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

Crane gunners overbuff

1246

Comments

  • jokin55jokin55 Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited May 19
    never mind
    Post edited by jokin55 on
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,267

    eumaies said:

    It can be simultaneously true that a unit has a vulnerability to highly mobile units like hounds and have an overbuffed damage profile. It seems counterproductive to argue that the existence of one justifies the existence of the other.

    no, a unit pays for what all of its stats, strengths, vulnerabilities. It's all a package. If you had a celesetial dragon guard with 95 armour nuking infantry from 375 range that would be an overbuffed ranged unit, whereas a fragile artillery piece doing the same is not an overbuffed unit. This isn't complicated.
    no, a unit pays for what all of its stats, strengths, vulnerabilities.-That statement does not have anything to do with a unit having a vulnerability whilst also having an overturned aspect to it and this is a concept where it's easy to understand at bare minimum a game that has stats.


    -if you had a celesetial dragon guard with 95 armour nuking infantry from 375 range that would be an overbuffed ranged unit, whereas a fragile artillery piece doing the same is not an overbuffed unit.

    That is a poor example for numerous reasons.
    Primarily it makes a poor comparison when it comes to functionality of units being varied. Ranged infantry is not artillery and they serve different functions and have different vulnerabilities. It also lacks the nuances that is the fundamental issue with how people argue these topics. Units should have roles and strengths and limitations as one aspect of balance and strategic choice both within an individual roster and it's playstyle and in the wider sense of varying rosters having different styles.

    But it still remains that anything with multiple balance points can be balanced well in one aspect and poorly in another. And one does not justify the other.

    Across a multitude of single and multi player games in multiple genres you can and do see things with a general profile of "this thing is a long range precision damage unit, person, etc that lacks mobility and defenses." receive balance patch nerfs to their damage due to developers feeling that aspect of their kit is overtuned. Part of the reason a game with stats has multiple stats for something is to HAVE multiple aspects of it you can alter.
    You are contradicting yourself in your own post. Yes you have multiple things you can alter because they all relate to balance.

    And yes this thing (crane gunners) is a long range precision damage unit and it lacks mobility and defenses. That is in fact exactly what this unit is. It's most comparable unit is other artillery units. There is no other foot ranged unit in the game that is this glass cannon. It's a sitting duck.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,774
    edited May 19
    Quote removed.

    I think CA giving a unit the ability to penetrate infantry units is a pretty good sign they wanted to buff the units performance against infantry. You'd otherwise have to assume no one at CA understood that increasing the damage to infantry specifically would boost the units damage against infantry... which is a wacky position to hold.

    As for the "designed for sniping characters and large units" point about Jezzails... eh. I'm not sure we can draw that conclusion given they have long range and high ap damage per shot. Nothing about that intrinsically points them towards large targets or characters, in fact character sniping is more just a natural player inclination because of how the army losses system works. As for monsters there are a lot of units which Jezzails are actively poor against because the ap is totally wasted (giants, ghorgons, jabbers, minotaurs, etc.)

    Jezzails actually often used to kill artillery crews which fit into neither large nor characters as a category, in spite of your claim. Hellblasters also do solidly against monsters, characters, and of course armored infantry but I assume you wouldn't say they were designed against any one of those targets. Rather they are designed and dealing high amounts of ap missile damage at moderately long range.

    I've talked at length about the Indy video in a few places, but it shows largely what you'd see if you put a Hellblaster on a hill and shot at chaos warriors, which is to say nothing surprising. The performance is only an issue if you hold the assumption that Crane Gunners should be bad against armored infantry, even though they're a long gun that's based around a unit designed to shoot man sized figures to death.

    Just pointing at the fact that Crane Gunners kill infantry as well as cheaper artillery units with similar stats proves nothing, unless you've already assumed the Crane Gunners should be bad against infantry, something that is both not necessary and a little strange to assume.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • jokin55jokin55 Registered Users Posts: 23

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Indypride said:

    Laindesh said:

    I dunno, both in this and the other thread about crane gunners people (spellbound, billy and that third fella) made good arguments.

    I don't agree with Indy's outcry either, he was too quick on the ball there with improper testing.
    Personally i'd like to see actual battles where crane gunners is used, there's more to units than sheer killing power.

    "Outcry" seems a tad dramatic. The unit seems overtuned and I said as much, but I'm hardly getting emotional or freaking out about this change lol. Of course it will be interesting to see how the meta develops with them, both in campaign and MP.

    But I'm more confused why they have literally double the dps of a unit like Warplock Jezzails vs infantry, while still retaining all the same (or better) killing power vs monsters and cav. It just looks wrong on paper to me. Especially when Fire Rain Rockets are already designed to kill armored infantry at the same price point, but have ZERO SEM sniping potential.

    And then there's the obvious point about potentially making other units in the roster obsolete, because it performs the same role but does more things well. In campaign, why would I invest in Fire Rain Rockets or CDGC, when I can have a unit that snipes out the lords and monsters while ALSO devastating infantry formations. I think thats a valid concern
    100% agree. Both from my own experience of the new unit - and from IndyPrides video. It's clearly substantially too powerful. Personally I don't think any range unit should be able to delete a shielded infantry unit entirely before contact.

    I actually quite like the idea of it piercing multiple units; makes it different to the Jezzails - but in that case it needs it's weapon damage potentially halved.
    So does this mean Hellblaster Volley Guns and Organ Guns need a nerf? Because deleting a shielded infantry unit is pretty par for the course for those units and they're cheaper than Crane Gunners.
    Those are artillery pieces though. Much slower and much much more vulnerable.
    Crane Gunners are labeled as artillery in game. The have comparable damage, health, range, and armor. The speed difference is the same as between Cathay artillery and other artillery.

    So the units are about as slow and vulnerable while being in the same price range as artillery units with similar offensive stats. What's the issue?
    Neodeinos said:

    Indypride said:

    Laindesh said:

    I dunno, both in this and the other thread about crane gunners people (spellbound, billy and that third fella) made good arguments.

    I don't agree with Indy's outcry either, he was too quick on the ball there with improper testing.
    Personally i'd like to see actual battles where crane gunners is used, there's more to units than sheer killing power.

    "Outcry" seems a tad dramatic. The unit seems overtuned and I said as much, but I'm hardly getting emotional or freaking out about this change lol. Of course it will be interesting to see how the meta develops with them, both in campaign and MP.

    But I'm more confused why they have literally double the dps of a unit like Warplock Jezzails vs infantry, while still retaining all the same (or better) killing power vs monsters and cav. It just looks wrong on paper to me. Especially when Fire Rain Rockets are already designed to kill armored infantry at the same price point, but have ZERO SEM sniping potential.

    And then there's the obvious point about potentially making other units in the roster obsolete, because it performs the same role but does more things well. In campaign, why would I invest in Fire Rain Rockets or CDGC, when I can have a unit that snipes out the lords and monsters while ALSO devastating infantry formations. I think thats a valid concern
    100% agree. Both from my own experience of the new unit - and from IndyPrides video. It's clearly substantially too powerful. Personally I don't think any range unit should be able to delete a shielded infantry unit entirely before contact.

