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

Unshielded variants should have improved offensive stats over shielded variants of units.

sandercohensandercohen Registered Users Posts: 444
In campaign, there is no reason to take unshielded variants of units because they lack a shield and typically have lower MD. I think it would be more interesting if unshielded variants had better offensive stats. Both for singleplayer as well as multiplayer it would make the decision between taking unshielded or shielded variants more tactical and interesting.

Unshielded variants having better offensive stats makes sense when you think about, let's take empire spears as an example, entities in the unshielded variant would have two hands to operate the spear and would not be encumbered by a shield. Giving them better MA, WS, CB is entirely understandable. While shielded variants would obviously have a shield as well as better MD.

Now this is already the case for some units. Take Gor Herds for instance, the unshielded variants has better offensive stats. What do you say, should every variant get the Gor Herd treatment?
Post edited by CA_Will on
«13

Comments

  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565
    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 2,003
    I think a slight adjustment wouldn't be a problem at all.

    +1-2 MA
    + 1-2 WS
    + 2-3CB
    Would at least make it slightly more interesting and wouldn't unbalance anything in particular.

    Bigger stat changes would need more consideration.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,329
    I think it should be charge bonus, but than the cost would need to be bit closer together
  • JirzikJirzik Registered Users Posts: 452
    WS could be better. Holding spear with both hands should give you some advantage.
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 18,939
    they and were unnecessary bloat but since their here i do agree they need to be more offensively focused

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,910
    I would give GWs +4 MA and +50 gold


    Maybe roll back the cost nerf on hammerers.
  • Pocman#6295Pocman#6295 Registered Users Posts: 5,681
    No.


    It doesn't make sense. It is not how it work in real life


    Unshielded variants should be deleted from the game
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Pocman said:

    No.


    It doesn't make sense. It is not how it work in real life


    Unshielded variants should be deleted from the game

    Taking a spear or other polearm in both hands does make it easier to aim and allows you to stab with more strength at the expense of range.
  • LoreguyLoreguy Registered Users Posts: 1,721
    Unshielded variants are mainly for multiplayer. No need to pay extra against VC or WoC. Same for HE archers with armor.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    Loreguy said:

    Unshielded variants are mainly for multiplayer. No need to pay extra against VC or WoC. Same for HE archers with armor.

    except the missile block is basically free and often shielded versions are stronger in melee (its 50/50 as far as i can tell). its often a tier thing but with so little difference in price and power it basically doesnt matter.

    As to GW infantry its a completely different thing, where they are worse vs low armor and stronger vs high armor.
    Its a little odd that the versions unshielded exist when so many things dont, but since they're here I dont see an issue, lot of things become unviable in campaign. Maybe they should be slightly cheaper so they are actually a little stronger pr gold in melee, but that would indirectly be a nerf of low/nonranged factions
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 18,939
    Kebab_man said:

    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive

    dwarf GW weapon units excluding hammerar needs a re balance asap imo , they need More MA in exchange for MD .

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • damon40000#7640damon40000#7640 Registered Users Posts: 1,787
    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive

    dwarf GW weapon units excluding hammerar needs a re balance asap imo , they need More MA in exchange for MD .
    also there should be at least one chaf clearing unit(blasting charges go boom, but will it kill something to have 1 even ror antiinfantry unit)
    BsFG dwarf
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,747
    Pocman said:

    No.


    It doesn't make sense. It is not how it work in real life


    Unshielded variants should be deleted from the game

    Ok the first part is wrong. It's very different to wield a spear with two hands instead of one. Or basically all things that have plenty room for both hands for that matter.

    But I agree with the second part. It's pretty obvious that the combo of spear and shield proved superior to just the spear, even if double wielding. The only weapons that were truly double wielding were the ones that wielding them with one hand was pretty impossible (pikes, great weapons/polearms).

    So yes the unshielded variants need to go. They never really existed in previous TW titles (except Shogun where there are no shields at all) because they never existed irl. Shields are the bare minimum equipment and one the first tools of war recorded. The reason there are unshielded variants is exclusively the TT and its fetish of customising everything to make maximum use of the points given.

