Elf Archery vs shielders CLOSED_NO_NEED

[Stratego (dev)]

We had an argument with makaw and could not get to agreement yet, so i try to ask ideas about the commity:

I popped up that:
Archers should not deal considerable damage to shielders units (that are literally should be well protected against archers).
so many many archer shots (more than 10-15) should take down a shielder.

I know elves are the archer race, but still they must not use archers agaisnt shielders but something else like
- some special archers like poison, or slowing, or any other that helps getting down a shielder.
- some casters maybe making similar "root" and slowing spells
- and/or some other unit types like ents or somethign that have some melee damage

so not making archers being able to arrow down a shielder with few shots,
so like stronger (costier) archers should stay being "bad" against shilders, while being much better (as they are) agaisnt all other units.

--------------------------------------------------------------

about the long talk we ended up in a basic difference (and this is the real question here):
Makaw way: he say 90% of units should be good agasint all other units in game in general: so he prefer archers do good damage to shielders (naturally less than to a non shieldeed one but still good)
I say: better if there are more contoured rock-paper-scissor things in general: so in eg. shielders case they should get neglectable damage, so solution is not buffing up archers to deal with shilders too, but simply giving elves some other way to get them out.

what you think?
a) is it better to make most units usable agaisnt most units (so you still can fight with any army)
b) or better to diverse, you need to think of the rock-paper-scissor - and yes if you trained bad units, than you will lose

[DreJaDe]

Why not both?

I think rock paper scissor could still applied even if there are no absolute counters. Which is basically more agreeing with Maka.

Absolute counter are kinda the worst for me, all to more as an old elf player...

[Jerryqian39]

Archer are a reliable damage source in early game and only early game.infact they might have been doing too well.As the game process archers falls of as a damage source and melle unit take the place of damage dealer .Archers infact are pretty universal in late game dealing neglecteble Dame to most if not all front line.i think archers need a better late game but not so strong in early game

[Savra]

Wait, only composite archers, crossbowman, atl-atl throwers, and rifleman are good for countering shielders.

Other than that they're still pretty tanky, or is this in part due to high dmg archers do to them?

Eg:

Elf Archer max deals 27 dmg, base 18

Human shielder max has 18 p.armour, base 10 p.armour.

So basically they're dealing 9 dmg max, 8 dmg base, to the shielder.

[Savra]

Or is this about the ignore armour thing?

[Stratego (dev)]

"So basically they're dealing 9 dmg max, 8 dmg base"

yes the basic archer yes, that is almost ok in my approach,
But all stronger archers are much stronger against shielders (at same rate as against other units) - but i think those archers should be stronger (that much) only on all OTHER units (not shielders).
So like it were set like all archer have a base damage like 15-25 and only bonus would make them much stronger against all other units than shielders.

For example: a marksman (cost3) glade archer(cost5) makes big damage to shileders however it is still an archer so shields should still block most of the damage.
so if we want eg. glade a 40 damage to other units lets make it like 25 base damage + 60% agaisnt all non shileder units, or something like -
this (resulting the 40+ or more damage agasint non shileded units) is just a vague example, so a little more emhasizing using the "bonus" things than currently.

So the rock-paper-scissor in this case would fit: all shielder will "lough" on all archers.
(naturally would bring another problem: how elf should deal with shielders - i have no answer but i feel we made strong "melee" "substitute" archers for elves as they have no good melee (as they are weak elves in theory). So I have a feeling it is not good way making 40-60 dmg damaging archers instead of another solution we might be able to figure out.


(btw same tru for walls/fortified buildings: those should not get so much damage from arrows as they currently get many, they are similar like the shileders)

[Savra]

Well, as I stated before all races have a ranged counter to foot shielders:

Humans:
Crossbowman

Orcs:
Crossbowman

Elves:
Composite archers

Undead:
Crossbowman

Dwarves:
Crossbowman
Rifleman

Scaledfolks:
Atl-atl throwers

Were, I'd agree that archers like glade archers and imperial archers should deal less dmg to shielders, I think the best way to deal with this is to just give them negative bonuses to those units, however, you're probably going to have to fix it so that negative bonuses can be used, cause I believe currently they can't (dwarves gyro copters have this, but I believe I was told it wasn't working)

[Stratego (dev)]

negative bonus needs to be set by lower base damage and positive bonus on other targets. this is the way.

also you misunderstood: i never said that shielders have no counter, i said that non-anti-shilder units with a bows should not deal that much as they do.
so shield should block arrows nicely.

[Savra]

That's why I stated we should do so, via bonuses:

Something like -25% or something, might not be much for basic archers who don't do alot to shielders anyway, but for glade sentry, imperial Archer, uruk Archer, phantom archers, etc. That's, for max level imperial archers -12 to they're attack, meaning 39 dmg, which, vs max level human shielder, that's another -18, leaving it dealing 21 dmg.

