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

Let's talk about cost effectiveness and the Empire's pistols

2

Comments

  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276

    cool_lad said:

    Free Company should have fire on the move and they'd be fine.


    Also aren't Outriders suppose to be dragoons, not missile cavalry?

    They're supposed to be the Empire's ranged specialists. They're armed with exotic engineer weapons instead of standard pistols or handguns; Repeater Handguns for the standard variant and Grenade launchers and Hochland Long Rifles for the special variants.
    That doesn't really answer my question
    The answer is no; Dragoons ride to a place, dismount and then fire. Outriders do not dismount to fight.

    Pistoliers at least seem to be modelled on Swedish cuirassiers after the reforms of Gustavus Adolphus, who wore light armour and discharged pistols from both hands before engaging in melee. The actual reality of Pistoliers is that they're pretty much good for nothing (low range, non AP, bad melee and terrible survivability) unless the enemy is served up to them on a plate. They're too cheap to get the sort of buffs that would make them good light cavalry (AP, better melee and better survivability).

    cool_lad said:

    Green0 said:

    against anything with 50 armor or less, Pistols are probably fine. The damage reduction isn't that big really. It's only when you start shooting stuff with 90 armor and/or good shield block that Pistols start to be cost-ineffective.

    I'd say a symbolic -$25 on Pistoliers is no problem. Wouldn't make them broken but perhaps would incentive to play 1-2 of these guys in their "average" matchups more.
    Free company now, idk, they are basically like a short-range archer unit that can pull their weight in melee as well. I see nothing wrong with a -$25 but at the same time in my opinion they're good as is. It's just that when you have the option to bring Handgunners, which have better range and are good vs unarmored AND armored targets, why would you bother picking Free company. Same as how Crossbowmen aren't exactly terrible for the cost either but when Handgunners are only $600, why would you ever bother with them.

    I think you misunderstand the issue. The point I'm making is that without actually being good as units, and not just as counterpicks, there's no point to the cheapness of these units.

    Their cost acts as a millstone around their necks which prevents them from being buffed and leaves them mediocre at best. Lower cost isn't actually of any use if the unit remains to worthless. So these are units that need to be buffed, even if it means an increase in cost.

    Pistols have such low range that there's no real point to using them unless you're facing an enemy that can literally not fire back at all, because by the time they do get into range, these units would be shredded by incoming fire. This means that pistol armed units already have very few opportunities to even use their weapons.

    At least with AP, these units can make something of the opportunities they do get and be generally useful instead of being confined to the nigh on pointless niche of extremely low range, non AP ranged units.

    Decent or even good melee capabilities are also needed, since pistols the low range of pistols means that these units can't afford to even stay at range.

    And that's particularly bad for say units like Pistoliers, who seem to be based on the Swedish cavalry of Gustavus Adolphus; firing off pistols at close range before joining into the melee. A unit that represents the actual evolution of cavalry is somehow the worst of the lot.
    The cost of Pistoliers is their greatest asset. They are the Imperial version of wolf rider archers, a cheap and fast moving throwaway unit you can stick int fornt of dudes to delay with, or deny charge bonuses from enemy cavalry, ir tie up shooting units. It's pretty much a straight translation of their role on the TT. Sure they won't beat most things but they buy you time to deal with those things.
    Except for the part where wolf riders are cheaper, have better range, more models (which reduces overkill, especially since they're firing on unarmoured targets) better speed and more ammo to boot.

    Did I mention that they have the same health, comparable melee and armour; not mention how wolf riders actually come in a variant that's both even cheaper than the ranged variant AND better in melee than Pistoliers?
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,922
    edited October 2018
    as far as I recall, Outriders never were particularly good in melee in TT; at least, not any more than your average Empire spearman.

    Anyway considering what yst said, I'll agree that they're not a terrible unit but they won't become broken with +4 ammo (if we're really conservative we can start with +2) and +HP to bring them up to par with other missile cav. Maybe not a massive HP increase but what they have now is indeed pretty low.

    This would make them a good unit and I think 1-2 units could become a competitive flavor choice for players who want to play that way.

    Regarding Free company, I reiterate at the cost of being pedantic that a -$25 could help see them more. I am a bit against overbuffing them or else they become impossible to take down effectively vs factions like BM. I checked out their stats and they have -4MA/-7MD -8HP compared to Swordsmen which cost $400 and are a pretty decent melee unit. Their ranged damage vs anything unarmored is also pretty decent considering that compared to other missile units they bring a massive 90 models. Lastly they have vanguard which can be nice for small ambush attacks on artillery or so with this unit, especially since at $450 gold they're not something you absolutely need to protect. Honestly I don't think they can be buffed any more without becoming something that starts replacing Handgunners and Spearmen in frontline duty.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 4,206
    Pistoliers and Free Company Militia are fine, OP just doesn't know how or when to use them and why to pick them over other options.

    Both of them have advantages over Handgunners and Crossbowmen when protecting your back line could be a difficult challenge.

    The very fact that OP thinks they are only good vs vamps because the vamps cant shoot back shows his naivete. Vampires do have a way of fighting back vs. ranged and that's with zombie summons both Pistoliers and Free Company Militia are better at dealing with that and continuing to provide fire support on key items like the Mortis Engine.

    TL;DR OP Doesn't understand how the game works, complains because he doesn't appreciate its complexity.
    Give us Doombull, Great Bray-Shaman, Wargor, and Tuskgor Chariot.

  • TheGrumpiestTheGrumpiest Registered Users Posts: 76
    Did they fix the bug on the Pistoliers yet? The one where they didn't actually shoot two projectiles?
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 942
    edited October 2018
    cool_lad said:

    cool_lad said:

    Free Company should have fire on the move and they'd be fine.


    Also aren't Outriders suppose to be dragoons, not missile cavalry?

    They're supposed to be the Empire's ranged specialists. They're armed with exotic engineer weapons instead of standard pistols or handguns; Repeater Handguns for the standard variant and Grenade launchers and Hochland Long Rifles for the special variants.
    That doesn't really answer my question
    The answer is no; Dragoons ride to a place, dismount and then fire. Outriders do not dismount to fight.

    Pistoliers at least seem to be modelled on Swedish cuirassiers after the reforms of Gustavus Adolphus, who wore light armour and discharged pistols from both hands before engaging in melee. The actual reality of Pistoliers is that they're pretty much good for nothing (low range, non AP, bad melee and terrible survivability) unless the enemy is served up to them on a plate. They're too cheap to get the sort of buffs that would make them good light cavalry (AP, better melee and better survivability).

    cool_lad said:

    Green0 said:

    against anything with 50 armor or less, Pistols are probably fine. The damage reduction isn't that big really. It's only when you start shooting stuff with 90 armor and/or good shield block that Pistols start to be cost-ineffective.