    But what you can do to keep variants and the choice of going a bit cheaper or not, is to have variants in armour, the elf archers or chaos trolls way. Variants that existed in the historical titles btw (light and heavy spearmen etc.) Which makes sense, armor was the last thing provided, being the most expensive and hardest to equip whole armies with.
    Prettiest of the foot overlords.
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,747
    I mean how dumb it is for silver helms to have unshielded variant. They can afford horses and armor and cheapened out on the shields? ****
    Prettiest of the foot overlords.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited August 2021

    Pocman said:

    No.


    It doesn't make sense. It is not how it work in real life


    Unshielded variants should be deleted from the game

    Ok the first part is wrong. It's very different to wield a spear with two hands instead of one. Or basically all things that have plenty room for both hands for that matter.

    But I agree with the second part. It's pretty obvious that the combo of spear and shield proved superior to just the spear, even if double wielding. The only weapons that were truly double wielding were the ones that wielding them with one hand was pretty impossible (pikes, great weapons/polearms).
    The Japanese used spears without shields and it's not like they didn't know about shields since the Mongols used them when they invaded Japan and the lack of shields didn't hamper the effectiveness of their troops later when they invaded Korea.
  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565

    Pocman said:

    No.


    It doesn't make sense. It is not how it work in real life


    Unshielded variants should be deleted from the game

    Ok the first part is wrong. It's very different to wield a spear with two hands instead of one. Or basically all things that have plenty room for both hands for that matter.

    But I agree with the second part. It's pretty obvious that the combo of spear and shield proved superior to just the spear, even if double wielding. The only weapons that were truly double wielding were the ones that wielding them with one hand was pretty impossible (pikes, great weapons/polearms).

    So yes the unshielded variants need to go. They never really existed in previous TW titles (except Shogun where there are no shields at all) because they never existed irl. Shields are the bare minimum equipment and one the first tools of war recorded. The reason there are unshielded variants is exclusively the TT and its fetish of customising everything to make maximum use of the points given.

    But what you can do to keep variants and the choice of going a bit cheaper or not, is to have variants in armour, the elf archers or chaos trolls way. Variants that existed in the historical titles btw (light and heavy spearmen etc.) Which makes sense, armor was the last thing provided, being the most expensive and hardest to equip whole armies with.
    this game is not the older total wars, getting rid of content because it want standard elsewhere is ridiculous, particularly when the source material had the unit without shields as a base, you could buy the upgrade for shields
  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565
    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive

    dwarf GW weapon units excluding hammerar needs a re balance asap imo , they need More MA in exchange for MD .
    I'd say including hammerers tbh, the main problem with them is they attempt to make what should have been offensively orientated troops into some of the most defensive AP infantry in the game, which would work if they needed to buy time for anything except ranged troops to deal damage for them
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237
    I personally don't think that realism should dictate the game's balace. Realism is a good starting point for it, as well as lore accuracy, but in no way is wise sticking to them beyond that (at least, not without changing other key mechanics to make it all fit; which will likely mean that it would be impossible to make it work in QB due to lack of malleable mechanics).


    On the point itself, which is that some non-shielded/great weapon variants should perform better, i honestly have to agree with you. While Empire's spearmen are technically a good example, i feel like one can still use the "tarpit card" and essentialy treat them like zombies (lorewise terrible, but gameplay wise definitely acceptable), however with dwarf warriors/longbeards stuff is worse: not only we have effectively weaker melee units (MA+MD is lower on both of them while compared to their axe and shield variant), not only their 28/26 speed make them insanely bad at their role (since a lot of stuff can outrun them), but also the Dawi roster itself is built to work on a static defensive setup, which inevitably make MD and shields the most important stats.

    And, technically, if we assume the "lions of chrace style" balance (aka increasing a unit's versatility in QB while making it bs useless in CP) is good balance then there's not issue here: as long as those units trade well against what they're supposed to counter then it's all fine. The issue is that the "lions of chrace style" is terrible balance.
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 18,939
    Kebab_man said:

    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive

    dwarf GW weapon units excluding hammerar needs a re balance asap imo , they need More MA in exchange for MD .
    I'd say including hammerers tbh, the main problem with them is they attempt to make what should have been offensively orientated troops into some of the most defensive AP infantry in the game, which would work if they needed to buy time for anything except ranged troops to deal damage for them
    hammers are stat wise the splash damage change was unnecessary they work really well as offensive infantry , long Beard with GW and dwarf gw don't

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,747
    edited August 2021
    Kebab_man said:

    Pocman said:

    No.