    I actually quite like the idea of it piercing multiple units; makes it different to the Jezzails - but in that case it needs it's weapon damage potentially halved.
    So does this mean Hellblaster Volley Guns and Organ Guns need a nerf? Because deleting a shielded infantry unit is pretty par for the course for those units and they're cheaper than Crane Gunners.
    Those are artillery pieces though. Much slower and much much more vulnerable.
    And also what they were designed to do.
    This point is a bit moot giving the patch notes explicitly stated CA were changing the units role. Crane Gunners were previously outperformed by Cannons almost 100% of the time at the same price. CA's solution was to make the artillery pieces serve unique roles that benefit the faction. This is similar to the death runner or poisoned wind reworks, where redundant units were altered to offer a new option to an existing faction.
    No they never said they wanted to change the unit's role. All they said about the Crane Gunners is that they wanted the unit to be more powerful than the Jezzails.
    Fair point, changing unit role was my misremembering. The rest of the points stand though. It's an artillery unit with power comparable to similar artillery units (hellblasters have the same penetration characteristics).

    The unit has been pushed beyond the power of Jezzails in a manner that avoids the toxic sniping behavior on release Jezzails. Frankly the approach strikes me as very well thought out.

    Unless you're dying on the hill that a man sized fire arm must not be able to penetratw a man, or that a long gun must only be useful as a sniper rifle, I don't understand the issue.

    And if you are dying on those hills I still think that's a personal problem, less related to balance and more related to player expectations of a units performance or role. That's a secondary concern to me.
    It's not an artillery unit though ? I guess I see what the problem is, you're thinking the Crane Gunners are an artillery piece with is simply wrong.
    So if you open the game and read the unit card the Crane Gunners are described as artillery. I don't know how you can get more direct than that. They are considered artillery.

    That's a weird way to spell artillery...
    Click the icon to right. The one that pulls up the unit description. I'll wait.
    Lore description is irrelevant, the category on the unit card is what matters because it shows what CA intended to do with this unit.
    That's a cop out and you know it. All unit descriptions are equally arbitrary and have no mechanical impact. Hence why we have Melee Cavalry with higher CB than some shock cav, that cold one cavalry are a category in general, and that monsters includes duelists, chariots, and anti-large specialists over a wide range of price with no meaningful distinction.

    As a specific counter point Skaven Weapon teams have their own unique category that includes a wide range of different units from flamethrowers, mortars, gatling guns, and long rifles with massive variation in performance. They're all missile infantry but they're not listed as such (though the globadiers are despite having Skyre mechanics in the weapon team workshop). By your logic all of the units should perform exactly the same way (and glob damage should be comparable to all other missile infantry) even though the units are clearly different from handgunners or crossbows.

    You can not like the change for aesthetic reasons but acting as though the unit is overpowered is not supported by anything in game.
    The mental gymnastic you're willing to pull to justify an overbuff is quite fascinating. Crane Gunners did need a buff, current one is simply excessive, especially in campaign.
    I'm trying to be civil here bit it's annoying to see a move to personal attacks here. The arguments presented related to defensive stats, damage, and price have still not be meaningfully responded to.

    Do you have any metric by which the unit is overperforming other than your personal taste?
    What metric do you need to see they are overperforming ? You just gotta boot your game and use them in battle to notice they shred infantry, a role they are not designed to fulfill.
    You keep saying "a role they were not designed to fulfill" as though CA making a balance change is not also design intent, or as though the tabletop game the units are taken from didn't require adaptation to move to a setting which massively increased the number of fielded infantry entities.

    The unit is described as artillery and was buffed specifically to improve performance against infantry. It is in line with a unit that is comparable across most metrics and uses the exact same mechanics CA added to the Crane Gunners (the Hellblaster Volley gun).

    This appears to indicate CA want the unit with long guns designed to kill infantry sized enemies (as guns are designed to do) to be effective at killing infantry sized enemies. Imagine my shock.

    Still I do appreciate the clarification that this entire argument is based on your person expectation for the unit, not on any of the factors used to actually balance the game. For the record by price, damage, mobility, range, and defensive stats the unit is in line with comparable units on other rosters.
    You're talking out of your arse when you say the intent was to make them better against infantry, nowhere CA said that. The only justification they gave for the buff was to make them better than the Jezzails which are designed to be sniping characters and large units btw.

    Indypride did a good video to showcase how overperforming they are. If after seeing the video you still can't accept they are OP I don't know what to tell you except that maybe you're clearly biased in favor of the unit. If one video is still not enough of an evidence for you there is also m4fgaming that did a really good video about the matter but he's not an English speaker.
    I think CA giving a unit the ability to penetrate infantry units is a pretty good sign they wanted to buff the units performance against infantry. You'd otherwise have to assume no one at CA understood that increasing the damage to infantry specifically would boost the units damage against infantry... which is a wacky position to hold.

    As for the "designed for sniping characters and large units" point about Jezzails... eh. I'm not sure we can draw that conclusion given they have long range and high ap damage per shot. Nothing about that intrinsically points them towards large targets or characters, in fact character sniping is more just a natural player inclination because of how the army losses system works. As for monsters there are a lot of units which Jezzails are actively poor against because the ap is totally wasted (giants, ghorgons, jabbers, minotaurs, etc.)

    Jezzails actually often used to kill artillery crews which fit into neither large nor characters as a category, in spite of your claim. Hellblasters also do solidly against monsters, characters, and of course armored infantry but I assume you wouldn't say they were designed against any one of those targets. Rather they are designed and dealing high amounts of ap missile damage at moderately long range.

    I've talked at length about the Indy video in a few places, but it shows largely what you'd see if you put a Hellblaster on a hill and shot at chaos warriors, which is to say nothing surprising. The performance is only an issue if you hold the assumption that Crane Gunners should be bad against armored infantry, even though they're a long gun that's based around a unit designed to shoot man sized figures to death.

    Just pointing at the fact that Crane Gunners kill infantry as well as cheaper artillery units with similar stats proves nothing, unless you've already assumed the Crane Gunners should be bad against infantry, something that is both not necessary and a little strange to assume.
    note: according to a reddit post Jezzails now have the penetrate property, alongside Deck Gunners.
    make of this what you will
    https://old.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/ussr8j/warplock_jezzails_and_deck_gunners_also_can/
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,783
    At Spellbound: Artillery cannot run even if they have cattle attached right? I have played a lot of Cathay. The artillery is still very slow, because artillery doesn't run.

    Also, the lack of shields and the formation for artillery is sub par.

    Eumaies you well know the fragility of artillery pieces and their crews. I am curious even at -100g that organ guns and 25 range advantage will be that competitive and flame cannon is not competitive in any match up at it's current price. If these things can out shoot an organ gun I think that's problematic even if they are more expensive. This could be tested by giving medium_2 penetration to Jezzails in WH2 and having a shoot out with an organ gun.

    I look forward to hearing how things shake out and hope to watch some competitive games with these.
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 15,296

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Indypride said:

    Laindesh said:

    I dunno, both in this and the other thread about crane gunners people (spellbound, billy and that third fella) made good arguments.