    I'd say a symbolic -$25 on Pistoliers is no problem. Wouldn't make them broken but perhaps would incentive to play 1-2 of these guys in their "average" matchups more.
    Free company now, idk, they are basically like a short-range archer unit that can pull their weight in melee as well. I see nothing wrong with a -$25 but at the same time in my opinion they're good as is. It's just that when you have the option to bring Handgunners, which have better range and are good vs unarmored AND armored targets, why would you bother picking Free company. Same as how Crossbowmen aren't exactly terrible for the cost either but when Handgunners are only $600, why would you ever bother with them.

    I think you misunderstand the issue. The point I'm making is that without actually being good as units, and not just as counterpicks, there's no point to the cheapness of these units.

    Their cost acts as a millstone around their necks which prevents them from being buffed and leaves them mediocre at best. Lower cost isn't actually of any use if the unit remains to worthless. So these are units that need to be buffed, even if it means an increase in cost.

    Pistols have such low range that there's no real point to using them unless you're facing an enemy that can literally not fire back at all, because by the time they do get into range, these units would be shredded by incoming fire. This means that pistol armed units already have very few opportunities to even use their weapons.

    At least with AP, these units can make something of the opportunities they do get and be generally useful instead of being confined to the nigh on pointless niche of extremely low range, non AP ranged units.

    Decent or even good melee capabilities are also needed, since pistols the low range of pistols means that these units can't afford to even stay at range.

    And that's particularly bad for say units like Pistoliers, who seem to be based on the Swedish cavalry of Gustavus Adolphus; firing off pistols at close range before joining into the melee. A unit that represents the actual evolution of cavalry is somehow the worst of the lot.
    The cost of Pistoliers is their greatest asset. They are the Imperial version of wolf rider archers, a cheap and fast moving throwaway unit you can stick int fornt of dudes to delay with, or deny charge bonuses from enemy cavalry, ir tie up shooting units. It's pretty much a straight translation of their role on the TT. Sure they won't beat most things but they buy you time to deal with those things.
    Except for the part where wolf riders are cheaper, have better range, more models (which reduces overkill, especially since they're firing on unarmoured targets) better speed and more ammo to boot.

    Did I mention that they have the same health, comparable melee and armor; not mention how wolf riders actually come in a variant that's both even cheaper than the ranged variant AND better in melee than Pistoliers?
    You are also conveniently missing the part where have LESS THAN HALF of the missile damage pistols do. Pretty disingenuous to forget about that. Even if you account for the difference in models, wolf riders are doing 56% of the damage per volley pistols are. Thats not even taking into account the fact that fast moving projectiles > slow moving arced fire. Also, even if you account for the ammo difference, wolf riders are doing less damage overall than pistols.

    If you want to check the math:
    Pistols: 38 dmg x 45 models = 1,710 per volley x 12 volleys = 20,520 total damage
    Wolf Riders: 16 dmg x 60 models = 960 per volley x 18 volleys = 17,280 total damage

    Idk where you are getting better melee stats either. They have 5 less armor, -12 ld, -3 MA, -2 charge. Unless you are accounting for Wagh, but then you probably wont be engaging missile cav in melee when you pop it.

    I dont disagree that the pistolier could use a small buff, but saying a unit is objectively worse than its counterpart while conveniently forgetting to mention it does twice as much damage per volley is a little scummy. Wolf riders on the whole are more cost efficient skirmish cav sure, but they also have less burst damage, less melee utility, and less leadership. All of which can be useful end game.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Cukie251 said:

    cool_lad said:

    cool_lad said:

    Free Company should have fire on the move and they'd be fine.


    Also aren't Outriders suppose to be dragoons, not missile cavalry?

    They're supposed to be the Empire's ranged specialists. They're armed with exotic engineer weapons instead of standard pistols or handguns; Repeater Handguns for the standard variant and Grenade launchers and Hochland Long Rifles for the special variants.
    That doesn't really answer my question
    The answer is no; Dragoons ride to a place, dismount and then fire. Outriders do not dismount to fight.

    Pistoliers at least seem to be modelled on Swedish cuirassiers after the reforms of Gustavus Adolphus, who wore light armour and discharged pistols from both hands before engaging in melee. The actual reality of Pistoliers is that they're pretty much good for nothing (low range, non AP, bad melee and terrible survivability) unless the enemy is served up to them on a plate. They're too cheap to get the sort of buffs that would make them good light cavalry (AP, better melee and better survivability).

    cool_lad said:

    Green0 said:

    against anything with 50 armor or less, Pistols are probably fine. The damage reduction isn't that big really. It's only when you start shooting stuff with 90 armor and/or good shield block that Pistols start to be cost-ineffective.

    I'd say a symbolic -$25 on Pistoliers is no problem. Wouldn't make them broken but perhaps would incentive to play 1-2 of these guys in their "average" matchups more.
    Free company now, idk, they are basically like a short-range archer unit that can pull their weight in melee as well. I see nothing wrong with a -$25 but at the same time in my opinion they're good as is. It's just that when you have the option to bring Handgunners, which have better range and are good vs unarmored AND armored targets, why would you bother picking Free company. Same as how Crossbowmen aren't exactly terrible for the cost either but when Handgunners are only $600, why would you ever bother with them.

    I think you misunderstand the issue. The point I'm making is that without actually being good as units, and not just as counterpicks, there's no point to the cheapness of these units.

    Their cost acts as a millstone around their necks which prevents them from being buffed and leaves them mediocre at best. Lower cost isn't actually of any use if the unit remains to worthless. So these are units that need to be buffed, even if it means an increase in cost.

    Pistols have such low range that there's no real point to using them unless you're facing an enemy that can literally not fire back at all, because by the time they do get into range, these units would be shredded by incoming fire. This means that pistol armed units already have very few opportunities to even use their weapons.

    At least with AP, these units can make something of the opportunities they do get and be generally useful instead of being confined to the nigh on pointless niche of extremely low range, non AP ranged units.

    Decent or even good melee capabilities are also needed, since pistols the low range of pistols means that these units can't afford to even stay at range.

    And that's particularly bad for say units like Pistoliers, who seem to be based on the Swedish cavalry of Gustavus Adolphus; firing off pistols at close range before joining into the melee. A unit that represents the actual evolution of cavalry is somehow the worst of the lot.
    The cost of Pistoliers is their greatest asset. They are the Imperial version of wolf rider archers, a cheap and fast moving throwaway unit you can stick int fornt of dudes to delay with, or deny charge bonuses from enemy cavalry, ir tie up shooting units. It's pretty much a straight translation of their role on the TT. Sure they won't beat most things but they buy you time to deal with those things.
    Except for the part where wolf riders are cheaper, have better range, more models (which reduces overkill, especially since they're firing on unarmoured targets) better speed and more ammo to boot.

    Did I mention that they have the same health, comparable melee and armor; not mention how wolf riders actually come in a variant that's both even cheaper than the ranged variant AND better in melee than Pistoliers?
    You are also conveniently missing the part where have LESS THAN HALF of the missile damage pistols do. Pretty disingenuous to forget about that. Even if you account for the difference in models, wolf riders are doing 56% of the damage per volley pistols are. Thats not even taking into account the fact that fast moving projectiles > slow moving arced fire. Also, even if you account for the ammo difference, wolf riders are doing less damage overall than pistols.

    If you want to check the math:
    Pistols: 38 dmg x 45 models = 1,710 per volley x 12 volleys = 20,520 total damage
    Wolf Riders: 16 dmg x 60 models = 960 per volley x 18 volleys = 17,280 total damage

    Idk where you are getting better melee stats either. They have 5 less armor, -12 ld, -3 MA, -2 charge. Unless you are accounting for Wagh, but then you probably wont be engaging missile cav in melee when you pop it.

    I dont disagree that the pistolier could use a small buff, but saying a unit is objectively worse than its counterpart while conveniently forgetting to mention it does twice as much damage per volley is a little scummy. Wolf riders on the whole are more cost efficient skirmish cav sure, but they also have less burst damage, less melee utility, and less leadership. All of which can be useful end game.
    And I'm not asking for them to become reavers or even marauders. But they're not throwaway units, and should be decent enough to be used as actual light cavalry.

    Decent melee and survivability to let them at least exploit vulnerable flanks and unguarded units without dying like flies, along with AP to allow them to to actually make the most of their limited ammo and range (and also because pistols did have AP in TT).
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,922
    look, you have no idea how to balance this game. Multiple people are telling you that AP would be broken, that they aren’t a terrible unit already and could use small buffs at best. They are also playable and it is you who can’t put them to good use, not the unit being bad.

    If all you’re willing to do is talk and you’re not willing to listen to and trust anyone in here, what’s the point of using a forum? It’s gonna be an endless vicious cycle. The format you’re looking for is conference talk, not forum I think.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Green0 said:

    look, you have no idea how to balance this game. Multiple people are telling you that AP would be broken, that they aren’t a terrible unit already and could use small buffs at best. They are also playable and it is you who can’t put them to good use, not the unit being bad.

    If all you’re willing to do is talk and you’re not willing to listen to and trust anyone in here, what’s the point of using a forum? It’s gonna be an endless vicious cycle. The format you’re looking for is conference talk, not forum I think.

    There's a pretty big difference between useable and good. Pistoliers are by all means 'useable' but they're not actually good. It's sort of like giving elven archers the same range as Brettonian longbowmen or giving Ellyrian Reavers a speed of 80 and removing their parthian shot; these units would still be useable, but not good.

    As for my knowledge of balancing or stats, while I'm no expert on game balancing, I think that I at least bothered to actually look up the unit i'm talking about before spouting my impressions about it.
    Green0 said:


    Pistoliers have no better or worse survivability than other skirmish cav.

    And lastly; at least decide whether you actually want Pistoliers to reflect TT or not
    Green0 said:


    ^ regarding Pistoliers well of course they have low range, this fits their TT nature perfectly...

    Green0 said:


    Buffing their melee stats wouldn't do justice to TT.

    Green0 said:


    1) Pistoliers being good in melee wouldn't reflect tabletop. Bring out all the Gustavus Adolphus you want, he didn't have to fight off Dragons I'm quite sure.

    Because right now it look like you want Pistoliers to reflect the TT, but only when it comes to their weaknesses and limitations; heaven forbid they get their strengths as well.

    Because the AP was just as much a part of Pistols as their range; and while their melee stats weren't anything spectacular, they weren't trash either.

    So before accusing me of being ignorant; research the unit, decide whether or not you want them to stay true to TT and understand the difference between 'mediocre but useable' and 'good'; because right now, all i'm getting from you boils down to "heaven forbid these units actually be as strong as they should; we can't be having any of that for the Empire, just give them their weaknesses and call it a day. Give them their strengths as well? Perish the thought!".
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,922
    edited October 2018
    pistoliers are usable-good, not every unit needs to be top-tier, deal with it.

    AP would be incredibly broken considering their high accuracy vs single entities and fast projectiles.

    And Str.4 in TT =/= AP. -1 to armor is also =/= AP. Like it or not, this game is balanced differently from TT, for example infantry units can have 100+ armor, which would reflect 2+ armor save and was impossible in TT.

    Regarding Peasant archers vs He archers, nice troll comparing these 2 units, too bad u didn’t know that Peasant archers cost -$75. If you want to give us HE peasant archers at $400 yes please, it would be a very nice upgrade. HE archers at release had massive accuracy, then they nerfed it and now they have (I think) still better accuracy than peasant bowmen but nowhere as good as before. $475 archers with 180 range vs $400 with 160, comes down to preference I’d say if you could buy both but in a roster like HE I’d personally choose $400 ones definitely.

    Regarding my mistake on HP, so funny you would point out 1 mistake in like 10 posts of a person who bothered to argue with you and explain to you why pistoliers are fine (as others did which you still fail to acknowledge). The reason I did this mistake is because often with skirmish cav you should dodge arrows regardless or stay out of range, which makes their health less relevant, although not irrelevant, which is why I assumed that they had the same HP as other skirmish cavs. Meanwhile you make bigger mistakes like thinking AP pistoliers would be a fun & cool unit when I’m sure Empire would become a lord sniping faction overnight, not to mention that AP on pistoliers would be just so stupid in many situations including for example $500 pistoliers kiting $1000+ Chaos Knights (or Grail Knights) to death with parthian shot. Perhaps you don’t see these balancing issues beforehand which is why you post half-baked ideas and continue arguing for them in spite of multiple people proving you wrong with overwhelming evidence.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Green0 said:

    pistoliers are usable-good, not every unit needs to be top-tier, deal with it.

    AP would be incredibly broken considering their high accuracy vs single entities and fast projectiles.

    And Str.4 in TT =/= AP. -1 to armor is also =/= AP. Like it or not, this game is balanced differently from TT, for example infantry units can have 100+ armor, which would reflect 2+ armor save and was impossible in TT.