    It doesn't make sense. It is not how it work in real life


    Unshielded variants should be deleted from the game

    Ok the first part is wrong. It's very different to wield a spear with two hands instead of one. Or basically all things that have plenty room for both hands for that matter.

    But I agree with the second part. It's pretty obvious that the combo of spear and shield proved superior to just the spear, even if double wielding. The only weapons that were truly double wielding were the ones that wielding them with one hand was pretty impossible (pikes, great weapons/polearms).

    So yes the unshielded variants need to go. They never really existed in previous TW titles (except Shogun where there are no shields at all) because they never existed irl. Shields are the bare minimum equipment and one the first tools of war recorded. The reason there are unshielded variants is exclusively the TT and its fetish of customising everything to make maximum use of the points given.

    But what you can do to keep variants and the choice of going a bit cheaper or not, is to have variants in armour, the elf archers or chaos trolls way. Variants that existed in the historical titles btw (light and heavy spearmen etc.) Which makes sense, armor was the last thing provided, being the most expensive and hardest to equip whole armies with.
    this game is not the older total wars, getting rid of content because it want standard elsewhere is ridiculous, particularly when the source material had the unit without shields as a base, you could buy the upgrade for shields
    I'm not expecting anything to change and anyway my idea was to substitute shields/no-shields with armor/low-atmor, not remove content.
    I only wanted to rationalize it a bit to make it more appealing I guess. Because no matter what, shields/no-shields is dumb. And the source material is dumb too in that regard. But as I said it's here to stay.

    I mean gameplay speaking (which is what matters) I can definitely see even moderately armored eternal guard helping WE with their predictably light armored units apart from trees.
    Prettiest of the foot overlords.
  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565
    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive

    dwarf GW weapon units excluding hammerar needs a re balance asap imo , they need More MA in exchange for MD .
    I'd say including hammerers tbh, the main problem with them is they attempt to make what should have been offensively orientated troops into some of the most defensive AP infantry in the game, which would work if they needed to buy time for anything except ranged troops to deal damage for them
    hammers are stat wise the splash damage change was unnecessary they work really well as offensive infantry , long Beard with GW and dwarf gw don't
    the problem is that hammerers really weren't good before the change, there were some cases they worked well, but they put a lot of money into useless defenses, after all, the armor of hammerers is just as penetrated by the AP as the armor of everything else, without getting better killing stats they will always struggle simply because there main defense is easily bypassed, as what determines if a unit is good in the dwarf matchup is almost always if it is AP
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,572
    Kebab_man said:

    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive

    dwarf GW weapon units excluding hammerar needs a re balance asap imo , they need More MA in exchange for MD .
    I'd say including hammerers tbh, the main problem with them is they attempt to make what should have been offensively orientated troops into some of the most defensive AP infantry in the game, which would work if they needed to buy time for anything except ranged troops to deal damage for them
    hammers are stat wise the splash damage change was unnecessary they work really well as offensive infantry , long Beard with GW and dwarf gw don't
    the problem is that hammerers really weren't good before the change, there were some cases they worked well, but they put a lot of money into useless defenses, after all, the armor of hammerers is just as penetrated by the AP as the armor of everything else, without getting better killing stats they will always struggle simply because there main defense is easily bypassed, as what determines if a unit is good in the dwarf matchup is almost always if it is AP
    Hammers have good offensive stats though. They already have really high MA only loosing out to things like chosen and they have the highest WS. If you really wanted to buff their damage I think it would be better to add it to their Charge Bonus. (ignoring the splash attack of course)

    You could also give them more health with some adjustment. Dwarfs are supposed to to be tough but but they have less health than other elite units with T4 on table top. You could also rework them into an 80 model unit like chosen, black orcs, and Slayers.

