Thought about Leaders on TC

[Endru1241]

What is exact stat now?
Would daimyo turn cost b 6 turn too?

And would nodachi get bonus against buildings or only stay anti light infantry? The problem is light infantry/cav categories can also b killed with archers and not necessarily need a melee, although they might b useful against rome

42hp, 13 power, 4/2 armors.
Noth enough nerf for 6 turns yet.

As for nodachi - no change in stats.
To be honest - I am not particularly in favor of any melee unit having AOE against buildings, so if anything - I'd change zweihander bonuses.

[godOfKings]

Wat about castle destroyer zerk and gallowglass then?

[Endru1241]

I calculated and:
Fully powered berserk is 24 attack, which means it deals 301 vs high castle - destroys it in 10 attacks, but having hero song it's 5 turns.
Gallowglass with 22 attack deals 304, so 10 turns.

Zweihander with only 19 attack has huge 486, but is destroying it in 7 attacks, so the middle between.

Seeing it I think nodachi could get the bonus too.
Even with full swordsman bonus and it's maximum of 16 attack it would go to 300 damage, so 10 turns, just like gallowglass.
Although lessening his other bonuses should still be considered (or lower/incomplete swordsman bonus) as full swordsman bonus would give quite high damage vs siege tower.

Although honestly I had two ideas about bonuses vs buildings:
- short term - changing bonuses to have constant part to both increase initial damage (especially for lowest damage units) and decrease too huge of boost from buffs.
- long term/unclear and unsure future - get rid of all melee bonuses vs structures (and possibly some siege machines) instead making all those units acting as specific converters for those (of course either removing production and factory count or forcing transformation on success)

[godOfKings]

I didnt notice the addition of high morale aura on daimyo, that does change some things and make it more 7 turn worthy, although it is still a question of whether max boosted centurion with physician, other centurion and even drummer buff is weaker than daimyo or not...

[b2198]

I calculated and:
Fully powered berserk is 24 attack, which means it deals 301 vs high castle - destroys it in 10 attacks, but having hero song it's 5 turns.
Gallowglass with 22 attack deals 304, so 10 turns.

Zweihander with only 19 attack has huge 486, but is destroying it in 7 attacks, so the middle between.

Seeing it I think nodachi could get the bonus too.
Even with full swordsman bonus and it's maximum of 16 attack it would go to 300 damage, so 10 turns, just like gallowglass.
Although lessening his other bonuses should still be considered (or lower/incomplete swordsman bonus) as full swordsman bonus would give quite high damage vs siege tower.

I think a lower swordsman bonus would be better for them, to make them more unique in function when compared to samurai/hatamoto and zweihander.

Although honestly I had two ideas about bonuses vs buildings:
- short term - changing bonuses to have constant part to both increase initial damage (especially for lowest damage units) and decrease too huge of boost from buffs.

Like what you did to most anti-mounted damage? I think that could work very well. Would make it so that there aren't as many "nearly useless" units early on vs buildings, due to damage dealt being way lower than repair rate. An example I can think of is an early shielder trying to take down a fort under construction: it's almost impossible to do so if there are builders involved, and even without them it might still take a very long time depending on how much hp it had beforehand (though to be fair even a buffed guardian might not do it that easily, but they're cheap and not very damage-oriented, so I think that's fine).

- long term/unclear and unsure future - get rid of all melee bonuses vs structures (and possibly some siege machines) instead making all those units acting as specific converters for those (of course either removing production and factory count or forcing transformation on success)

Also very interesting idea, though some other changes might need to come before this huge one, like "nerfing" the deletion of your own units in some way (might also be a point to consider for current conversion)

[Endru1241]

If nobody noticed: Added Nodachi Samurai bonuses like Gallowglass -> +5% vs machines, +50% vs structures, siege machines and ships, +100% vs fortifications, armored siege machines, +350% vs megas for now.

Also calculated how it would change if part of anti-building bonus would be constant.
In megas and especially fort case - buffed aoe melee are on the level of strongest siege machines (Berserker 100*2 vs fort 301*2 vs high castle, Zweihander 131 vs fort, 474 vs high castle), while the rest only go up to fire catapult level (man at arms 56 vs fort, 155 vs high castle).

