Remove Biome penalties on crafted items

JimJams wrote: Hadus wrote: Chitin-Cored Bow (+8% Cav Def, +8% Spear Def, +8% Bow Def, +8% Sword Def, -16% in Arctic, -16% in Desert, -16% in Jungle) Three-Wood Bow (+5% Cav Def, +5% Spear Def, +5% Bow Def, +5% Sword Def, -16% in Arctic, -16% in Desert, -16% in Jungle, +3% for Elves) I think the dev's reasoning with these two bows is that they intend for bows in general to be less effective in extreme climates. If that's the case I don't think it's necessary to remove the bonuses Those two bows are a joke for elf. Both are defensive bows, and for elf the second is slightly better because of 3% attack gain. Both are useless in biomes, having only negatives values. My point here is, bow users, need to have 2 pieces of equip, one for biome and one out of biomes, and may be more, because if you want to cover all the possibilities you need 4 items (3 specific biomes items + 1 out of biome). Sword  and spear users have high bonus items with no penalties on biomes.... Fair ?

I think the plan was more so to make bows a bit more effective out of biomes while less effective in some of those biomes. Also I wouldn't expect all things to be 100% fair in every aspect as some got certain advantages that others didn't. Also always looked at archers as more of a defensive type thing anyways outside of game usually with a line of archers waiting for their enemy to get in closer to hit with a volley of arrows...

Though it seems for quite some time now archers were the main unit and worked fairly good against quite a few things. Now with bows you have to try to gear your people for the biome you live in or plan to do most of your fighting in. If you mostly operate in the jungles you have a jungle bow. If you do most in a desert you have a desert bow. If its not in a biome then stick with a bow thats not designed for a specific biome.

Ander wrote: Rill wrote: The human warhorse appears to be designed for humans to defend plains with cavalry -- which granted, we don't want to do anyway, but if you HAVE to defend with cav, maybe this makes it slightly less bad? The "nimble warhorse" gives 24% defense against all unit types, without any defense penalty. The human battlebred gives 20% bonus, and has penalties on biomes as well as non-plain terrains. That makes the battlebred redundant.

It's not. I can only think of one reason for its existence, and that is the possibility that battlebred horses can be used by all troop types while warhorses can only be used by cavalry. This is just conjecture though.

Rill wrote: The human warhorse appears to be designed for humans to defend plains with cavalry -- which granted, we don't want to do anyway, but if you HAVE to defend with cav, maybe this makes it slightly less bad?

The human warhorse appears to be designed for humans to defend plains with cavalry -- which granted, we don't want to do anyway, but if you HAVE to defend with cav, maybe this makes it slightly less bad?