    I don't agree with Indy's outcry either, he was too quick on the ball there with improper testing.
    Personally i'd like to see actual battles where crane gunners is used, there's more to units than sheer killing power.

    "Outcry" seems a tad dramatic. The unit seems overtuned and I said as much, but I'm hardly getting emotional or freaking out about this change lol. Of course it will be interesting to see how the meta develops with them, both in campaign and MP.

    But I'm more confused why they have literally double the dps of a unit like Warplock Jezzails vs infantry, while still retaining all the same (or better) killing power vs monsters and cav. It just looks wrong on paper to me. Especially when Fire Rain Rockets are already designed to kill armored infantry at the same price point, but have ZERO SEM sniping potential.

    And then there's the obvious point about potentially making other units in the roster obsolete, because it performs the same role but does more things well. In campaign, why would I invest in Fire Rain Rockets or CDGC, when I can have a unit that snipes out the lords and monsters while ALSO devastating infantry formations. I think thats a valid concern
    100% agree. Both from my own experience of the new unit - and from IndyPrides video. It's clearly substantially too powerful. Personally I don't think any range unit should be able to delete a shielded infantry unit entirely before contact.

    I actually quite like the idea of it piercing multiple units; makes it different to the Jezzails - but in that case it needs it's weapon damage potentially halved.
    So does this mean Hellblaster Volley Guns and Organ Guns need a nerf? Because deleting a shielded infantry unit is pretty par for the course for those units and they're cheaper than Crane Gunners.
    Those are artillery pieces though. Much slower and much much more vulnerable.
    Crane Gunners are labeled as artillery in game. The have comparable damage, health, range, and armor. The speed difference is the same as between Cathay artillery and other artillery.

    So the units are about as slow and vulnerable while being in the same price range as artillery units with similar offensive stats. What's the issue?
    Neodeinos said:

    Indypride said:

    Laindesh said:

    I dunno, both in this and the other thread about crane gunners people (spellbound, billy and that third fella) made good arguments.

    I don't agree with Indy's outcry either, he was too quick on the ball there with improper testing.
    Personally i'd like to see actual battles where crane gunners is used, there's more to units than sheer killing power.

    "Outcry" seems a tad dramatic. The unit seems overtuned and I said as much, but I'm hardly getting emotional or freaking out about this change lol. Of course it will be interesting to see how the meta develops with them, both in campaign and MP.

    But I'm more confused why they have literally double the dps of a unit like Warplock Jezzails vs infantry, while still retaining all the same (or better) killing power vs monsters and cav. It just looks wrong on paper to me. Especially when Fire Rain Rockets are already designed to kill armored infantry at the same price point, but have ZERO SEM sniping potential.

    And then there's the obvious point about potentially making other units in the roster obsolete, because it performs the same role but does more things well. In campaign, why would I invest in Fire Rain Rockets or CDGC, when I can have a unit that snipes out the lords and monsters while ALSO devastating infantry formations. I think thats a valid concern
    100% agree. Both from my own experience of the new unit - and from IndyPrides video. It's clearly substantially too powerful. Personally I don't think any range unit should be able to delete a shielded infantry unit entirely before contact.

    I actually quite like the idea of it piercing multiple units; makes it different to the Jezzails - but in that case it needs it's weapon damage potentially halved.
    So does this mean Hellblaster Volley Guns and Organ Guns need a nerf? Because deleting a shielded infantry unit is pretty par for the course for those units and they're cheaper than Crane Gunners.
    Those are artillery pieces though. Much slower and much much more vulnerable.
    And also what they were designed to do.
    This point is a bit moot giving the patch notes explicitly stated CA were changing the units role. Crane Gunners were previously outperformed by Cannons almost 100% of the time at the same price. CA's solution was to make the artillery pieces serve unique roles that benefit the faction. This is similar to the death runner or poisoned wind reworks, where redundant units were altered to offer a new option to an existing faction.
    No they never said they wanted to change the unit's role. All they said about the Crane Gunners is that they wanted the unit to be more powerful than the Jezzails.
    Fair point, changing unit role was my misremembering. The rest of the points stand though. It's an artillery unit with power comparable to similar artillery units (hellblasters have the same penetration characteristics).

    The unit has been pushed beyond the power of Jezzails in a manner that avoids the toxic sniping behavior on release Jezzails. Frankly the approach strikes me as very well thought out.

    Unless you're dying on the hill that a man sized fire arm must not be able to penetratw a man, or that a long gun must only be useful as a sniper rifle, I don't understand the issue.

    And if you are dying on those hills I still think that's a personal problem, less related to balance and more related to player expectations of a units performance or role. That's a secondary concern to me.
    It's not an artillery unit though ? I guess I see what the problem is, you're thinking the Crane Gunners are an artillery piece with is simply wrong.
    So if you open the game and read the unit card the Crane Gunners are described as artillery. I don't know how you can get more direct than that. They are considered artillery.

    That's a weird way to spell artillery...
    Click the icon to right. The one that pulls up the unit description. I'll wait.
    Lore description is irrelevant, the category on the unit card is what matters because it shows what CA intended to do with this unit.
    That's a cop out and you know it. All unit descriptions are equally arbitrary and have no mechanical impact. Hence why we have Melee Cavalry with higher CB than some shock cav, that cold one cavalry are a category in general, and that monsters includes duelists, chariots, and anti-large specialists over a wide range of price with no meaningful distinction.

    As a specific counter point Skaven Weapon teams have their own unique category that includes a wide range of different units from flamethrowers, mortars, gatling guns, and long rifles with massive variation in performance. They're all missile infantry but they're not listed as such (though the globadiers are despite having Skyre mechanics in the weapon team workshop). By your logic all of the units should perform exactly the same way (and glob damage should be comparable to all other missile infantry) even though the units are clearly different from handgunners or crossbows.

    You can not like the change for aesthetic reasons but acting as though the unit is overpowered is not supported by anything in game.
    The mental gymnastic you're willing to pull to justify an overbuff is quite fascinating. Crane Gunners did need a buff, current one is simply excessive, especially in campaign.
    I'm trying to be civil here bit it's annoying to see a move to personal attacks here. The arguments presented related to defensive stats, damage, and price have still not be meaningfully responded to.

    Do you have any metric by which the unit is overperforming other than your personal taste?
    What metric do you need to see they are overperforming ? You just gotta boot your game and use them in battle to notice they shred infantry, a role they are not designed to fulfill.
    You keep saying "a role they were not designed to fulfill" as though CA making a balance change is not also design intent, or as though the tabletop game the units are taken from didn't require adaptation to move to a setting which massively increased the number of fielded infantry entities.

    The unit is described as artillery and was buffed specifically to improve performance against infantry. It is in line with a unit that is comparable across most metrics and uses the exact same mechanics CA added to the Crane Gunners (the Hellblaster Volley gun).

    This appears to indicate CA want the unit with long guns designed to kill infantry sized enemies (as guns are designed to do) to be effective at killing infantry sized enemies. Imagine my shock.