Some solution would be to level it all to some more common value.
Pure anti-building (swordsman bonuses) having:
+50% +5 vs structures, +100% +10 vs fortifications, except big, +700% +24 vs mega buildings, +150% +17 vs big fortifications
+50% +6 vs structures, +100% +12 vs fortifications, except big, +700% +30 vs mega buildings, +150% +21 vs big fortifications
+50% +8 vs structures, +100% +16 vs fortifications, except big, +700% +40 vs mega buildings, +150% +28 vs big fortifications
+50% +10 vs structures, +100% +20 vs fortifications, except big, +700% +50 vs mega buildings, +150% +35 vs big fortifications
going from shielder (sub swordsman level), swordsman, broadswordsmen to man-at-arms.
While having all aoe melee units at level of:
+40% +5 vs structures, +80% +10 vs fortifications, except big, +200% vs mega buildings, +90% vs big fortifications
With exception of zweihander as concentrated at anti-building acitivties with:
+50% +10 vs structures, +100% +20 vs fortifications, except big, +400% vs mega buildings, +120% vs big fortifications
Non-aoe with weaker bonuses would need to be set accordingly, e.g. axe thrower at:
+25% +4 vs structures, +50% +7 vs fortifications, except big, +200% +20 vs mega buildings, +60% +14 vs big fortifications


That would make all those units deal vs megas around 200 damage maxed, while around 100 initially (except sub-swordsman at ~70).
With slightly bigger bonuses zweihander would also be different with initial ~170, while maxed over 300.
Fort would get "Big" category of course.

Still wondering if bonuses vs siege, armored siege and ships should have different constant values, just bundled together (so the same) or left as pure percentage like right now.

Main intention would be to have:
- initial damage of weakest units much higher vs their specialised targets
- units less dependent on buffs
- more similar max damage vs multi-tiled targets between aoe and non-aoe units as aoe was never meant to increase damage vs buildings

My main concern is if the level I chose for strongest damage is not too low (it's a little lower from unburdened ram).

[b2198]

If nobody noticed: Added Nodachi Samurai bonuses like Gallowglass -> +5% vs machines, +50% vs structures, siege machines and ships, +100% vs fortifications, armored siege machines, +350% vs megas for now.

That's nice, they might become viable now.

Also calculated how it would change if part of anti-building bonus would be constant.
In megas and especially fort case - buffed aoe melee are on the level of strongest siege machines (Berserker 100*2 vs fort 301*2 vs high castle, Zweihander 131 vs fort, 474 vs high castle), while the rest only go up to fire catapult level (man at arms 56 vs fort, 155 vs high castle).

Some solution would be to level it all to some more common value.
Pure anti-building (swordsman bonuses) having:
+50% +5 vs structures, +100% +10 vs fortifications, except big, +700% +24 vs mega buildings, +150% +17 vs big fortifications
+50% +6 vs structures, +100% +12 vs fortifications, except big, +700% +30 vs mega buildings, +150% +21 vs big fortifications
+50% +8 vs structures, +100% +16 vs fortifications, except big, +700% +40 vs mega buildings, +150% +28 vs big fortifications
+50% +10 vs structures, +100% +20 vs fortifications, except big, +700% +50 vs mega buildings, +150% +35 vs big fortifications
going from shielder (sub swordsman level), swordsman, broadswordsmen to man-at-arms.
While having all aoe melee units at level of:
+40% +5 vs structures, +80% +10 vs fortifications, except big, +200% vs mega buildings, +90% vs big fortifications
With exception of zweihander as concentrated at anti-building acitivties with:
+50% +10 vs structures, +100% +20 vs fortifications, except big, +400% vs mega buildings, +120% vs big fortifications
Non-aoe with weaker bonuses would need to be set accordingly, e.g. axe thrower at:
+25% +4 vs structures, +50% +7 vs fortifications, except big, +200% +20 vs mega buildings, +60% +14 vs big fortifications


That would make all those units deal vs megas around 200 damage maxed, while around 100 initially (except sub-swordsman at ~70).
With slightly bigger bonuses zweihander would also be different with initial ~170, while maxed over 300.
Fort would get "Big" category of course.

Still wondering if bonuses vs siege, armored siege and ships should have different constant values, just bundled together (so the same) or left as pure percentage like right now.

Main intention would be to have:
- initial damage of weakest units much higher vs their specialised targets
- units less dependent on buffs
- more similar max damage vs multi-tiled targets between aoe and non-aoe units as aoe was never meant to increase damage vs buildings

My main concern is if the level I chose for strongest damage is not too low (it's a little lower from unburdened ram).

I think that's an awesome start already, and also really liked the differentiation of "big fortifications" in the bonuses, because forts currently barely take any damage from non-aoe infantry (with the exception of hatamoto, with all buffs and auras involved).

I think it would be better to apply constants to at least armored siege machines and ships too (not sure in the case of non-armored siege machines), because as of right now, it's almost not worth attacking them with unbuffed (land) units, though since they're all single-tiled, they don't have the same issue of aoe damage being too effective against them.

I don't think the damage is too low, considering that a lot more units will now be able to get involved in sieging in a meaningful way, but would need to test in an actual match to see if that's really the case.


Also... shouldn't all this siege discussion be in a separate topic? lol

[godOfKings]

The problem is anti armored siege infantry with double action buff can almost one shot most armored siege units