    Regarding Peasant archers vs He archers, nice troll comparing these 2 units, too bad u didn’t know that Peasant archers cost -$75. If you want to give us HE peasant archers at $400 yes please, it would be a very nice upgrade. HE archers at release had massive accuracy, then they nerfed it and now they have (I think) still better accuracy than peasant bowmen but nowhere as good as before. $475 archers with 180 range vs $400 with 160, comes down to preference I’d say if you could buy both but in a roster like HE I’d personally choose $400 ones definitely.

    Regarding my mistake on HP, so funny you would point out 1 mistake in like 10 posts of a person who bothered to argue with you and explain to you why pistoliers are fine (as others did which you still fail to acknowledge). The reason I did this mistake is because often with skirmish cav you should dodge arrows regardless or stay out of range, which makes their health less relevant, although not irrelevant, which is why I assumed that they had the same HP as other skirmish cavs. Meanwhile you make bigger mistakes like thinking AP pistoliers would be a fun & cool unit when I’m sure Empire would become a lord sniping faction overnight, not to mention that AP on pistoliers would be just so stupid in many situations including for example $500 pistoliers kiting $1000+ Chaos Knights (or Grail Knights) to death with parthian shot. Perhaps you don’t see these balancing issues beforehand which is why you post half-baked ideas and continue arguing for them in spite of multiple people proving you wrong with overwhelming evidence.

    Warhammer Fantasy 8th Ed Rulebook. Pistol; Range 12", Strength 4, Special Rules: Armour Piercing and Quick to Fire. All of that ring any bells? It's literally written down as a special rule for the weapon in the rulebook. And as much as the game may differ from the TT, it's still based on it.

    And if you're all that concerned with just how OP mobile AP ranged is in this game, where are your howls of protest against marauder horsemen? They come with really good AP (pretty similar to what Pistoliers would, or rather, should have) and the same mobility, throwing in much better melee for good measure and buffed even further with Rage if you're Norscan. Heck, if anything, it's throwing axes that have overbuffed range (which should be half that of Pistols) and AP (since they actually lack the AP special rule and instead have strength +1); but that's perfectly alright since they're not the Empire, so they need not wallow in mediocirty.

    If you're so concerned with lord sniping, the solution would be to reduce calibration distance and area instead of excusing the unit being incorrectly implemented.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,922
    edited October 2018
    I literally explained in my last post that Pistoliers have better accuracy (calibration range 60 vs 40 of Marauders horsemen), smaller calibration area (1.6 vs 2), 10 more range and better burst. On top of this, Marauder horsemen throwing axes cost $100 more and have no advantages over Pistoliers other than health and AP (which you propose to give to Pistoliers).

    It is clear by now that you not only care very little for balancing and think that every unit should be "good in every situation" (which would mean that there are no bad units in the game anymore, I hope you realize how stupid this statement is), but also suffer heavily from selective reading (reading the bits you want and ignoring the rest as well as the general sense), which is why this will be my last post. Thank god the devs don't only read these forums to make their balancing decisions, and they can decide better than you hopefully how to balance Pistoliers. They might get a cost reduction but hey, I highly doubt AP is on the radar kid ;)
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Green0 said:

    I literally explained in my last post that Pistoliers have better accuracy (calibration range 60 vs 40 of Marauders horsemen), smaller calibration area (1.6 vs 2), 10 more range and better burst. On top of this, Marauder horsemen throwing axes cost $100 more and have no advantages over Pistoliers other than health and AP (which you propose to give to Pistoliers).

    It is clear by now that you not only care very little for balancing and think that every unit should be "good in every situation" (which would mean that there are no bad units in the game anymore, I hope you realize how stupid this statement is), but also suffer heavily from selective reading (reading the bits you want and ignoring the rest as well as the general sense), which is why this will be my last post. Thank god the devs don't only read these forums to make their balancing decisions, and they can decide better than you hopefully how to balance Pistoliers. They might get a cost reduction but hey, I highly doubt AP is on the radar kid ;)

    You really haven't seen the stats for those 2 units; have you?

    Alright; let me list the differences, with my special selective reading glasses (even after I ignore the AP and the very bugged burst damage):-
    1. +4 Melee Attack
    2. +12 Charge Bonus
    3. +12 Melee Defense
    4. +900 health
    5. Shielded
    6. Rage (for Norscan variants)

    So let's not pretend that you even bother to check up on the unit or information before commenting. Or for that matter even remember the original point (that they should be properly implemented, even if it means they more cost). Or for that matter even bother to read the posts, since you blithely seemed to ignore the last part.

    As for selective reading; what exactly am I missing about Pistols from the TT rulebook? I'm genuinely curious, because with one breath you say that the unit should have the range limitation of TT, and with the other you say that TT strengths and rules are seemingly irrelevant for determining whether or not Pistols should have AP.

    As for your last post; you made a pretty big presumption, without even bothering to actually check the unit. Something you seem determined to do if that patently false statement of " have no advantages over Pistoliers other than health and AP" and your repeated ad populum arguments are anything to go by.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 942
    edited October 2018
    cool_lad said:

    Green0 said:

    I literally explained in my last post that Pistoliers have better accuracy (calibration range 60 vs 40 of Marauders horsemen), smaller calibration area (1.6 vs 2), 10 more range and better burst. On top of this, Marauder horsemen throwing axes cost $100 more and have no advantages over Pistoliers other than health and AP (which you propose to give to Pistoliers).

    It is clear by now that you not only care very little for balancing and think that every unit should be "good in every situation" (which would mean that there are no bad units in the game anymore, I hope you realize how stupid this statement is), but also suffer heavily from selective reading (reading the bits you want and ignoring the rest as well as the general sense), which is why this will be my last post. Thank god the devs don't only read these forums to make their balancing decisions, and they can decide better than you hopefully how to balance Pistoliers. They might get a cost reduction but hey, I highly doubt AP is on the radar kid ;)

    You really haven't seen the stats for those 2 units; have you?

    Alright; let me list the differences, with my special selective reading glasses (even after I ignore the AP and the very bugged burst damage):-
    1. +4 Melee Attack
    2. +12 Charge Bonus
    3. +12 Melee Defense
    4. +900 health
    5. Shielded
    6. Rage (for Norscan variants)

    So let's not pretend that you even bother to check up on the unit or information before commenting. Or for that matter even remember the original point (that they should be properly implemented, even if it means they more cost). Or for that matter even bother to read the posts, since you blithely seemed to ignore the last part.