    Still I do appreciate the clarification that this entire argument is based on your person expectation for the unit, not on any of the factors used to actually balance the game. For the record by price, damage, mobility, range, and defensive stats the unit is in line with comparable units on other rosters.
    You're talking out of your arse when you say the intent was to make them better against infantry, nowhere CA said that. The only justification they gave for the buff was to make them better than the Jezzails which are designed to be sniping characters and large units btw.

    Indypride did a good video to showcase how overperforming they are. If after seeing the video you still can't accept they are OP I don't know what to tell you except that maybe you're clearly biased in favor of the unit. If one video is still not enough of an evidence for you there is also m4fgaming that did a really good video about the matter but he's not an English speaker.
    I think CA giving a unit the ability to penetrate infantry units is a pretty good sign they wanted to buff the units performance against infantry. You'd otherwise have to assume no one at CA understood that increasing the damage to infantry specifically would boost the units damage against infantry... which is a wacky position to hold.

    As for the "designed for sniping characters and large units" point about Jezzails... eh. I'm not sure we can draw that conclusion given they have long range and high ap damage per shot. Nothing about that intrinsically points them towards large targets or characters, in fact character sniping is more just a natural player inclination because of how the army losses system works. As for monsters there are a lot of units which Jezzails are actively poor against because the ap is totally wasted (giants, ghorgons, jabbers, minotaurs, etc.)

    Jezzails actually often used to kill artillery crews which fit into neither large nor characters as a category, in spite of your claim. Hellblasters also do solidly against monsters, characters, and of course armored infantry but I assume you wouldn't say they were designed against any one of those targets. Rather they are designed and dealing high amounts of ap missile damage at moderately long range.

    I've talked at length about the Indy video in a few places, but it shows largely what you'd see if you put a Hellblaster on a hill and shot at chaos warriors, which is to say nothing surprising. The performance is only an issue if you hold the assumption that Crane Gunners should be bad against armored infantry, even though they're a long gun that's based around a unit designed to shoot man sized figures to death.

    Just pointing at the fact that Crane Gunners kill infantry as well as cheaper artillery units with similar stats proves nothing, unless you've already assumed the Crane Gunners should be bad against infantry, something that is both not necessary and a little strange to assume.
    Never said they should be bad against infantry, my point is that they were designed to be sniping characters, large units or unit with a very small model count (which includes artillery btw), I'm not against them being good against infantry because that makes sense but they are currently way too good against infantry. Shredding a shielded infantry with 120 armour so fast with a unit that is not designed to do that is simply wrong.
    This buff is excessive, Cathay already has very good tools to deal with infantry between the Iron Hail Gunners, the Jade Warriors and the Celestial Crossbows.

    And yeah I've seen you talking about @Indypride video and this can be summed up as "I don't like how he ran the test so it's not valid". Anyway, I'll stop there because it's obviously pointless to discuss it, I might have better result talking to a wall.

  • jokin55jokin55 Registered Users Posts: 23
    Bastilean said:

    At Spellbound: Artillery cannot run even if they have cattle attached right? I have played a lot of Cathay. The artillery is still very slow, because artillery doesn't run.

    no, cows can run, they just get caught on themselves when turning, its really annoying.
  • boosykesboosykes Registered Users Posts: 139

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Neodeinos said:

    Indypride said:

    Laindesh said:

    I dunno, both in this and the other thread about crane gunners people (spellbound, billy and that third fella) made good arguments.

    I don't agree with Indy's outcry either, he was too quick on the ball there with improper testing.
    Personally i'd like to see actual battles where crane gunners is used, there's more to units than sheer killing power.

    "Outcry" seems a tad dramatic. The unit seems overtuned and I said as much, but I'm hardly getting emotional or freaking out about this change lol. Of course it will be interesting to see how the meta develops with them, both in campaign and MP.

    But I'm more confused why they have literally double the dps of a unit like Warplock Jezzails vs infantry, while still retaining all the same (or better) killing power vs monsters and cav. It just looks wrong on paper to me. Especially when Fire Rain Rockets are already designed to kill armored infantry at the same price point, but have ZERO SEM sniping potential.

    And then there's the obvious point about potentially making other units in the roster obsolete, because it performs the same role but does more things well. In campaign, why would I invest in Fire Rain Rockets or CDGC, when I can have a unit that snipes out the lords and monsters while ALSO devastating infantry formations. I think thats a valid concern
    100% agree. Both from my own experience of the new unit - and from IndyPrides video. It's clearly substantially too powerful. Personally I don't think any range unit should be able to delete a shielded infantry unit entirely before contact.

    I actually quite like the idea of it piercing multiple units; makes it different to the Jezzails - but in that case it needs it's weapon damage potentially halved.
    So does this mean Hellblaster Volley Guns and Organ Guns need a nerf? Because deleting a shielded infantry unit is pretty par for the course for those units and they're cheaper than Crane Gunners.
    Those are artillery pieces though. Much slower and much much more vulnerable.
    Crane Gunners are labeled as artillery in game. The have comparable damage, health, range, and armor. The speed difference is the same as between Cathay artillery and other artillery.

    So the units are about as slow and vulnerable while being in the same price range as artillery units with similar offensive stats. What's the issue?
    Neodeinos said:

    Indypride said:

    Laindesh said:

    I dunno, both in this and the other thread about crane gunners people (spellbound, billy and that third fella) made good arguments.

    I don't agree with Indy's outcry either, he was too quick on the ball there with improper testing.
    Personally i'd like to see actual battles where crane gunners is used, there's more to units than sheer killing power.

    "Outcry" seems a tad dramatic. The unit seems overtuned and I said as much, but I'm hardly getting emotional or freaking out about this change lol. Of course it will be interesting to see how the meta develops with them, both in campaign and MP.

    But I'm more confused why they have literally double the dps of a unit like Warplock Jezzails vs infantry, while still retaining all the same (or better) killing power vs monsters and cav. It just looks wrong on paper to me. Especially when Fire Rain Rockets are already designed to kill armored infantry at the same price point, but have ZERO SEM sniping potential.

    And then there's the obvious point about potentially making other units in the roster obsolete, because it performs the same role but does more things well. In campaign, why would I invest in Fire Rain Rockets or CDGC, when I can have a unit that snipes out the lords and monsters while ALSO devastating infantry formations. I think thats a valid concern
    100% agree. Both from my own experience of the new unit - and from IndyPrides video. It's clearly substantially too powerful. Personally I don't think any range unit should be able to delete a shielded infantry unit entirely before contact.

    I actually quite like the idea of it piercing multiple units; makes it different to the Jezzails - but in that case it needs it's weapon damage potentially halved.
    So does this mean Hellblaster Volley Guns and Organ Guns need a nerf? Because deleting a shielded infantry unit is pretty par for the course for those units and they're cheaper than Crane Gunners.
    Those are artillery pieces though. Much slower and much much more vulnerable.
    And also what they were designed to do.
    This point is a bit moot giving the patch notes explicitly stated CA were changing the units role. Crane Gunners were previously outperformed by Cannons almost 100% of the time at the same price. CA's solution was to make the artillery pieces serve unique roles that benefit the faction. This is similar to the death runner or poisoned wind reworks, where redundant units were altered to offer a new option to an existing faction.
    No they never said they wanted to change the unit's role. All they said about the Crane Gunners is that they wanted the unit to be more powerful than the Jezzails.
    Fair point, changing unit role was my misremembering. The rest of the points stand though. It's an artillery unit with power comparable to similar artillery units (hellblasters have the same penetration characteristics).

