Spearmen take far too long

col0005 wrote: Ummmm not sure how you do maths but it seems that overall the stats seems relatively equal 2  Kobold Cohort = 18At        26Cv        24Sp       12Ar        24Sw        21.5 Average def 1 Sentinel             =20 At       16Cv        23Sp        24Ar        23Sw        21.5 Average def   Now I understand that Cavlery attack will often account for a greater attack percentage and archers are hindered in forests so the lower attack value for spears is fair enough however we are still left with spearmen taking twice as long to produce and are more expensive to produce (2 spearmen to one archer)   Oh and yes i have been rolled a few times by HM but sometimes HM also appears to mis-interpret or neglect to fully address what has been said, I still see little advantage for orcs over elves for larger players while I can see great advantages for the elves.

Edited by Kumomoto - 18 Mar 2011 at 18:04

Hey that time I wasn't Challenging you (apart from the leather bit), if you've observed differently to what the game suggest, through combat report statistics, I'll have to take you word for it.

???? 2 leather? A trueshot takes 1 leather, Where as a T2 orc spearmen takes 1 leather AND 1 chain.

Edited by col0005 - 18 Mar 2011 at 01:12

col0005 wrote: Honoured Mule as I said "sometimes HM also appears to mis-interpret or neglect to fully address what has been said" The comparison was between kobolds and Sentinels so the build cost is 2 spears to 1 bow so the advantage goes to elves(yet again), if you look at T2 it is even more of an elven advantage Orc 2 spear 1 chain 1 leather (for a slightly less valuabe unit) Elves 2 bow 1 leather. Also spearmen are very weak against archers which is good for game balance but because of this you cant say that cavlery defence counters all the production advantages of elven archers as well as the higher attack value. By you argument elves can over produce archers as they are  cheaper to produce AND faster to build (based on getting equivelent upkeep and as my previous post suggest equivelent value)   Ok maybe I was being a bit drastic in saying there is no large advantage, but each unit has it's own situational advantage. If your required to defend a mountain then archers are the best option, and you don't need the long production time. Also a plains square can easily be attacked by archers as well so having a combination would be advisable

My bad.

I think you'll find, however, that bows attacking spears on plains will not find favor.  Bows are terrible on plains whether attacking or defending, while spears are at their best there.  Elven Trueshot are the only bowmen I'd ever use in attack, but never on plains.  Conversely, Kobold Cohorts perform quite decently attacking mountains (though not as well as bows defend them) and seem to attack in forests better than would logically be expected.

But in general, nothing comes close to orc spearmen for defense against cavalry, whatever the terrain or unit tier.  Since cavalry in general are the strongest attackers in the game, having the best counter is quite noteworthy.

And the Trueshot's 2 leather cost is no trifling matter.  It takes very considerable sovereignty boost for a Trueshot-producing city to be self-sufficient.  None of my cities could achieve it with 24/7 bowman production (though I believe it is possible with the right balance of food, livestock, and leather sovereignty).

Just want to say that we (the dev team and the content balancing team) are following this thread with interest.

It's a tough area and some of us feel that whilst there are obvious and promoted advantages to particular races (eg the Elves get a 5% magic bonus), there are also non-obvious bonuses - and especially - penalties to races as well.  An example of which (staying with the Elves) is the fact that they don't require plate, which initally seems like a bonus, but rapidly becomes a penalty.

We argue regularly and passionately about it and what, if anything, we should do to change things.

Much of our thoughts and wishes are tempered by imminent releases such as the full implementation of Trade v2 - where the ability to buy units on the open market will change the military landscape dramatically.  There are also other imminent releases whereby one race or the other will be "buffed" in specific areas.

We have general design principles for each race to which we try and adhere, and I'll have a think about whether we should publically release these general design principles - some of which are obvious, and some of which are potentially less so.

But please keep discussing these balance issues, as we really are interested in what you have to say.  Bear in mind that the people who speak the loudest and longest aren't necessarily the people to whom we pay attention; a well argued case with counter-arguments has more effect than a loudly argued case.

Regards,

SC