases where they can engage on points in melee much more readily depending on what is most important in the moment.

    I think cavalry getting a capture weight bump to 4 might be warranted, but cav is still excellent in Dom due to how important movement between points is as well as the difference in time from reinforcing to getting into combat.

    In terms of cheap infantry (<500) being too good at holding, I'd say most cheap infantry currently is quite bad at holding (gnoblars/peasant spears/marauders). They have decent cap weight but rout so quickly it doesn't matter. And part of the balance is that, yes, when fighting on a point an infantry unit will outcap a cavalry one. But cavalry are much quicker and can engage before the infantry get to the point to make it about trading/follow up. Unbreakable units are of course much better at holding and there are lots of those in the mid range for infantry currently (+Spawn) but I think these factions are in for a bit of a rude surprise against the more fleshed out factions in IE.

    Much of the observed gameplay is a result of unbreakable rosters and limited rosters as opposed to anything requiring domination-wide fixes. A small bump to cavalry cap weight should be on the cards if how IE plays warrants it, but ranged units are doing well now in the context of the factions we have. </p>
    I certainly don't want infantry to be ineffective at holding points and I do understand the fact that this isn't a bug (infantry being useful and important is a strength of the mode that land battles have struggled with), but I do think you're underselling the value of cheap infantry here. One major issue with infantry below 500 cost is that you can bring two of them for every cavalry unit, every expensive infantry units, and even for some mid cost missile units (though in this case the ratio is closer to 1.5). This creates an issue where damage dealers can only target one of the two units, and units that aren't taking damage don't rout particularly quickly. Additionally given the capture weight disparity you have to rout all infantry to meaningfully start capturing if you're contesting solely with non-infantry units, something which leaves factions like Cathay with slow infantry and extremely limited vanguard options in an awkward place. Frankly put, if I crush a cheap unbraced infantry unit with a devastating cavalry charge from an elite cavalry unit, that should swing capture weight in my favor on a point. Currently it doesn't which discourages offensive infantry use in a lot of scenarios.

    That difficulty in removing capture weight is substantially less of a problem when the units doing the killing also bring significant capture weight, hence the strong performance of melee rush tactics and monstrous infantry. Additionally this strongly favors aggressive infantry factions and can leave defensive infantry in an awkward place.

    As for cavalry being "excellent in domination" I think that's a very hard point to argue for. The only faction that prior to multiple buffs was regularly using cavalry was Slaanesh, and they're easily the faction struggling the most currently. I don't think cavalry is bad by any stretch of the imagination but primarily cavalry is used in a support role and trying to directly capture a point with it is quite weak. Whether cavalry should get a capture weight bump or infantry a capture weight nerf is arguable, but currently cavalry is a bit too ineffective when it comes to capturing or maintain hold of a point, hence the common use of cheap cavalry to stop up infantry rather than to contest points. Winning combat is less important than being a road block, which is a bit weird.

    I don't think this is primarily the result of unbreakable rosters, only Kislev brings mass unbreakable infantry. The normal daemon units are often easier to remove than the mortal ones. Daemonic instability and Banishment aggressively punish losing daemons without adequate support, and while spawn are incredible sources of capture weight at their price they're inadequate to maintain captures independent of infantry support. Normally if a Daemon faction is holding a point it's because they are winning combat there, not because they don't rout. I'd argue only Nurgle really feels like an unbreakable faction and that's largely because of their powerful healing. The Daemon factions benefit from having lots of and specifically powerful melee infantry which makes it easy to use their capture weight effectively. This strength will be shared by factions like the Beastmen, Norsca, and WoC even though they lack Daemon units.

    I've pointed this out early, but a combination of lowering infantry capture value a bit (I'd shoot for 4, no changes to anything else) plus the addition of a system which increases capture weight based on tier (x1.0, x1.5, x2.0) discourages the extreme focus on cheap infantry, makes blocking with cavalry a less powerful use of resources, and can increase the capture impact of missile damage by increasing the value of target priority and lowering the number of infantry that need to be removed to swing a capture. Infantry does need to be key for capturing points, but currently melee infantry gives a bit too much for their price, especially when looking at the cheap end. Such a system rewards price with capture weight, but still leaves infantry with a significant advantage, and still means going wide by price givens you a capture weight advantage (2 peasant spearmen outweigh jade halberd, even though they cost the same price, but by a less extreme amount than they do currently).
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,678
    This is all off topic. Thread is about dragons.


  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,364
    Loupi_ said:

    This is all off topic. Thread is about dragons.

    Moved it to a new thread.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,908
    I would like an auto fire for breath weapons that could be turned on instead of manual fire. As is some breath weapons just don't get used because targeting them is so hard.

    I tried to make a mod to do it, but it requires animations and it's more complex than my current capabilities.
  • ThibixMagnus#8300ThibixMagnus#8300 Registered Users Posts: 830
    woulnd't it make sense to rebalance dragons with less devastating breath attacks and more survivability (either thougher or easier to disengage) ? not sure an all-or-nothing design is healthy to begin with
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,678

    woulnd't it make sense to rebalance dragons with less devastating breath attacks and more survivability (either thougher or easier to disengage) ? not sure an all-or-nothing design is healthy to begin with

    their breath attacks are not that devastating, they are highly telegraphed and quite dodgeable, and the targetting often screws the person using them, not tomention vs most single entities the breath just pushes them out of its path and does nothing. They just need more mass and armour. Its really weird how little mass they have compare to other monsters of their size.


  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 961
    edited June 12
    Loupi_ said:


    their breath attacks are not that devastating, they are highly telegraphed and quite dodgeable, and the targetting often screws the person using them, not tomention vs most single entities the breath just pushes them out of its path and does nothing. They just need more mass and armour. Its really weird how little mass they have compare to other monsters of their size.

    Guess that depends WE get prey of anath, HE have light magic also as someone who was playing chaos a lot end of game 2 star dragon breath could basically one shot hell cannon. Honestly the biggest issue is they costed a lot and if you ended up vs an army that could punish landing it was hard to make use of them.
  • ThibixMagnus#8300ThibixMagnus#8300 Registered Users Posts: 830
    Loupi_ said:

    woulnd't it make sense to rebalance dragons with less devastating breath attacks and more survivability (either thougher or easier to disengage) ? not sure an all-or-nothing design is healthy to begin with

    their breath attacks are not that devastating, they are highly telegraphed and quite dodgeable, and the targetting often screws the person using them, not tomention vs most single entities the breath just pushes them out of its path and does nothing. They just need more mass and armour. Its really weird how little mass they have compare to other monsters of their size.
    breaths are fine in average, but with a huge variability in outcome. I'm fine buffing their mass/armor with no trade-off, but it's been like that for so long that they seem intentionally balanced around their highest ceiling. So maybe there is something to tweak there. One example being how star dragon with teclis net is very effective at sniping characters, but it felt a bit lame to over-rely on that as HE and how focused you have to be on gaming the physics of the game. In such cases I could see a buff to mass and armor along with maybe a minimum casting distance.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,992
    Reduce the number of breath attacks and buff its combat power (mass really) . This is also a way to balance the dragons further, some have more breaths than others.

    Just an idea
  • AuroraOurania#5276AuroraOurania#5276 Registered Users Posts: 29
    I really like that idea Faust, iirc in tabletop they only got a single use of their breath attack? I think also just looking at the fact that them being fliers, which is a huge benefit in land battles, will seriously hurt them in domination as it means that, while other expensive units have 2 ways to generate value (killing enemies and capturing objectives), dragons completely lack one of those, meaning they'll have to be significantly better at actually killing enemies to make them remotely worth taking
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,322
    edited June 21
    I like where dragons are atm just I think other monster mass is too much, dragons are what I consider a good balanced monster currently.

    Target ground with breaths be good also so they stop trying to kill that one guy at the edge of a unit sometimes, and allow breaths on ground like hydra, and longer secondary effects on breaths.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,322
    edited June 21

    Dragons can do a better in Domination although it is map dependent. But being able to fly over terrain quickly is very valuable especially when lots of times players will just leave a cheap unit holding a distance point, so being able to trigger a quick terror break for whatever unit is coming to cap is quite useful.

    Breath attacks will still be solid if you can land them correctly as well as killing expensive models or helping duel other SEMs.

    No they will do worse as it’s harder to compromise ranger plus more units so breaths are less impactful, further more they have no capture weight, they will be avoided like the plague in dom
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,908
    I would love it if breadth weapons could be used in melee combat. I don't understand why it's coded they cannot. This would also help Blood Thirsters, Hydras, and Troll Hags.
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,678
    Bastilean said:

    I would love it if breadth weapons could be used in melee combat. I don't understand why it's coded they cannot. This would also help Blood Thirsters, Hydras, and Troll Hags.

    yeah hydra especially. playing with a mod that lets them breath in melee makes them a whole new beast, Its very nice


  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 6,811
    Bastilean said:

    I would love it if breadth weapons could be used in melee combat. I don't understand why it's coded they cannot. This would also help Blood Thirsters, Hydras, and Troll Hags.

    Full agreement here.


    Hell most of these units literally use their breath weapon as part of their standard attack animations to begin with
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 961
    I agree having some equivalent of a breath attack aoe would go a long way for all monsters with breath attacks throgg(hope he gets new voicelines) would enjoy it to.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,908
    Loupi_ said:

    Bastilean said:

    I would love it if breadth weapons could be used in melee combat. I don't understand why it's coded they cannot. This would also help Blood Thirsters, Hydras, and Troll Hags.

    yeah hydra especially. playing with a mod that lets them breath in melee makes them a whole new beast, Its very nice
    Mod link please
Sign In or Register to comment.