Basically something close to this is what I'm referring to, bonuses could be higher for the negative, but it would mean we wouldn't have to update multiple units stats and give some of them they're own bonuses. Taking them out of the unified bonuses which I originally put there to make things easier updating wise.

[Stratego (dev)]

That's why I stated we should do so, via bonuses:

Something like -25% or something, might not be much for basic archers who don't do alot to shielders anyway, but for glade sentry, imperial Archer, uruk Archer, phantom archers, etc. That's, for max level imperial archers -12 to they're attack, meaning 39 dmg, which, vs max level human shielder, that's another -18, leaving it dealing 21 dmg.

Basically something close to this is what I'm referring to, bonuses could be higher for the negative, but it would mean we wouldn't have to update multiple units stats and give some of them they're own bonuses. Taking them out of the unified bonuses which I originally put there to make things easier updating wise.

you say the same but with negative value
(that is only technical thingie it can be set the inside-out way as i wrote, also the template things can be solved - but this is not about this detail only about the "approach", so we only talk here if an archer should have same affect on all units including shielders, or shielders should be less affected)

[Vladneral]

I always think that we have the rock-paper-scissor (with some exceptions) like this:

Cavalry > all foot
Archers > milee foot
Skirmishers > archers
Milee foot > skirmishers
Spearmans > cavalry

Almost shielders have much enough penetration armor for survive well against archers.
So for me everything is fine with archers.
So i think would be better fix for a bit weak shielders like elven shielder and some others than change all archers.

[makazuwr32]

Hm. Some shielders like elven shielder or scalefolk shielder are not supposed to have too high armors since they are relying as well onto other their abilities — dodges in case of elven shielder and regeneration + absurdly high hp in case of scalefolks.

30% dodge ranged + 14 piercing armor of maxed elven shielder actually makes him very annoying unit to deal with who could even surpass human shielder or orcish shielder (who has when maxed 192 hp!) in terms of survivability despite having only 88 hp.

Lizardman shielder has when maxed 220 hp, regeneration and is not burnable unlike trolls.

_____________________________________________________

Shielders must not be impenetrable fortress target for archers. Especially in case of basic shielder vs elite archer.

Regarding piercing armor of them:
For human shielder with maxed 152 hp having 18 piercing armor is fine but if you will give same amount for scalefolk shielder with 220 hp it will completely break the game due to passive regen.
Shielders are not supposed to be immune to arrows (or even close to) but they must be able to endure much more arrows than regular infantry.
Elven 30% dodge ranged + 14 piercing armor, orcish 192 hp + 12 piercing armor, human 152 hp + 18 piercing armor and even lizardman regeneration + 9 piercing armor + 220 hp are working well towards this idea — they all endure enemy attacks in general much better than their normal variants.

_______________________________________________________

Let us see how 4 of shielders — elven, human, orcish and scalefolks — will endure attacks from 4 archers (who do not have bonus to them, important!) — elven archer (basic one, 2 turns cost), human archer (2 turns cost), orc archer (3 turns cost), skeleton archer (2 turns cost).

At base — shielders:
Human shielder has 120 hp, 8/10 armor
Elven shielder has 88 hp, no dodge ranged, 4/6 armor
Armored orc warrior (he is not actual shielder by the way!) has 160 hp, 6/8 armor
Lizardman shielder has 4% max hp regen rounded down (5 hp regen at base), 140 hp and 4/6 armor

At base — archers:
Human archer has 15 attack
Elven archer has 18 attack
Orc archer has 24 attack
Skeleton archer has 15 attack

Elven archer vs shielders:
To human shielder she deals 8 damage, need 15 shots to kill him
To elven shielder she deals 12 damage, need 8 shots to kill him
To armored orc warrior she deals 10 damage, need 16 shots to kill him
To lizardman shielder she deals 12 damage 5 of which is healed back so she needs 19-20 shots to kill him

Human/skeleton archers vs shielders:
To human shielder they do 5 damage, need 24 shots to kill
To elven shielder they do 9 damage, need 10 shots to kill
To armored orc warrior they do 7 damage, need 23 shots to kill
To scalefolk shielder they do 9 damage 5 of which is healed back, need 33 shots to kill

Orc archer:
To human shielder she deals 14 damage, need 9 shots to kill
To elven shielder she deals 18 damage, need 5 shots to kill
To armored orc warrior she deals 16 damage, need 10 shots to kill
To lizardman shielder she deals 18 damage 5 of which is healed, need 11 shots to kill

Against regular 2 turn cost units they need FAR LESS amount of shots to kill those.

Now when maxed.