    As for selective reading; what exactly am I missing about Pistols from the TT rulebook? I'm genuinely curious, because with one breath you say that the unit should have the range limitation of TT, and with the other you say that TT strengths and rules are seemingly irrelevant for determining whether or not Pistols should have AP.

    As for your last post; you made a pretty big presumption, without even bothering to actually check the unit. Something you seem determined to do if that patently false statement of " have no advantages over Pistoliers other than health and AP" and your repeated ad populum arguments are anything to go by.
    Speaking of being selective and not reading stats, you are once again casually omitting extremely important information when comparing two units. Here are some stats you decided to leave out.

    -7 damage. What does that mean? That means pistols are better against lightly armored targets. Nice of you to leave that out
    100+ gold cost
    -10 range
    -15 armor
    Also the slowest moving and easiest to dodge projectile in the game. One that is also fairly inaccurate against any non-massive single entity unit.

    Dude, if you are going to compare two units, at least make a tiny effort to not push your agenda. You cant just take two units, say one unit is better at everything, and then omit any positive qualities the other unit has. The cost and damage difference alone are very significant.

    AP on pistoliers is absurd. Accept it. They are a 500 gold, high burst damage, fire on the move cav. If you gave them ap they would completely obsolete both outriders, and handgunners. There is also not a single ap missile cav in the game under $600.

    Its okay that a unit is specialized in an anti-light armor role, most skirmish cav is. The differentiater of pistols is their incredibly high burst damage. If you have an issue with how effective the unit is at applying the damage, then its something worth addressing that many of the comments here have already discussed.

    As it stands you are asking to rework a unit that has no need of one. It fills a niche role and sees situational play, that means the unit has potential.
  • GeneralConfusionGeneralConfusion Registered Users Posts: 1,009
    AP on pistoliers would be incredibly overpowered; if you want your fast skirmish cavalry to be able to melt Black Orcs and Swordmasters, then they'll need to be priced like Black Orcs and Swordmasters.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 4,206
    cool_lad said:

    Warhammer Fantasy 8th Ed Rulebook. Pistol; Range 12", Strength 4, Special Rules: Armour Piercing and Quick to Fire. All of that ring any bells? It's literally written down as a special rule for the weapon in the rulebook. And as much as the game may differ from the TT, it's still based on it.

    AP In total war is not at comparable to AP in Table Top.

    AP as in Table Top translated to total war would be more like this shot does X damage the unit looses 20 armor for the purposes of calculating this damage.

    AP in Total war is this shot does X damage Y% of that ignores armor, where Y is 50% or Greater.

    The fact that you don't know that again shows you know jack all about this game and should just shut your dumb mouth.
    Give us Doombull, Great Bray-Shaman, Wargor, and Tuskgor Chariot.

  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    OdTengri said:

    cool_lad said:

    Warhammer Fantasy 8th Ed Rulebook. Pistol; Range 12", Strength 4, Special Rules: Armour Piercing and Quick to Fire. All of that ring any bells? It's literally written down as a special rule for the weapon in the rulebook. And as much as the game may differ from the TT, it's still based on it.

    AP In total war is not at comparable to AP in Table Top.

    AP as in Table Top translated to total war would be more like this shot does X damage the unit looses 20 armor for the purposes of calculating this damage.

    AP in Total war is this shot does X damage Y% of that ignores armor, where Y is 50% or Greater.

    The fact that you don't know that again shows you know jack all about this game and should just shut your dumb mouth.
    The fact that Armour Piercing acts differently than how it does in TW, does not change the fact that the Armour Piercing special rule does exist in the TT to indicate what weapons are explicitly supposed to be able to penetrate armour. It's the reason handguns and repeater crossbows have AP, because their rules explicitly mention Armour Piercing as a rule for them.

    The same holds for Pistols; Armour Piercing is mentioned as a rule for them. This is part and parcel of how the weapon is; short ranged, Quick to Fire and Armour Piercing. I fail to see how the minutiae of how stats work in the game vs TT have any bearing on the concept of the weapon itself, which is what should be faithfully translated.

    AP on pistoliers would be incredibly overpowered; if you want your fast skirmish cavalry to be able to melt Black Orcs and Swordmasters, then they'll need to be priced like Black Orcs and Swordmasters.

    So Marauder Horsemen (Throwing Axes) and Centigors (Throwing Axes) cost 1000+? Must have missed that update.

    As for the damage that Pistoliers do; they, like Outriders, actually do far less than their stated DPS values, since the rate of fire bug (still not fixed) means that Pistoliers take about 13-14 seconds between shots instead of the stated 8.3.

    The Empire was the first faction to be finished, and nowhere does it show better than the bad implementation of their light cavalry, which seems to have retained it's weaknesses, while losing it's strengths from the TT.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,922
    edited October 2018
    the Empire has got to be the single faction with the most variety of AP sources of damage. If you need more you’re probably not that good of an Empire player.

    Also, more AP in this game would dumb strategy down. If everything is AP, no point in bringing armor anyway. So no sorry, we don’t need more AP, certainly not on Empire which has its problems (leadership, weak air, no amazing LLs to name a few) but addressing pistoliers is pointless when there’s units that need more help.

    Also, no strong reason why Chaos Knights, wearing thick steel armor further enchanted by Chaos smiths would need to suffer from AP from a puny pistol at calibration range (60m). Would be irrealistic, early pistols weren’t that strong and on top of this we’re talking max range. Same for Chaos warriors, have you seen those armors and shields, I mean they have 28 something speed for a reason, and on top of this they need to be trashed by a unit that costs vastly less than them after sacrificing so much speed to buy protection? Moral of the story, the devs try to find an approximation of RL performance in each unit.

    Melee stats are also useless on such a unit, if you want melee stats on them again probably you don’t get how skirmish cav should be used. Ellyrean reavers have melee stats but sometimes you wish they didn’t, like vs Chaos where having Goblin wolf riders would be literally better. Dark riders crossbows also have pathetic stats but are a good ranged unit. Clearly there is a pattern here. 19/20 times you don’t need melee stats on your skirmish cav for additional gold cost. Some factions are forced to have them like HE but you can’t really say cheaper Reavers with lower melee would be trash. In many matchups they would be better and in the remaining ones you could buy 1 more archer or perhaps fit in an additional SH to do the anti-skirmisher job better.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Green0 said:

    the Empire has got to be the single faction with the most variety of AP sources of damage. If you need more you’re probably not that good of an Empire player.

    Also, more AP in this game would dumb strategy down. If everything is AP, no point in bringing armor anyway. So no sorry, we don’t need more AP, certainly not on Empire which has its problems (leadership, weak air, no amazing LLs to name a few) but addressing pistoliers is pointless when there’s units that need more help.