    It would also be nice if their Kingsguard rule was represented in some capacity.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that Her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565
    edited August 2021
    User_Clue said:

    Kebab_man said:

    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive

    dwarf GW weapon units excluding hammerar needs a re balance asap imo , they need More MA in exchange for MD .
    I'd say including hammerers tbh, the main problem with them is they attempt to make what should have been offensively orientated troops into some of the most defensive AP infantry in the game, which would work if they needed to buy time for anything except ranged troops to deal damage for them
    hammers are stat wise the splash damage change was unnecessary they work really well as offensive infantry , long Beard with GW and dwarf gw don't
    the problem is that hammerers really weren't good before the change, there were some cases they worked well, but they put a lot of money into useless defenses, after all, the armor of hammerers is just as penetrated by the AP as the armor of everything else, without getting better killing stats they will always struggle simply because there main defense is easily bypassed, as what determines if a unit is good in the dwarf matchup is almost always if it is AP
    Hammers have good offensive stats though. They already have really high MA only loosing out to things like chosen and they have the highest WS. If you really wanted to buff their damage I think it would be better to add it to their Charge Bonus. (ignoring the splash attack of course)

    You could also give them more health with some adjustment. Dwarfs are supposed to to be tough but but they have less health than other elite units with T4 on table top. You could also rework them into an 80 model unit like chosen, black orcs, and Slayers.

    It would also be nice if their Kingsguard rule was represented in some capacity.
    hammerers have good melee attack and weapon strength, there charge bonus is atrocious, because of how the dwarfs work with the exception of something like gyrocopters, there good infantry will only ever charge once, while other factions will have there damaged infantry once routed will come back, allowing them to use there charge bonus multiple times, hammerers desperately need to that charge to be devastating, they are, and will always be amazing in situations without charging, which in game is pretty much only found in climbing walls in a seige, where on defense you would always rather have a unit of irondrakes to wipe out models the moment they are on the wall, and on offense will be so beat up on approach from towers and bonus ranged damage on them you should have just gotten something that will reach out and touch the enemy, either with the gyrobomber which is frankly OP in seiges,

    realistically dwarfs being survabilie is only important if they can do there job, and right now hammerers and the other great weapons can't, they put a lot into surviving and thus the charge, which is incredibly important to get an early advantage in combat, suffers, which causes a snowball effect in the combat, if hammerers got the charge bonus thet were supposed to, which dwarf charges were pretty powerful on tabletop, then the unit would have it's niche set, a slow heavily armored shock troop, if it becomes OP from there all that will happen is the enemy will hit them with some AP spells that can delete a unit, as is the magic resistance really is only useful against magical attacks on units simply because the raw damage on spells is enough to cut through them, or thet aren't AP and deal next to no damage to them
    Kebab_man said:

    User_Clue said:

    Kebab_man said:

    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    saweendra said:

    Kebab_man said:

    I think yes, dwarf units are a good example for this, the great weapon version costs more, takes more damage in melee, and doesn't really do any better in melee unless they are fighting heavily armored infantry that also are AP, but outside of that they are worse and more expensive

    dwarf GW weapon units excluding hammerar needs a re balance asap imo , they need More MA in exchange for MD .
    I'd say including hammerers tbh, the main problem with them is they attempt to make what should have been offensively orientated troops into some of the most defensive AP infantry in the game, which would work if they needed to buy time for anything except ranged troops to deal damage for them
    hammers are stat wise the splash damage change was unnecessary they work really well as offensive infantry , long Beard with GW and dwarf gw don't
    the problem is that hammerers really weren't good before the change, there were some cases they worked well, but they put a lot of money into useless defenses, after all, the armor of hammerers is just as penetrated by the AP as the armor of everything else, without getting better killing stats they will always struggle simply because there main defense is easily bypassed, as what determines if a unit is good in the dwarf matchup is almost always if it is AP
    Hammers have good offensive stats though. They already have really high MA only loosing out to things like chosen and they have the highest WS. If you really wanted to buff their damage I think it would be better to add it to their Charge Bonus. (ignoring the splash attack of course)

    You could also give them more health with some adjustment. Dwarfs are supposed to to be tough but but they have less health than other elite units with T4 on table top. You could also rework them into an 80 model unit like chosen, black orcs, and Slayers.

    It would also be nice if their Kingsguard rule was represented in some capacity.
    hammerers have good melee attack and weapon strength, there charge bonus is atrocious, because of how the dwarfs work with the exception of something like gyrocopters, there good infantry will only ever charge once, while other factions will have there damaged infantry once routed will come back, allowing them to use there charge bonus multiple times, hammerers desperately need to that charge to be devastating, they are, and will always be amazing in situations without charging, which in game is pretty much only found in climbing walls in a seige, where on defense you would always rather have a unit of irondrakes to wipe out models the moment they are on the wall, and on offense will be so beat up on approach from towers and bonus ranged damage on them you should have just gotten something that will reach out and touch the enemy, either with the gyrobomber which is frankly OP in seiges
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    elite infantry will beat the crap out of chaff precisely because of how important armor is. their weakness is ranged which is double for dwarves because of the lack of melee mobility, but hammerers were good before and did their job well. markedly worse after the nerf though
  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565
    RawSugar said:

    elite infantry will beat the crap out of chaff precisely because of how important armor is. their weakness is ranged which is double for dwarves because of the lack of melee mobility, but hammerers were good before and did their job well. markedly worse after the nerf though

    they did there job ok, they didn't do it well, if there wasn't a charge they would have done it well, but even then they'd often fall behind on the charge, and that advantage wasn't overcome through the grind before leadership values crumpled
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 6,822

    Pocman said:

    No.


    It doesn't make sense. It is not how it work in real life


    Unshielded variants should be deleted from the game

    Ok the first part is wrong. It's very different to wield a spear with two hands instead of one. Or basically all things that have plenty room for both hands for that matter.

    But I agree with the second part. It's pretty obvious that the combo of spear and shield proved superior to just the spear, even if double wielding. The only weapons that were truly double wielding were the ones that wielding them with one hand was pretty impossible (pikes, great weapons/polearms).

    So yes the unshielded variants need to go. They never really existed in previous TW titles (except Shogun where there are no shields at all) because they never existed irl. Shields are the bare minimum equipment and one the first tools of war recorded. The reason there are unshielded variants is exclusively the TT and its fetish of customising everything to make maximum use of the points given.

    But what you can do to keep variants and the choice of going a bit cheaper or not, is to have variants in armour, the elf archers or chaos trolls way. Variants that existed in the historical titles btw (light and heavy spearmen etc.) Which makes sense, armor was the last thing provided, being the most expensive and hardest to equip whole armies with.
    For High Elves, Empire and the like it does not make too much sense sure.


    But it's 100% lore consistent for worthless throwaways like Skaven slaves, ungors, etc. to be thrown into the grinder with what's available, sometimes shields just aren't available in the junk pile
  • Odysseus95Odysseus95 Registered Users Posts: 299
    edited August 2021
    This is already the case with Eternal Guard vs Eternal Guard with shields (the former having higher charge bonus), for example. Not sure why they didn't pull through with it on other units...
  • griffithx#1314griffithx#1314 Registered Users Posts: 1,502

    In campaign, there is no reason to take unshielded variants of units because they lack a shield and typically have lower MD. I think it would be more interesting if unshielded variants had better offensive stats. Both for singleplayer as well as multiplayer it would make the decision between taking unshielded or shielded variants more tactical and interesting.

    Unshielded variants having better offensive stats makes sense when you think about, let's take empire spears as an example, entities in the unshielded variant would have two hands to operate the spear and would not be encumbered by a shield. Giving them better MA, WS, CB is entirely understandable. While shielded variants would obviously have a shield as well as better MD.

    Now this is already the case for some units. Take Gor Herds for instance, the unshielded variants has better offensive stats. What do you say, should every variant get the Gor Herd treatment?

    I think Gor Herd have better offensive stats because they have an extra weapon in place of the shield.
    So when a unit is carrying two weapons it makes sense to me to have extra offensive stats.
Sign In or Register to comment.