    The unit has been pushed beyond the power of Jezzails in a manner that avoids the toxic sniping behavior on release Jezzails. Frankly the approach strikes me as very well thought out.

    Unless you're dying on the hill that a man sized fire arm must not be able to penetratw a man, or that a long gun must only be useful as a sniper rifle, I don't understand the issue.

    And if you are dying on those hills I still think that's a personal problem, less related to balance and more related to player expectations of a units performance or role. That's a secondary concern to me.
    It's not an artillery unit though ? I guess I see what the problem is, you're thinking the Crane Gunners are an artillery piece with is simply wrong.
    So if you open the game and read the unit card the Crane Gunners are described as artillery. I don't know how you can get more direct than that. They are considered artillery.

    That's a weird way to spell artillery...
    Click the icon to right. The one that pulls up the unit description. I'll wait.
    Lore description is irrelevant, the category on the unit card is what matters because it shows what CA intended to do with this unit.
    That's a cop out and you know it. All unit descriptions are equally arbitrary and have no mechanical impact. Hence why we have Melee Cavalry with higher CB than some shock cav, that cold one cavalry are a category in general, and that monsters includes duelists, chariots, and anti-large specialists over a wide range of price with no meaningful distinction.

    As a specific counter point Skaven Weapon teams have their own unique category that includes a wide range of different units from flamethrowers, mortars, gatling guns, and long rifles with massive variation in performance. They're all missile infantry but they're not listed as such (though the globadiers are despite having Skyre mechanics in the weapon team workshop). By your logic all of the units should perform exactly the same way (and glob damage should be comparable to all other missile infantry) even though the units are clearly different from handgunners or crossbows.

    You can not like the change for aesthetic reasons but acting as though the unit is overpowered is not supported by anything in game.
    The mental gymnastic you're willing to pull to justify an overbuff is quite fascinating. Crane Gunners did need a buff, current one is simply excessive, especially in campaign.
    I'm trying to be civil here bit it's annoying to see a move to personal attacks here. The arguments presented related to defensive stats, damage, and price have still not be meaningfully responded to.

    Do you have any metric by which the unit is overperforming other than your personal taste?
    What metric do you need to see they are overperforming ? You just gotta boot your game and use them in battle to notice they shred infantry, a role they are not designed to fulfill.
    You keep saying "a role they were not designed to fulfill" as though CA making a balance change is not also design intent, or as though the tabletop game the units are taken from didn't require adaptation to move to a setting which massively increased the number of fielded infantry entities.

    The unit is described as artillery and was buffed specifically to improve performance against infantry. It is in line with a unit that is comparable across most metrics and uses the exact same mechanics CA added to the Crane Gunners (the Hellblaster Volley gun).

    This appears to indicate CA want the unit with long guns designed to kill infantry sized enemies (as guns are designed to do) to be effective at killing infantry sized enemies. Imagine my shock.

    Still I do appreciate the clarification that this entire argument is based on your person expectation for the unit, not on any of the factors used to actually balance the game. For the record by price, damage, mobility, range, and defensive stats the unit is in line with comparable units on other rosters.
    Design intent? This is in direct response to the Sheer volume or cry babys whining about any and everything. Since they thought mortal empires would be out in a month. Ther is no intent here other than give the crying baby shiny keys to distract them. Since CA correctly surmised that most complaints really boiled down to people not liking any sort of challenge and never wanting to lose. So they are making the game easier. Thats it the game was mostly balanced on release yet we get endless complaining about hero's skill trees needing buff and tech trees being weak. This was simply backhanded complaining about difficulty. They use word like tedious or anti fun they really mean they beaty 2 on very hard why cant they beat 3 on very hard. Most never realizing Warhammer 2 is probably the easiest total war outside of 3 kingdoms.
    Simply put this is CA trying ot give the whiny people what they want and when some correctly say well wait a minute the factions where decently balanced against each other maybe minor buffs and nurf will be necessary Suddenly a buch of people come in here with there "wait and see just because they where buffed in every conceivable way doesn't mean they are overpowered", and there it a single player game it doesn't need to be balanced" and finally there "I don't care if its overpowered I like stomping the AI it makes my self esteem go up". Of course they refuse to simply turn down the difficulty. The simply must play on very hard and whine until very hard = normal. Then the game is ruined for those of us that want a challenge. I cant turn the difficulty up past Legendary with very hard battles most that are whining can turn it down a few notches and it would literally be exactly what they want but they refuse.
  • boosykesboosykes Registered Users Posts: 139
    TLDR; When the baby's are crying you give them there bottle this has nothing to do with design intent.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,267
    Bastilean said:

    At Spellbound: Artillery cannot run even if they have cattle attached right? I have played a lot of Cathay. The artillery is still very slow, because artillery doesn't run.

    Also, the lack of shields and the formation for artillery is sub par.

    Eumaies you well know the fragility of artillery pieces and their crews. I am curious even at -100g that organ guns and 25 range advantage will be that competitive and flame cannon is not competitive in any match up at it's current price. If these things can out shoot an organ gun I think that's problematic even if they are more expensive. This could be tested by giving medium_2 penetration to Jezzails in WH2 and having a shoot out with an organ gun.

    I look forward to hearing how things shake out and hope to watch some competitive games with these.

    I completely agree organ gun is UP and flame cannons is way over priced. All the more reason that Crane gunners should be more competitive than those rarely used units. I compare them to fire rain rockets because those are better artillery that people actually take.

    I'm curious on the point about artillery not running. In my experience cathay artillery once it's moving moves at it's true speed and can outrun slower infantry without an issue.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,783
    Have to assume that CA know what penetration is and how it works. Pretending they didn't intend this change is silly and self denial.

    As stated by many, it's a lot closer to balanced than it looks and we will see in the long term how a more expensive sniper unit will perform with penetration.

    For the Jezzails they received no additional damage just penetration, but got 33% more expensive so it was a flat nerf to their ability to kill SE which is a good thing considering how accurate they are. This is also true of Crane Gunners to a lesser extent.

    If CA wants to, they can come back and thin the heard a little by reducing unit size marginally, but it probably won't come to that.

    If anyone knows anything about long range sniper rifles they will penetrate a lot of things. That's part of what they do.

    Overall, it's pretty cool.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,774
    edited May 19
    @Neodeinos

    I was gonna respect your desire to be done with the discussion but this statement...

    And yeah I've seen you talking about @Indypride video and this can be summed up as "I don't like how he ran the test so it's not valid". Anyway, I'll stop there because it's obviously pointless to discuss it, I might have better result talking to a wall.


    Comment removed.

    The tests don't account for cost, don't account for elevation boosting damage, fail to provide any comparison point for why the units are overperforming, and Indy literally shows the health bar of a unit taking two volleys and then acts as though that's the performance of a single Crane Gunner.

    Comment removed.

    Comment removed.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,774
    Bastilean said:

    At Spellbound: Artillery cannot run even if they have cattle attached right? I have played a lot of Cathay. The artillery is still very slow, because artillery doesn't run.

    Also, the lack of shields and the formation for artillery is sub par.

    Eumaies you well know the fragility of artillery pieces and their crews. I am curious even at -100g that organ guns and 25 range advantage will be that competitive and flame cannon is not competitive in any match up at it's current price. If these things can out shoot an organ gun I think that's problematic even if they are more expensive. This could be tested by giving medium_2 penetration to Jezzails in WH2 and having a shoot out with an organ gun.

    I look forward to hearing how things shake out and hope to watch some competitive games with these.

    I don't know about running in particular but I know the Cathay artillery can outrun chaos warriors so they're moving at speed 30 which is what matters.

    No disagreement on the shields or the formation element, just not sure that's a problem. Less range, less max damage, less SE damage in particular, higher price, negatively effected by shields. With all those factors in place the higher speed, presence of shields for cheap missile defense, and solid formation/distributed damage seem like a reasonable trade off.

    The point on dwarf artillery actually deserves it's own post but I think they need a substantial rebalance/rework.

    Organ Guns in my tests did similar damage to Crane Gunners and Hellblasters but failed to rout their targets and had a greater likelihood of wasting shots effectively. The lower number of missile with greater penetration seems to produce some odd results and results in worse performance in practice than the stats suggest.

    Flame Cannons are overpriced. I also think a primarily base damage but very accurate, highly damaging missile with a leadership debuff effect seems pulled in two directions. Base damage and leadership effect say shoot chaff, high damage and accuracy per shot say shoot elites. Also the range is 150 shorter than a mortar and 130 shorter than a fire rain rocket which further muddles targeting.

    The bolt throwers have weirdly short range and BvL which suggests cheap monster hunters. However their value as an extremely cheap option isn't there given Cannons are more flexible and have an extra 100 range for 250 more. By price you don't break even until the 3rd cannon (vs 4 bolt throwers) which is a big investment in artillery and then the cannons still has 100 range so gets to fire sooner, accruing value more quickly and being more flexible in targeting. Not sure how much these guys suffer from meta issues in comparison to stat issues but the upgrade cost just feels worthwhile all the time.

    Basically just the Grudge Thrower and Cannon work well, with every other unit having some weirdness that makes them less appealing by price than the two reliable options. It's something I hope we'll see addressed in the move to IE because for a faction with so many artillery units it's weird to have both a lot of redundancy and some notable holes in the roster (no mortaresc option is bizarre).
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,267
    Good points on the dwarf artillery; I do find bolt throwers are fine and have a small niche as being too cheap to shut down easily in an artillery duel. So actually vs Cathay and crane gunners in particular for example I would probably mix in some bolt throwers along with the longer range artillery to counter Cathay artillery tools.

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,473
    As a FYI for several folks:

    From the Forum T&C
    Be respectful to everyone on the forums. Flaming, insulting or abusing anyone will not be tolerated.

    1) Respect:]
    1.1 Please do not disrespect any other forum users, including volunteer moderators or CA staff
    1.2a Please do not practice negative behaviour: personal attacks/bashing/baiting/spamming, etc.
    1.2b Please do not use taunting/trolling (behaviour with the deliberate goal of being controversial or offensive)

    2) False Information and illegal content:
    2.1 You will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, is material of a sexual matter, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise unlawful.

    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • cat59cat59 Registered Users Posts: 500
    I just did a test myself with 4 crane gunners vs 4 daemonettes on a very flat map with no mods. What do you know, the fast, lightly armored infantry made it in and deleted the crane gunner units.


    Maybe the counter to Cathay's relatively slow gunlines is... the fast moving glass cannon faction all about flanking and punishing artillery/missile units?
  • jokin55jokin55 Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited May 20
    cat59 said:

    I just did a test myself with 4 crane gunners vs 4 daemonettes on a very flat map with no mods. What do you know, the fast, lightly armored infantry made it in and deleted the crane gunner units.


    Maybe the counter to Cathay's relatively slow gunlines is... the fast moving glass cannon faction all about flanking and punishing artillery/missile units?

    i mean
    image
    using the ai to test isnt the best tbh, not much one can do about it however.
  • cat59cat59 Registered Users Posts: 500
    jokin55 said:

    cat59 said:

    I just did a test myself with 4 crane gunners vs 4 daemonettes on a very flat map with no mods. What do you know, the fast, lightly armored infantry made it in and deleted the crane gunner units.


    Maybe the counter to Cathay's relatively slow gunlines is... the fast moving glass cannon faction all about flanking and punishing artillery/missile units?

    i mean
    image
    using the ai to test isnt the best tbh, not much one can do about it however.
    Congratulations? I literally just grouped all the units together and mass-attacked the gunners, no fancy tactics or anything. Similar testing on the opposite side would be having each gunner attacking a single unit without being tactically spaced apart or anything. This stuff proves nothing though because it's not in 'actual situations.'
  • jokin55jokin55 Registered Users Posts: 23
    cat59 said:

    jokin55 said:

    cat59 said:

    I just did a test myself with 4 crane gunners vs 4 daemonettes on a very flat map with no mods. What do you know, the fast, lightly armored infantry made it in and deleted the crane gunner units.


    Maybe the counter to Cathay's relatively slow gunlines is... the fast moving glass cannon faction all about flanking and punishing artillery/missile units?

    i mean
    image
    using the ai to test isnt the best tbh, not much one can do about it however.
    Congratulations? I literally just grouped all the units together and mass-attacked the gunners, no fancy tactics or anything. Similar testing on the opposite side would be having each gunner attacking a single unit without being tactically spaced apart or anything. This stuff proves nothing though because it's not in 'actual situations.'
    if it means nothing then why did you post than? i also did nothing other than group the crane gunners and left click, when the ai is on cathay the ai prioritizes the lord leading to the Daemonettes getting to the crane gunners with little damage, as player i targeted the Daemonettes leading to the outcome seen here.

    image
  • united84united84 Registered Users Posts: 1,124
    cat59 said:

    jokin55 said:

    cat59 said:

    I just did a test myself with 4 crane gunners vs 4 daemonettes on a very flat map with no mods. What do you know, the fast, lightly armored infantry made it in and deleted the crane gunner units.


    Maybe the counter to Cathay's relatively slow gunlines is... the fast moving glass cannon faction all about flanking and punishing artillery/missile units?

    i mean
    image
    using the ai to test isnt the best tbh, not much one can do about it however.
    Congratulations? I literally just grouped all the units together and mass-attacked the gunners, no fancy tactics or anything. Similar testing on the opposite side would be having each gunner attacking a single unit without being tactically spaced apart or anything. This stuff proves nothing though because it's not in 'actual situations.'
    Exactly.



  • jokin55jokin55 Registered Users Posts: 23
    cat59 said:

    jokin55 said:

    cat59 said:

    I just did a test myself with 4 crane gunners vs 4 daemonettes on a very flat map with no mods. What do you know, the fast, lightly armored infantry made it in and deleted the crane gunner units.


    Maybe the counter to Cathay's relatively slow gunlines is... the fast moving glass cannon faction all about flanking and punishing artillery/missile units?

    i mean
    image
    using the ai to test isnt the best tbh, not much one can do about it however.
    Congratulations? I literally just grouped all the units together and mass-attacked the gunners, no fancy tactics or anything. Similar testing on the opposite side would be having each gunner attacking a single unit without being tactically spaced apart or anything. This stuff proves nothing though because it's not in 'actual situations.'
    shortened response because mods ate my last post, i did as you say, lined crane gunners and left clicked, it went much better because i ignored the lord, in fact if you redo your test but leave the lord behind it goes much worse for demons.

    image
    i also question why you said "Maybe the counter to Cathay's relatively slow gunlines is... the fast moving glass cannon faction all about flanking and punishing artillery/missile units?" if you think your test doesn't mean anything in ''actual situations.''
  • IndyprideIndypride Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,743
    edited May 20
    It would not shock me if Crane Gunners dont post wildly OP damage value numbers against the Daemonic factions in game 3, especially in competitive. In campaign, I'm pretty sure they're going to be disgustingly good, but that's not a trait exclusive to them against the AI.

    Daemonic factions have literally some of the best backline harassers in the trilogy. Furies are obscenely good and cost efficient for their price, and as I said in the vid, are still a hard counter Crane Gunners. As are Flesh Hounds of Khorne, another extremely strong unit for the price. These can swarm the field in game modes like Domination and make it very difficult for artillery or ranged troops to get good value, BUT, this is not exclusively bad for Crane Guns, its bad for almost all ranged units in Warhammer 3. Even stuff like Leadbelchers get murdered by Furies.

    But the performance of Crane Guns is being taken in the context of the series at large, comparisons with older units in game 1 and game 2, and for when Mortal Empires adds the older factions. When I look at a unit like Warplock Jezzails, which I feel like were a relatively well balanced unit in game 2 (OP at launch, then brought back in line with patches), I find it hard to believe that Crane Guns should have DOUBLE + their damage output vs. infantry, while maintaining the same (or possibly better) killing potential, accuracy, and calibration area when shooting at SEM's and cav. MAYBE the 33% price increase covers those buffs, but I dont think its wild to look at that and question it.

    If Warplock Jezzails are a balanced unit, I think its fair to think Crane Guns may have been overbuffed in their infantry killing potential.

    This is not even covering the fact that Cathay is going to get MUCH stronger with FLC and DLC. Many of their holes will be plugged, their ability to defend their backline will almost certainly get better. And most factions in Mortal Empires DO NOT HAVE FURIES.

    Again, glad Crane Gunners got buffed. I think it might have been a tad overboard, time will tell!
  • cat59cat59 Registered Users Posts: 500
    Indypride said:

    It would not shock me if Crane Gunners dont post wildly OP damage value numbers against the Daemonic factions in game 3, especially in competitive. In campaign, I'm pretty sure they're going to be disgustingly good, but that's not a trait exclusive to them against the AI.

    Daemonic factions have literally some of the best backline harassers in the trilogy. Furies are obscenely good and cost efficient for their price, and as I said in the vid, are still a hard counter Crane Gunners. As are Flesh Hounds of Khorne, another extremely strong unit for the price. These can swarm the field in game modes like Domination and make it very difficult for artillery or ranged troops to get good value, BUT, this is not exclusively bad for Crane Guns, its bad for almost all ranged units in Warhammer 3. Even stuff like Leadbelchers get murdered by Furies.

    But the performance of Crane Guns is being taken in the context of the series at large, comparisons with older units in game 1 and game 2, and for when Mortal Empires adds the older factions. When I look at a unit like Warplock Jezzails, which I feel like were a relatively well balanced unit in game 2 (OP at launch, then brought back in line with patches), I find it hard to believe that Crane Guns should have DOUBLE + their damage output vs. infantry, while maintaining the same (or possibly better) killing potential, accuracy, and calibration area when shooting at SEM's and cav. MAYBE the 33% price increase covers those buffs, but I dont think its wild to look at that and question it.

    If Warplock Jezzails are a balanced unit, I think its fair to think Crane Guns may have been overbuffed in their infantry killing potential.

    This is not even covering the fact that Cathay is going to get MUCH stronger with FLC and DLC. Many of their holes will be plugged, their ability to defend their backline will almost certainly get better. And most factions in Mortal Empires DO NOT HAVE FURIES.

    Again, glad Crane Gunners got buffed. I think it might have been a tad overboard, time will tell!

    Okay, then go back and test Jezzails again, since they can now penetrate the same number of models as Crane Gunners. Deck Gunners can as well, so don't count them out! Gotta do tests with both of those units too and see how they compare.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,267
    Indypride said:

    It would not shock me if Crane Gunners dont post wildly OP damage value numbers against the Daemonic factions in game 3, especially in competitive. In campaign, I'm pretty sure they're going to be disgustingly good, but that's not a trait exclusive to them against the AI.

    Daemonic factions have literally some of the best backline harassers in the trilogy. Furies are obscenely good and cost efficient for their price, and as I said in the vid, are still a hard counter Crane Gunners. As are Flesh Hounds of Khorne, another extremely strong unit for the price. These can swarm the field in game modes like Domination and make it very difficult for artillery or ranged troops to get good value, BUT, this is not exclusively bad for Crane Guns, its bad for almost all ranged units in Warhammer 3. Even stuff like Leadbelchers get murdered by Furies.

    But the performance of Crane Guns is being taken in the context of the series at large, comparisons with older units in game 1 and game 2, and for when Mortal Empires adds the older factions. When I look at a unit like Warplock Jezzails, which I feel like were a relatively well balanced unit in game 2 (OP at launch, then brought back in line with patches), I find it hard to believe that Crane Guns should have DOUBLE + their damage output vs. infantry, while maintaining the same (or possibly better) killing potential, accuracy, and calibration area when shooting at SEM's and cav. MAYBE the 33% price increase covers those buffs, but I dont think its wild to look at that and question it.

    If Warplock Jezzails are a balanced unit, I think its fair to think Crane Guns may have been overbuffed in their infantry killing potential.

    This is not even covering the fact that Cathay is going to get MUCH stronger with FLC and DLC. Many of their holes will be plugged, their ability to defend their backline will almost certainly get better. And most factions in Mortal Empires DO NOT HAVE FURIES.

    Again, glad Crane Gunners got buffed. I think it might have been a tad overboard, time will tell!

    Flying harass, chaff infantry, fast infantry, light cav, summons, counter artillery, stalked units. It’s not all about the furies.

    The price difference between 900 and 1200 isn’t all about a % increase. For elite units in general you need to get a lot better as you go up in price especially if you are an extremely vulnerable artillery unit.

    Since fire rain rockets cost the same and move and die quite similarly and have similar damage output, it’s hard to be more concerned about crane gunners than about a pure artillery unit with similar strength and the same counters.

    As for jezzails, they’ll now be similar but slightly less ws for 1200, and honestly that will make them less oppressive vs dwarfs for example (ror aside). Because it’s easier to counter fire such an expensive unit with more cost effective artillery. And harder for skaven to afford four.
  • BillybabelBillybabel Registered Users Posts: 745
    Indypride said:

    It would not shock me if Crane Gunners dont post wildly OP damage value numbers against the Daemonic factions in game 3, especially in competitive. In campaign, I'm pretty sure they're going to be disgustingly good, but that's not a trait exclusive to them against the AI.

    Daemonic factions have literally some of the best backline harassers in the trilogy. Furies are obscenely good and cost efficient for their price, and as I said in the vid, are still a hard counter Crane Gunners. As are Flesh Hounds of Khorne, another extremely strong unit for the price. These can swarm the field in game modes like Domination and make it very difficult for artillery or ranged troops to get good value, BUT, this is not exclusively bad for Crane Guns, its bad for almost all ranged units in Warhammer 3. Even stuff like Leadbelchers get murdered by Furies.

    But the performance of Crane Guns is being taken in the context of the series at large, comparisons with older units in game 1 and game 2, and for when Mortal Empires adds the older factions. When I look at a unit like Warplock Jezzails, which I feel like were a relatively well balanced unit in game 2 (OP at launch, then brought back in line with patches), I find it hard to believe that Crane Guns should have DOUBLE + their damage output vs. infantry, while maintaining the same (or possibly better) killing potential, accuracy, and calibration area when shooting at SEM's and cav. MAYBE the 33% price increase covers those buffs, but I dont think its wild to look at that and question it.

    If Warplock Jezzails are a balanced unit, I think its fair to think Crane Guns may have been overbuffed in their infantry killing potential.

    This is not even covering the fact that Cathay is going to get MUCH stronger with FLC and DLC. Many of their holes will be plugged, their ability to defend their backline will almost certainly get better. And most factions in Mortal Empires DO NOT HAVE FURIES.

    Again, glad Crane Gunners got buffed. I think it might have been a tad overboard, time will tell!

    you can't balance units on a 1v1 basis vs other factions units, you have to consider their context in the roster. Khorne's units out value other faction's melee units by a pretty huge margin when accounting for cost in a 1v1 scenario, but Khorne also has no magic.

    Skaven jezzails are balanced in the context of the skaven roster. They have no airforce, so having a quick profjectile anti character unit makes sense. Jezzails are still good against SEM, so by your logic how are jezzails not over stepping the role of warp fire canons?

    Also if skaven face off against heavy infantry, they can use, poison wind mortars, poison globes, death runners, and relatively fast monstrous infantry. If cathay faces off against armored infantry, rockets are simply a poor answer. They objectively perform poorer than crane gunners, nor really should a high scatter artillery be used for killing elite infantry, they should be anti chaff.
  • Eth3ryasEth3ryas Registered Users Posts: 1,039
    They looked pretty op in the video Indypride uploaded. Maybe increase the cost to 1500 and they should be fine since CA wants them to be an elite unit.
  • RonNLRonNL Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 783
    I am really interested in how they would do in MP tournaments before we all jump into the OP wagon. Especially since most of the user in this topic are mainly SP players, time will tell, but I am glad CA took a risk when redoing a unit and make them stand out to there counterpart.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,774
    Eth3ryas said:

    They looked pretty op in the video Indypride uploaded. Maybe increase the cost to 1500 and they should be fine since CA wants them to be an elite unit.

    They cost more than things like Hellblasters and Organ Gunners which show similar against infantry and SEMs. The units were underperforming at 900 and worse than that lacked a niche in the roster. At 1200 they're one of the most expensive artillery units in the game and they bring power worthy of the price currently. I believe they are tied for the most expensive non RoR artillery unit in the game at the moment. Putting them at 1500 would put them 300 over that mark, and 400 gold greater than units with similar damage and better range.

    The video in question has a lot of holes. The tests against SEMs in particular are poor, since 4 Crane Gunners shooting a bloodthirster is 4800 cost worth of missile units shooting at a 2200 cost unit. What else would you expect?

    As for the infantry damage, Indy isn't making it clear when he's having units focus their fire versus when it's a one on one match up. Early on he shows a close up of a Khorne Warrior healthbar dropping to about half. Looks pretty op right? Then he zooms out and you can see the Khorne Warrior on the right is at full health, meaning that damage was from 2 full units of Crane Gunners. 2400 worth of AP missiles dealing half damage to a 750 unit in a single volley isn't surprising, and it's certainly not efficient.

    The later tests are better, being on flat ground and involving a single unit shooting at a single target (towards the end some units do start to focus fire units that would otherwise have closed to melee but in my tests only 1 in 4 chaos warriors managed to close so that isn't too surprising). However here Indy still is still misrepresenting performance. The focus on a shielded chaos warrior taking 1800 damage (less than Volley Guns and Organ Guns average by the way) is on the high end, with the other 3 chaos warriors taking notably less. In my testing damage averages closer to 1400, with 1800 being an exceptionally good volley. Even then the killing of a 750 cost unit by a 1200 cost one isn't noteworthy.

    Crane Gunner Volleys are dealing between 1200 and 1800 damage to an infantry unit per volley which is in line with artillery of a similar price against infantry. It's impressive sure, but it's not out of line when controlling for price. The same can be said for SEM damage where Organ Guns and Volley Guns have similar damage (or better damage) at greater range. The only difference in SEM damage for Crane Gunners is the 5 ap per model, or a max of 160 damage per volley. Cannons still massively out value Crane Gunners against large targets, they've probably gained relative value because of the price hike.

    The unit only looks op if you're testing in a weird vacuum. Game 2 races have had to deal with Crane Gunner equivalents in the form of Hellblasters and Organ Guns for literal years now and I've not seen a complaint about those units. Given that there is no reason to suspect Crane Gunners are overpowered now, or will be overpowered in Immortal Empires given cost and damage output. Same for Jezzails and Deck Gunners who appear to be receiving similar changes in price and mechanics.
  • steam_164508488204ksLEMXCsteam_164508488204ksLEMXC Registered Users Posts: 249
    edited May 20
    So thanks to this thread I spent last night/today doing a Cathay campaign with the Iron Dragon and made "Cathayan weapons team armies" just like they were Skaven and had so much fun.

    Rifts off

    LL/L, 1 of each hero, 4 x celestial dragon guard (halberds), 6 x crane gunners, 2 x iron hail gunners, 1 x longma riders (because my original ones never died), 2 x each type of artillery unit.

    Most of the world had succumb to the glory of the Iron Dragon.

    So thanks, all this arguing about 1 unit at least caused one of us to have some fun.
  • damon40000damon40000 Registered Users Posts: 1,647
    they are not artillery, stop this bs

    they are weapons team and as such are vastly superior to stationary artillery from game 1-2 (random fireball cant remove third of their dps from a get go, can fire from any position even after being routed, silver shields - sure a lot of "artillery" enjoy them), hence the price hike and considering its potential dps - it was probably too low, time and tourneys will tell
    BsFG dwarf
Sign In or Register to comment.