    Also, no strong reason why Chaos Knights, wearing thick steel armor further enchanted by Chaos smiths would need to suffer from AP from a puny pistol at calibration range (60m). Would be irrealistic, early pistols weren’t that strong and on top of this we’re talking max range. Moral of the story, the devs try to find an approximation of RL performance in each unit.

    Melee stats are also useless on such a unit, if you want melee stats on them again probably you don’t get how skirmish cav should be used. Ellyrean reavers have melee stats but sometimes you wish they didn’t, like vs Chaos where having Goblin wolf riders would be literally better. Dark riders crossbows also have pathetic stats but are a good ranged unit. Clearly there is a pattern here. 19/20 times you don’t need melee stats on your skirmish cav for additional gold cost. Some factions are forced to have them like HE but you can’t really say cheaper Reavers with lower melee would be trash. In many matchups they would be better and in the remaining ones you could buy 1 more archer or perhaps fit in an additional SH to do the anti-skirmisher job better.

    Are you now bringing in extraneous arguments to somehow claim that, regardless of what the TT says, Pistoliers shouldn't have AP? This after emphasizing that the unit's range should be low precisely because this was so in the TT.

    Looking at the TT; the Empire was one of the strongest ranged factions, being characterized by an army that. by and large, had no issues when faced with armour due to the sheer amount of units in their lineup that had AP; not to mention the divisions rule, that allowed these units to be a lot more resilient to charges than was apparent on the face of it.

    As for damage; the Empire also has plenty of better, far longer ranged and less bugged sources of non AP damage as well; what's more, these sources tend to be AoE, and therefore a lot more useful when dealing with unarmoured units.

    The whole point of blackpowder weapons (especially guns) is that they can (and indeed, do in fact do so on the TT) penetrate armour; it's why armies shifted away from things like bows and crossbows to pistols for cavalry. Indeed, the Empire is by and large based on the exact sort of armies that made armour extinct in the real world. The whole point of shifting to gunpowder weapons is that armour is no longer a massive concern for you; the shift to gunpowder IRL, coincided with armies abandoning armour because it had become a liability on battlefields where the enemy's ranged units, from the most lowly skirmishers to the pistol armed light cavalry could easily penetrate that armour using their guns.

    I could also point you to some good resources that record just how useless armour was considered in armies which used and/or faced off against gunpowder weapons; to the extent that their leaders actually asked their suppliers to not bother even supplying armour, since there was no point to it and the men found it a liability in actual combat now that it could no longer protect them.

    And if we were imitating real life, handguns would easily outrange longbows, flamethrowers would be extremely effective at killing armoured enemies and Knights would be worthless, since they died out (in a very literal sense of the term) pretty quickly after blackpowder weapons began to be introduced. So I think that TT would be a better guide all the same.

    I'm willing to accept the lack of melee, but the AP is a pretty defining characteristic of what the Pistol is on the TT, not some extra rule that can be negotiated.

    After that, perhaps some more health to bring the unit in line with other light cavalry and maybe some MD to add to that survivability and make them at least clearly better in that respect (survivability) than wolf riders.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 4,206
    cool_lad said:

    OdTengri said:

    cool_lad said:

    Warhammer Fantasy 8th Ed Rulebook. Pistol; Range 12", Strength 4, Special Rules: Armour Piercing and Quick to Fire. All of that ring any bells? It's literally written down as a special rule for the weapon in the rulebook. And as much as the game may differ from the TT, it's still based on it.

    AP In total war is not at comparable to AP in Table Top.

    AP as in Table Top translated to total war would be more like this shot does X damage the unit looses 20 armor for the purposes of calculating this damage.

    AP in Total war is this shot does X damage Y% of that ignores armor, where Y is 50% or Greater.

    The fact that you don't know that again shows you know jack all about this game and should just shut your dumb mouth.
    The fact that Armour Piercing acts differently than how it does in TW, does not change the fact that the Armour Piercing special rule does exist in the TT to indicate what weapons are explicitly supposed to be able to penetrate armour. It's the reason handguns and repeater crossbows have AP, because their rules explicitly mention Armour Piercing as a rule for them.

    The same holds for Pistols; Armour Piercing is mentioned as a rule for them. This is part and parcel of how the weapon is; short ranged, Quick to Fire and Armour Piercing. I fail to see how the minutiae of how stats work in the game vs TT have any bearing on the concept of the weapon itself, which is what should be faithfully translated.
    Dude, do you know how many wood elf units are supposed to have Armor Piercing that don't.... Like really, every Elf unit in the roster is supposed to have AP, but they don't for play balance reasons. Your precious Pistoliers can take a similar hit if it leads to a better more fairly balanced game.

    Again AP is far more powerful in TW and not every TT Unit that had it deserves it in TW.
    Give us Doombull, Great Bray-Shaman, Wargor, and Tuskgor Chariot.

  • GeneralConfusionGeneralConfusion Registered Users Posts: 1,009

    AP on pistoliers would be incredibly overpowered; if you want your fast skirmish cavalry to be able to melt Black Orcs and Swordmasters, then they'll need to be priced like Black Orcs and Swordmasters.

    So Marauder Horsemen (Throwing Axes) and Centigors (Throwing Axes) cost 1000+? Must have missed that update.

    As for the damage that Pistoliers do; they, like Outriders, actually do far less than their stated DPS values, since the rate of fire bug (still not fixed) means that Pistoliers take about 13-14 seconds between shots instead of the stated 8.3.

    The Empire was the first faction to be finished, and nowhere does it show better than the bad implementation of their light cavalry, which seems to have retained it's weaknesses, while losing it's strengths from the TT.

    Marauder Horsemen and Centigors have nothing even close to the burst damage of Pistoliers, if Pistoliers were given AP.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    OdTengri said:

    cool_lad said:

    OdTengri said:

    cool_lad said:

    Warhammer Fantasy 8th Ed Rulebook. Pistol; Range 12", Strength 4, Special Rules: Armour Piercing and Quick to Fire. All of that ring any bells? It's literally written down as a special rule for the weapon in the rulebook. And as much as the game may differ from the TT, it's still based on it.

    AP In total war is not at comparable to AP in Table Top.

    AP as in Table Top translated to total war would be more like this shot does X damage the unit looses 20 armor for the purposes of calculating this damage.

    AP in Total war is this shot does X damage Y% of that ignores armor, where Y is 50% or Greater.

    The fact that you don't know that again shows you know jack all about this game and should just shut your dumb mouth.
    The fact that Armour Piercing acts differently than how it does in TW, does not change the fact that the Armour Piercing special rule does exist in the TT to indicate what weapons are explicitly supposed to be able to penetrate armour. It's the reason handguns and repeater crossbows have AP, because their rules explicitly mention Armour Piercing as a rule for them.

    The same holds for Pistols; Armour Piercing is mentioned as a rule for them. This is part and parcel of how the weapon is; short ranged, Quick to Fire and Armour Piercing. I fail to see how the minutiae of how stats work in the game vs TT have any bearing on the concept of the weapon itself, which is what should be faithfully translated.
    Dude, do you know how many wood elf units are supposed to have Armor Piercing that don't.... Like really, every Elf unit in the roster is supposed to have AP, but they don't for play balance reasons. Your precious Pistoliers can take a similar hit if it leads to a better more fairly balanced game.

    Again AP is far more powerful in TW and not every TT Unit that had it deserves it in TW.
    I'd be happy to see the WE units get the AP, so long of course, as they also represented the lower damage that went with the AP. Strength 3 IIRC, and considering that a strength 4 pistol is 15 damage, I do wonder what strength 3 would be, 10-12, I guess.


    Marauder Horsemen and Centigors have nothing even close to the burst damage of Pistoliers, if Pistoliers were given AP.

    Let's do some math, shall we? Throwing Axes do 28 total damage per shot, a pistol on the other hand does 15 damage per shot. Now, a pair of pistols fired together (like the Pistoliers do if that bug has been fixed) will do 15+15=30 damage per shot.

    Seeing as how all these units are 60 men in total, that's a total difference of 120 damage between them.

    Except it doesn't stop there, we should also consider the reload rate. Throwing Axes have a reload speed of 9 seconds, while pistols have a reload speed of 8.9 seconds. Sounds pretty similar. Except for the part where pistols are bugged, so their actual reload speed is more like 14 seconds. Now, taking the actual numbers into account, by the time (LCM of their reload rates) a unit of Pistoliers has fired off 9 volleys (16,200 total damage), Marauders or Centigors will have fired off 14 volleys(23,520 total damage). See the difference there?

    So, please disabuse yourself of this misguided notion that Pistoliers somehow do enough burst damage to be so much better than Marauders or Centigors. They really don't, and that's before you consider just how massively inferior their damage over time is.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,922
    edited October 2018
    cool_lad said:


    I'd be happy to see the WE units get the AP.

    Yea but why fix something that is working? I mean this game shouldn't be only AP units. Like others have said AP in TW can't be translated to this game because what counted in TT was overall Strength and bonus modifiers, whereas in this game as soon as a unit gets AP, it means that at least 50% of its damage is AP, as in armor offers 0 protection vs it. Personally I believe Eternal Guard having AP is equally stupid as Pistoliers not having AP from TT, but I understand that this is done for balancing reasons and to give an overall good gaming experience.

    I mean bro if you love your TT rules so much play TT maybe instead of TW? Only know that Pistoliers shooting at Chaos Knights there, AP or no still gave Chaos Knights a 3+ armor save. This is not what you propose in this game where Chaos Knights would be melted by Pistoliers, 0 counterplay possible, too high efficiency for a $500 gold unit.

    Regarding Marauder throwing axes, if you actually tested them or looked up hidden stats you would know that they aren't really that accurate to begin with. Their total DPS looks good on paper, but they perform average on the field. Also, perhaps more importantly, they are the only source of ranged AP damage for Chaos if you exclude Hellcannons which are impractical vs many units, whereas the Empire has tons of others. They also cost $100 more, have less armor and, again, are balanced for a faction that has little mobility or ranged AP otherwise. You choosing to ignore these aspects serves to further a convenient narrative, a narrative that is wrong nonetheless.

    TW is a good game, better than that trashy TT with the cavalry/monster dominance for 6 editions, randomness, abusive lists, corner campers could ever hope to be. We should only selectively pick from TT and not transpose it 1 to 1 for a better experience.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 4,206
    edited October 2018
    cool_lad said:

    I'd be happy to see the WE units get the AP, so long of course, as they also represented the lower damage that went with the AP. Strength 3 IIRC, and considering that a strength 4 pistol is 15 damage, I do wonder what strength 3 would be, 10-12, I guess.

    Well then buddy you'd be wrong again, if a Toughness 3 model that has 1 wound = About 60 HP, than a 3 STR hit would be at least 60 Damage. STR 4 should probably be 80.

    But again this isn't TT this is TW and really its not the same game.
    Give us Doombull, Great Bray-Shaman, Wargor, and Tuskgor Chariot.

  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 942
    edited October 2018
    Cool_lad threads are the best because the more people who say his ideas are bad, the further he just entrenches into his argument.

    The reality is that I don't think anyone would be opposed to giving some minor buffs to pistols in the form of reload speed or total ammo. AP is totally off the table though. Aside from the fact that an armor piercing 360 degree shooting unit would need to be priced 700 - 800 in the empire roster (since its better than both outriders and handguns), it just makes no sense given the Empire's current variety of ap damage.

    If pistols are gliched and should fire faster, fine, that needs to be addressed.But the wise words of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" really apply here. Pistols see situational use as a cheap skirmish cav with decent burst damage and high accuracy, there is no reason to remove that role from the empire roster in order to make an outrider clone.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    Cukie251 said:

    Cool_lad threads are the best because the more people who say his ideas are bad, the further he just entrenches into his argument.

    The reality is that I don't think anyone would be opposed to giving some minor buffs to pistols in the form of reload speed or total ammo. AP is totally off the table though. Aside from the fact that an armor piercing 360 degree shooting unit would need to be priced 700 - 800 in the empire roster (since its better than both outriders and handguns), it just makes no sense given the Empire's current variety of ap damage.

    If pistols are gliched and should fire faster, fine, that needs to be addressed.But the wise words of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" really apply here. Pistols see situational use as a cheap skirmish cav with decent burst damage and high accuracy, there is no reason to remove that role from the empire roster in order to make an outrider clone.

    Outriders themselves are bugged all to hell and badly implemented to boot. Even if the bugs were removed, Outriders are a significantly different unit than Pistoliers, even after Pistoliers are given AP damage.
    Cukie251 said:

    "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

    Pistoliers are quite literally broken, and not in a good way, so it is broke and needs fixing.

    As for the propositoon that Pistoliers are good value.

    Let me break that down, shall I?

    Comparing the value of Pistoliers to another units that costs the same as them, Marauder Horsemen (javelins).

