Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

  1. #1
    Civis
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    122

    Default Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    The great mods up above have told us that there will be a total rebalancing of units in 3.0.
    I thought we'd dedicate a thread for suggestions for which units should be changed, and how. Which should be removed as superfluous and which needs to be added.
    And maybe they will read this, and take it under consideration, or at least give them some ideas.


    The first one up is the adunabar and gondor militia, which of course needs to have spears......

    The ones I really want to see changed is Rhun and their chariots.
    Chariots as units are a bit finicky.
    The settler wains need to go. The AI simply can't handle them, it uses these quite clever population movers as a regular chariot unit.
    The chieftains wains is also problematic, since it pretty much ignores the general and his hitpoints. When his chariot dies, he dies, and his chariot dies as easily as any other chariot in the unit.
    Hitpoint increases just doesn't do anything, making rhun chieftains very very vulnerable in combat, and can die far too easily.
    Maybe change the Rhuns bodyguard to something more "normal", like cav or infantry, remove the settler wains and make the Rhun City diversification "wain workshop" create a wain that is more like the scythed chariots from RTW:vanilla that for example the seleucid got.
    Or maybe even two different wain units, one light, with archers, and one heavy, for charging.
    A bit like the britons have, also in RTW:vanilla.
    That would also make the wain workshop worth making, currently there is no real incentive to make it over a thrall stockade, which also gives movable population units (thralls, while slower to move, recruits much faster) as well as trade and farm bonuses.

  2. #2
    StealthEvo's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    You raise some good points. But I found that the Chieftains wains, when I fought them. Are quite tough once they hit you. But i've only fought them in sieges. So after the initial shock they get bogged down. But can agree with a Scythed Chariot esque unit.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    So far we got you 100% covered.

  4. #4
    Civis
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    122

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Quote Originally Posted by StealthEvo View Post
    You raise some good points. But I found that the Chieftains wains, when I fought them. Are quite tough once they hit you. But i've only fought them in sieges. So after the initial shock they get bogged down. But can agree with a Scythed Chariot esque unit.
    Oh yes, chariot units are cool.
    The problem lies in them being a general unit, because normally a general is among the last to die in his unit because of higher hitpoints then the other soldiers.
    But in a chariot unit, his chariot dies as easily as the other, and when his chariot dies, so does he.

  5. #5
    StealthEvo's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    I dont think Rhun needs any MORE morale bonus's Maybe some more armour piercing units. To really help them against Adunabar and the Re-united Kingdom Forces. Or some good screening big shield weilding people. Those archers are nasty. I was able to heavily damage most Harad forces heading to Eymn Arnen with 6 units of Orc Snaga of all things.

    You could, and this is purely hypothetical. Do what XC did (or does) and make most units 2 hp to stop arrows from being so beastly. But that creates all kind of other balence issues.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nehcrum View Post
    Oh yes, chariot units are cool.
    The problem lies in them being a general unit, because normally a general is among the last to die in his unit because of higher hitpoints then the other soldiers.
    But in a chariot unit, his chariot dies as easily as the other, and when his chariot dies, so does he.
    Add to that the hilarious behaviour of AI controlled chariots. They really like to charge your Citadel Guards or whatever other elite spearmen are available. That being said, I like the current Chieftain's Wains though. Settler Wains are a great concept as well. Their only weakness is, again, AI issues.


    Personally, I'd like to see more units having secondary weapons. Like Scarlet Shields, who could really use a secondary sword. And perhaps more standardized stats (e.g. concerning the AP trait). Also, as of now, Rohan has hardly any counter to Műmakil, because elephants in RTW can only be brought down efficiently with javelins or siege engines. Maybe the militia cavaly unit could have some javelins in addition to their spear, or the Rohan Riders could pack more, or be able to skirmish?
    I also second the notion that spears are a great idea for Gondor and Adunabar militia.


    Sorry if this sounds like I'm demanding things for balance's sake. My actual intention is to have more depth in the game (for example, secondary weapons are a big fun factor for players like me, even though the AI itself is bad at handling the issue).

  7. #7
    StealthEvo's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Doesn't Rohan have armoured Horse Archers through the scouts? And in all fairness I did a custom battle full mumakils against a fairly mixed good rohan hoarde and it was pretty even. I was able to kill about half of them But they did do a heavy number on me. I think the difference in Campaign is the need of generals and the fact that numbers lost really hurts.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Quote Originally Posted by StealthEvo View Post
    Doesn't Rohan have armoured Horse Archers through the scouts? And in all fairness I did a custom battle full mumakils against a fairly mixed good rohan hoarde and it was pretty even. I was able to kill about half of them But they did do a heavy number on me. I think the difference in Campaign is the need of generals and the fact that numbers lost really hurts.
    As of yet, Rohan has Scouts (light HAs with axes), and brutish heavier HAs with mailshirts and swords (part of the "we can ride down anything" triad, together with Riddermark Spears and Riders of the Mark). Both are very practical, but less suited against elephants or trolls than against infantry. Against those big creatures, javelins or infantry based polearms are far more effective than arrows.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Some of these may already have been suggested or implemented, but here goes...

    1) Make it so Adunabar can train its "evil" men units (swords of the shadow, shadowriders) alongside Orcs OR "good" men units (militia, royal longbowmen etc).

