.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Scenarios, Maps and Mods (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146)
-   -   Mod: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.92 -- Quickfix (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44183)

kianduatha November 10th, 2009 04:11 PM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.8 - First stable release!
 
It all looks awesome. I can't help but try to find a way to make Runebearers into minithugs for some reason, but then I realize that Journeyman Runesmiths are so much better at it. Clan Kings are a bit rough at 175 gp, but I know I'll still get them. The new heroes look great!

I've actually been liking a nice W4E4S4N4 bless for Runeguards. It gives a bit of everything and allows you to take good scales still. W4 sounds a bit wacky, but it lets you get 20 defense with a single star on the buggers. It really goes a long ways.

Burnsaber November 11th, 2009 04:21 AM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.8 - First stable release!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kianduatha (Post 717797)
It all looks awesome. I can't help but try to find a way to make Runebearers into minithugs for some reason, but then I realize that Journeyman Runesmiths are so much better at it.

Yeah, Runebearers make for pretty poor thugs. However they excel in general utility. They are able to quckly transport items to the frontlines from your forging factories and sometimes even bring some miner reinforcements with them. The reinvigoration bonus makes them somewhat better for holding those "quicken boots + spellcasting item" comboes.

Also, ten miners lead by a Runebearer with a Bottle of Living water is quite formiable and very mobile raiding force.

Burnsaber January 30th, 2010 05:09 AM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.81 - First quickfix!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Digress (Post 728917)
The Skaven would have won through eventually, in my unbiased opinion.

Yeah, Skaven are very well equipped to deal with Dwarfs (lot's of poison). This is quite nice thematically speaking since they are arch enemies in the Warhammer universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digress (Post 728917)
The 40 protection Runic Ward shields on the Runeguards seems too high - maybe they should have some cold resistance added and the shield dialed down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdonj (Post 728922)
Reducing the protection of the runic ward is probably not completely unwarranted... 40 is an awful lot of protection for a shield.

I'll keep the Ward as 40 prot, it's supposed to be a great magical force field instead of a real shield (see how Daemon Slayers and the pretenders have it without any visible shields). It's was a mistake to give it to Runeguards. I'll change it for next version by changing their shield to basic dwarf shield and reducing their enc to 1 (to keep it in the level it is now). They'll lose 1 def in the process, but I think that the minor nerf is warranted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digress (Post 728917)
Maybe the troll slayers and giant slayers should be low level summons rather than out of the box trample counters. Forcing the player to do some research if they find they have elephants etc. as neighbours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdonj (Post 728922)
However I disagree with making slayers unrecruitable. Dwarf armies are so ridiculously slow to build, they need to have a pretty good trample counter available or they are completely screwed. Dwarven magic being what it is, forcing them to have to have strong research out of the gate would be pretty harsh.

It also should be noted how fragile the slayers really are, so they are easily countered in return. 40 gold unit that dies/gets crippled to 1-2 shortbow hits? You can also easily target them by "fire largest" command (they have more hp than most dwarf units). Also, one easy way to target them is to make your mages cast some non-ap/an combat spells (Vine Arrow, Blade Wind, Magma Bolts, Cold blasts,.. etc). The mage AI will use those spells against slayers because they deal more damage to them than the armored line units.

Also, ditto on the research issue.

Digress January 30th, 2010 06:03 AM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.81 - First quickfix!
 
I didn't want to give the impression that I think the slayers are a huge issue - I just think for "flavours" sake they could be summons (with high upkeep - think of all the beer they drink and associated damage these dudes do to the environment/taverns).

Small gem cost + small research cost + mage time = Slayers + upkeep

I think the way Sombre made the upkeep for the Skaven Globadiers/Warplightning Crews etc. high works pretty well.

I do think the Runeguards could be given some cold resistance - these guys are staunch.

kianduatha January 30th, 2010 06:21 AM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.81 - First quickfix!
 
If you give Runeguards normal dwarven shields, please give Journeymen Runesmiths #poorleader back.

I'd actually be fine with troll/giant slayers becoming research-0 (maybe Thaum-1) summons. But if so, they should become upkeep-less(makes sense, anyways). 5 gems for a giant slayer, 3 gems for 5 troll slayers? Also while we're at it Dragon Slayers should probably get some fire resist. You know, on principle.

Sombre January 30th, 2010 09:03 AM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.81 - First quickfix!
 
Well they aren't supposed to actually slay dragons, just fulfil their slayer oath against them (die). I think the point with slayers is that they're named after the level of thing sure to kill them. Trollslayers stand no chance against trolls, giant slayers would be splattered by giants, etc. But a dragon slayer would beat a troll, maybe a giant, no chance against a dragon.

rdonj January 30th, 2010 12:00 PM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.81 - First quickfix!
 
The reason we gave runeguards the runic wards in the first place was to make them not pointlessly vulnerable to the dwarf's own crossbows. If they go back to the basic shield type they once again become only modestly shielded infantry that deals excessively poorly with crossbows. Please don't :(

Still don't really like slayers as summons... but if they absolutely have to be, it had better be a gem type that the dwarfs get a very nice income of.


Edit: Okay, so really the runeguards were given runic wards to make them more interesting as sacreds. I guess we'll see if they are still worth using without the runic ward. I am somewhat skeptical, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Burnsaber January 30th, 2010 05:02 PM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.81 - First quickfix!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rdonj (Post 729017)
The reason we gave runeguards the runic wards in the first place was to make them not pointlessly vulnerable to the dwarf's own crossbows. If they go back to the basic shield type they once again become only modestly shielded infantry that deals excessively poorly with crossbows. Please don't :(

The difference between parry 5 and parry 4 is not *that* big. :D

rdonj January 30th, 2010 11:12 PM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.81 - First quickfix!
 
Lies! By dropping 1 parry, runebreakers will be completely unplayable!!1!11!!

kianduatha January 31st, 2010 10:46 AM

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.81 - First quickfix!
 
With a normal shield, Runeguards become just Clansdwarf Heavy Warriors with higher stats(across the board, prettymuch). So...shouldn't they be mapmove 2?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2024, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.