Shielders:
Human has 152 hp, 16/18 armor
Orc has 192 hp, 12/14 armor
Elf has 88 hp, 12/14 armor, 30% dodge (we will count that as every 3rd shot is missed thus +50% shots to kill)
Lizardman has 220 hp, 7/9 armor and ~12.5% of max hp regen which heals 28 hp

Archers:
Human has 27 attack
Elven has 30 attack
Skeleton has 24 attack
Orc has 36 attack

Maxed elven archer vs maxed shielders:
To human she deals 12 damage, need 13 shots to kill
To elf she deals 16 damage, without any dodges need 6 shots to kill and 8-9 with dodges
To orc she deals 16 damage, need 12 shots to kill
To scalefolk she deals 21 damage which is fully healed back thus she can't kill him (spoiler: no archer would be able to outdamage solo its regen)

Maxed human archer vs maxed shielders:
To human he deals 9 damage, need 19 shots to kill
To elf he deals 13 damage, without any dodges need 7 shots to kill and 10 with dodges
To orc he deals 13 damage, need 22 shots to kill
To lizatdman he deals 18 damage, unkillable due to regen

Maxed skeleton archer vs maxed shielders:
To human it deals 6 damage, need 26 shots to kill
To elf it deals 10 damage, without any dodges need 9 shots to kill and 13-14 with
To orc it deals 10 damage, need 20 shots to kill
To lizardman it deals 15 damage, unkillable due to regen

Maxed orc archer vs maxed shielders:
To human she deals 18 damage, need 9 shots to kill
To elf she deals 22 damage, without dodges need 4 shots to kill and 6-7 with
To orc she deals 22 damage, need 9 shots to kill
To lizardman she deals 27 damage, unkillable due to regen

As you can see every archer against every shielder still has serious problems killing those. Even 6 shots against glassy elven shielder is very big amount.
Compare that to killing orc warrior with 96 hp and 8 armor when maxed by maxed skeleton archer in 6 shots and killing maxed elven swordman with 56 hp and 4 armor for 3-4 shots.
Elven archer would deal with orc warrior for 5 shots and with elven swordman for 2-3 shots.

Yes elite archers (actual archers, not aegis) have higher attack and may deal with basic shielders faster. But still these basic shielders will not die from 2-3 shots of elite archer anyway.
Even best among archers — glade sentry with 55 attack when maxed — will rewuire some time to kill them: elven shielder will receive 41 damage thus 4-5 shots need to kill him, armored orc will receive 41 damage thus 5 shots need to kill, human shielder will receive 37 damage thus 5 shots need to kill him, lizardman shielder will receive 46 damage 28 of which it will heal back thus 11 shots need to kill him.
It is fine enough that 6 turn cost elite unit need 4-5 turns on the average to kill basic 3 turn cost shielder-type unit.
To kill 2 of them (equial to his own cost) he will need 8-10 turns on the average thus almost equial to numbers normal archers above need to kill 1 shielder.

And now compare that to fight against maxed 2 turn cost melee units:
Human warrior has 42 attack
Orc warrior has 54 attack
Elf swordman has 39 attack
Skeleton swordman has 36 attack

Even weakest maxed one among those — skeleton swordman — has same attack as best maxed out basic archer — or archer.
And best one has furthermore even higher attack.
Combine that with buffs unique to melee — for example double strike or just auras to increase attack — and you would be able to deal with shielder much faster than wasting your archers' shots into them.

I do not mention that we have in the game melee units who can surpass 150 raw attack or that knight-type cavalry can do to the same shielders 60+ damage.

______________________________________________________

I always think that we have the rock-paper-scissor (with some exceptions) like this:

Cavalry > all foot
Archers > milee foot
Skirmishers > archers
Milee foot > skirmishers
Spearmans > cavalry

Almost shielders have much enough penetration armor for survive well against archers.
So for me everything is fine with archers.
So i think would be better fix for a bit weak shielders like elven shielder and some others than change all archers.

I'll expand this rock-paper-skissors a bit:

Non-lancer medium cavalry -> all foot non-giant, 50% bonus
Archers -> non-shielded non-archer non-thrower foot (important here since even small shield already makes unit immune to bonuses); also among those they have lowest bonuses to their targets — 20% bonus
Crossbowmen -> non-archer non-thrower foot (these guys HAVE bonus to shielded units), 50%
Composite archers (exclusive to elves, their variant of crossbowmen; elite variant is glade aegis) -> non-archer non-thrower foot, 20%
Skirmishers -> shooters in general (archers, darters, crossbowmen, gunners), 200% bonus
Light cavalry -> archers (as well as workers and casters; they have bonuses to other foot units but against those categories they have even higher bonus), 100% bonus; also all light cavalry units have 2 actions
Foot melee -> throwers (including skirmishers), 100% bonus
Polearm units (spearmen, halberdiers) and lancers -> cavalry, 240% bonus in case of spearmen, 160% bonus in case of halberdiers, 150% bonus in case of lancers.

Regarding skeletons of undeads specifically.
I had in plans to improve calcified bones tech by giving extra +2 piercing armor without any cost increase.
This as well as some changes to to specific skeletons' piercing armor values will be enough to get balance working well without making them immune to arrows.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok i feel it is not confirmed, so i close it CLOSED_NO_NEED