    Pistoliers have the following advantages over marauders (javelins):-
    1. 2 more morale
    2. 9 more points of non AP damage per volley
    3. 15 more armour (with the total coming to a princely 30 armour)

    As opposed to the Marauders, who get:-
    1. 3 more AP damage
    2. 12 more points of charge bonus
    3. 4 more points of MA
    4. 6 more points of MD
    5. 15 more health
    6. 6 more shots

    So I think I can quite easily claim that, for all intents and purposes, all Pistoliers actually have over Marauders, after you offset the morale and armour, are 9 more points of non AP damage per volley, delivered far slower than they should be, ultimately creating a unit that is seemingly inferior than even units within it's own price range.

    Now let's see what happens when we add in 100 points of value to these to get Marauder Horsemen (Throwing Axes)

    When compared to their javelin armed variant; throwing axes have:-
    1. 5 more points of total damage
    2. 14 more points of AP damage (3x that of Javelins)
    3. Bronze shield
    4. 10 less range
    5. 6 less ammo (12 shots; the same as Pistoliers)

    So let's not pretend that the addition of AP to pistoliers is the direct addition of 200 or 300 more value. They barely (if at all) even come up to 500 gold value units, which seem to be all round better than them. The addition of AP, considering their already lackluster health and melee would bring them up to 500 gold worth of value, instead of pushing them evne close to 600 value territory.

    And that's before you consider Free Company Militia, who come with only one pistol and therefore do only 14 total ranged damage to begin with (12 non AP + 2 AP).

    Simply shifting this balance of AP to non AP damage to something like 10 AP and 5 non AP would not be all that incongruous. Pistoliers would do 20 AP and 10 non AP damage, (still less than throwing axes), while Free Company would do 10 AP and 5 non AP damage. There's nothing particularly overpowered about that, considering the fact that these units already come with significant limitations that place them well below other units at their price.
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Registered Users Posts: 3,757
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 4,206
    NO
    Give us Doombull, Great Bray-Shaman, Wargor, and Tuskgor Chariot.

  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,922
    eh I guess I’ll join in.

    No.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 942
    cool_lad said:

    Cukie251 said:

    Cool_lad threads are the best because the more people who say his ideas are bad, the further he just entrenches into his argument.

    The reality is that I don't think anyone would be opposed to giving some minor buffs to pistols in the form of reload speed or total ammo. AP is totally off the table though. Aside from the fact that an armor piercing 360 degree shooting unit would need to be priced 700 - 800 in the empire roster (since its better than both outriders and handguns), it just makes no sense given the Empire's current variety of ap damage.

    If pistols are gliched and should fire faster, fine, that needs to be addressed.But the wise words of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" really apply here. Pistols see situational use as a cheap skirmish cav with decent burst damage and high accuracy, there is no reason to remove that role from the empire roster in order to make an outrider clone.

    Outriders themselves are bugged all to hell and badly implemented to boot. Even if the bugs were removed, Outriders are a significantly different unit than Pistoliers, even after Pistoliers are given AP damage.
    Cukie251 said:

    "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

    Pistoliers are quite literally broken, and not in a good way, so it is broke and needs fixing.

    As for the propositoon that Pistoliers are good value.

    Let me break that down, shall I?

    Comparing the value of Pistoliers to another units that costs the same as them, Marauder Horsemen (javelins).

    Pistoliers have the following advantages over marauders (javelins):-
    1. 2 more morale
    2. 9 more points of non AP damage per volley
    3. 15 more armour (with the total coming to a princely 30 armour)

    As opposed to the Marauders, who get:-
    1. 3 more AP damage
    2. 12 more points of charge bonus
    3. 4 more points of MA
    4. 6 more points of MD
    5. 15 more health
    6. 6 more shots

    So I think I can quite easily claim that, for all intents and purposes, all Pistoliers actually have over Marauders, after you offset the morale and armour, are 9 more points of non AP damage per volley, delivered far slower than they should be, ultimately creating a unit that is seemingly inferior than even units within it's own price range.

    Now let's see what happens when we add in 100 points of value to these to get Marauder Horsemen (Throwing Axes)

    When compared to their javelin armed variant; throwing axes have:-
    1. 5 more points of total damage
    2. 14 more points of AP damage (3x that of Javelins)
    3. Bronze shield
    4. 10 less range
    5. 6 less ammo (12 shots; the same as Pistoliers)

    So let's not pretend that the addition of AP to pistoliers is the direct addition of 200 or 300 more value. They barely (if at all) even come up to 500 gold value units, which seem to be all round better than them. The addition of AP, considering their already lackluster health and melee would bring them up to 500 gold worth of value, instead of pushing them evne close to 600 value territory.

    And that's before you consider Free Company Militia, who come with only one pistol and therefore do only 14 total ranged damage to begin with (12 non AP + 2 AP).

    Simply shifting this balance of AP to non AP damage to something like 10 AP and 5 non AP would not be all that incongruous. Pistoliers would do 20 AP and 10 non AP damage, (still less than throwing axes), while Free Company would do 10 AP and 5 non AP damage. There's nothing particularly overpowered about that, considering the fact that these units already come with significant limitations that place them well below other units at their price.
    Nope Nope Nope. You need to compare the units in context of the EMPIRE roster. Not in the context of a roster with 1 armor piercing ranged unit. (also ignoring the fact that throwing axes are a god awful projectile).

    At a baseline the unit would need to cost more than handgunners because thats how missile cav pricing works. Armor piercing cav ALWAYS costs more than non-mounted armor piercing (because you have to pay less to defend them, and its easier to position them). That alone would price them at 650 to 700 gold.

    Now you have to look at outriders. If you seriously cant understand that both outriders and pistols are ranged missile cav, idk what to tell you, armor piercing pistols and outriders would engage the same type of targets. They cost 700. Higher speed + 360 shooting + more burst = higher value than outriders. Ergo, you would need to price them above 700. It would also destroy heavy cav due to its superior speed, something outriders cant do because they need to stop to shoot.

    Why would i EVER use handguns or outriders if I have a 500 gold armor piercing missile cav?

    This just shows us that you havent thought at all about the implications of a 500 gold armor piercing cav with 360 shooting. Marauder horsemen with axes have such a bad and innacurate projectile that the only thing they can HOPE to hit are massive single entities, and they still cost 600. Pistols would be able to hunt lords and heavy cav. For 500 gold? The projectile alone is worth more than the throwing axes because axes cannot hit anything being actively micro managed. What a joke.


  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,932
    +4 ammo is all they need.

    If CA is super generous they might give +1 ap in addition to ammo thats it
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
Sign In or Register to comment.