    The current situation is that adunabar's normal soldiers can't be trained where orcs are present, but training Swords of the Shadow, Cultists, Shadowriders or Dark Companions (those eastern axe guys) is only possible in cities with some kind of orc building; in effect the evil men are treated as orcs for the purposes of where they're allowed to be trained. I get it that adunabar's regular soldiers men don't like being trained alongside Orcs, but don't see why they would object to being around evil men - presumably many of the regular soldiers are meant to be cult of shadow and therefore evil themselves. This also means that, except in the orc provinces (Minas Ithil etc) you can't build any units besides the regular soldiers until your city is large enough for diversification buildings. This is not so much of an issue for Shadowriders / Shadow swords, who need big cities anyway, but effectively makes the Dark Companions far more difficult to train than they should be (you need a big city in the east).

    2) Make Wargs easier to train. Adunabar needs to have a huge city in Rhovanion to get any, which is impossible without massed immigration, a time-consuming and expensive project for which wargs are a poor reward. On a related note, shouldn't Dunland be allowed Wargs as well as / instead of Adunabar? I always associate wargs more with the misty-mountains orcs than with Mordor.

    3) I recognise that this is time consuming and difficult to implement, but I'd love to see more regional variation in units, especially across the large, empty areas Tolkein didn't describe in much detail (Dunland, Harad, Rhun & eastern mordor); and I'd like to see players able to recruit more than just low-level regional units. I mostly play as Adunabar and love to command big, "messy" Sauron-style armies consisting of mixtures of orks, easterlings etc from accross my massive empire. It would also increase replayability by encouraging players to try different strategies with the same powers (e.g. "last time I was Harad, I conquered Gondor first, so this time I'll try going through Khand and seeing what cool new units I can get there!"). Preferably these new units would be unusual and different units, but even if the regional / levy units are essentially just clones of local "native" factions' units, it'd still be cool.

    On a related note, I like the "assimilation" units you get when you conquer another faction's capital. Just one point - at present, both Minas Tirith and Ithil give you essentially the same unit (Longbowmen); shouldn't one give access to a more different unit, for variation's sake?

  10. #10

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    1. The configuration you are familiar with from TNS is no longer valid in DoM; I think you'll find the new system much improved.

    2. This is something for us to consider, but it's not as easy as it sounds due to a couple of not-so-obvious reasons.

    3. Apart from time-consuming and difficult, adding more local levies means either using up DMB slots (which are 255 in all, and we will only have extremely few left, if any at all) or having multiple similar-looking units, which doesn't add so much to the game.

    As for the assimilation units, it will be looked at.

  11. #11
    Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze's Avatar Occasio mihi fertur
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,473

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    You're getting me so hyped for this mod with number 1 there, Aradan

  12. #12

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Awesome, thanks! Good to hear that Adunabar's recruitment issues will be resolved; I always resented having to avoid fully upgrading some cities in order to keep Longbowmen available.

  13. #13
    Civis
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    122

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Figaro View Post
    Awesome, thanks! Good to hear that Adunabar's recruitment issues will be resolved; I always resented having to avoid fully upgrading some cities in order to keep Longbowmen available.
    Shouldn't be that much of a problem, orcs aren't that good, and the orc outpost doesn't give any benefits besides giving access to orcs (and shaodw companions, rider and swords, as well as the cultists, if anyone builds them).
    In fact, upgrading the basic city diversity building into any of the adunabar choices means you lose the +20% to law and happiness you get from the CD.

    It is enough to make the orc buildings in your three MI, Barad-eden and Durthang.
    Then maybe a orc outpost in some major city far away just to send out lots of snaga to populate minor cities.
    Dol Amroth is excellent for this, since it has all the prerequisites and there are some minor settlements nearby that really benefits from population increases.

    What annoys me is that you in order to build the CD, you need the highest lvl shadow temple. Not so much a trouble in itself, except that for the highest lvl shadow temple you need the highest lvl barracks, and for the highest lvl barracks you need the highest lvl blacksmith.
    And both barrack units and forge upgrades are disabled by any of the CD upgrades....talk about a waste of time and money.

    Which is another reason for only making CD upgrades in your three orc cities, since they also get a large bonus to build time and costs for getting there.





    One thing I have wondered about, when it comes to the number of slots available for units and buildings.
    Why do each faction have it's own line of barracks and stables?
    Couldn't some of them share those buildings, with only differences in what units they train? Or is one required for the each culture for some reason (doesn't seem to apply to other type of buildings)?

  14. #14

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Factions have different barracks so that you can't just take over someone else's province and benefit from the existing infrastructure. Each faction needs to establish itself in the region first and gradually absorb the region the realm in order to have more advanced recruitment options. The barracks represent this procedure of absorption, along with the infrastructure-related requirements.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    What about similar factions like RK and Adunabar. I seem to remember taking Emyn Arnyn (sp?) and immediately being able to recruit. Is this how it works with these factions, and, if so, is it being changed?

    The tale of Legio IV Flavia Felix: After cowardice during the Revolt of 69-70 AD the IV Macedonian was reconstituted and renamed IV Flavia Felix, or "lucky legion" signifying its luck at not being dishonorably disbanded.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Adunabar is essentially RK Rebels gone independent; it's like a civil war, so it makes sense they share infrastructure. And no, that won't change.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Changes to units in FATW 3.0

    Oh, thanks just was a bit confused Its all clear now

    The tale of Legio IV Flavia Felix: After cowardice during the Revolt of 69-70 AD the IV Macedonian was reconstituted and renamed IV Flavia Felix, or "lucky legion" signifying its luck at not being dishonorably disbanded.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •