Faction - Labrynna Regime

**Eldren** · February 06, 2014, 01:12 PM

@ Aleatorio.

Originally Posted by Aleatorio

Brilliant, just brilliant. Since they aren´t supposed to be good in melee (not having mechs in count of course) something like that would give then a nice advantage to compensate that in ofensive sieges. Jus imagine putting that just in front of the wall, let the gunners do their business and whe the wall is clear putting regular gunners there to shot down at the rest of the enemy. It would be glorious.

They wouldn't just be for sieges. But also bridge battles. attacking an enemy army in the open. OR what ever reason you can use them for.

@ Drazule.

Originally Posted by Drazule

Those are badass, but wouldn't they just be mobile gunner posts?

Purity much. They would also have a height advantage. To shoot over your troops, So they don't have to be in front like Gunner Posts.
They would also be less defensive. Gunner Post can block an enemy's path. But the Gunner Towers can still be used to defend a settlement.

**Drazule** · February 06, 2014, 01:30 PM

I'd like to see a mass of Tokay Slaves pushing this thing into battle.

**VictorAYorke** · February 06, 2014, 05:36 PM

I'm loving that Gunner Tower plan...

Perhaps, actually, we rejig the Labrynna roster a little to make it work? So Gunners proper appear at barracks tier 2 (with only 50% the unit size, or something, to compensate for earliness while keeping guns a reasonably common mainline military option and retaining the historical precedent for firearms being a low-training & cheapish powerhouse compared with bows), Gunner Posts at barracks tier 4 (or out of the siegeworks but require a tier 4 armoury) (on account of their well-documented OPness) and the Gunner Tower comes out of the siegeworks?

**Apani** · February 06, 2014, 05:57 PM

I suggest making siegeworks more expensive, longer to build and maybe make different levels of it. The first level could train proper siege weapons and the level above could produce defensive emplacements (for all factions). I also suggest adding Labrynna's Factories at the top of Siegeworks' tech tree.
My pratical example:
Level 1 Siegeworks: Cannons
Level 2 Siegeworks (I suggest the name "Fortification Shop"): Cannons and Gunner Posts.
Level 3 Siegeworks (Labrynna's exclusive): Cannons, Gunner Posts, Tanks/Mechs and building discounts.

**VictorAYorke** · February 06, 2014, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Apani

I suggest making siegeworks more expensive, longer to build and maybe make different levels of it. The first level could train proper siege weapons and the level above could produce defensive emplacements (for all factions). I also suggest adding Labrynna's Factories at the top of Siegeworks' tech tree.
My pratical example:
Level 1 Siegeworks: Cannons
Level 2 Siegeworks (I suggest the name "Fortification Shop"): Cannons and Gunner Posts.
Level 3 Siegeworks (Labrynna's exclusive): Cannons, Gunner Posts, Tanks/Mechs and building discounts.

Love it!

One problem though; I've heard rumours that adding both unit dependencies and any form of municipal bonus to the same structure causes it to have issues.

**fernavliz** · February 06, 2014, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by VictorAYorke

Love it!

One problem though; I've heard rumours that adding both unit dependencies and any form of municipal bonus to the same structure causes it to have issues.

what do you mean with municipal bonus? If i understand/interpret correctly, it would be that there cannot be a building that can recruit a unit and that have a construction_cost_bonus_<wood/stone> (cheaper building). I tested it by adding the ability to train gunnerpost to the labrynna factory and it worked without a problem.

But maybe you meant something like gunnerpost that besides siegeworks requires smith armourer AND gives construction_cost_bonus (cheaper buildings); I tested that and it crashed. So it has to do with buildings that can train units but that also requires certain level of smith + some bonus (i have no time to test every possible bonus, just with one crash i give up).

**Gebilde** · February 07, 2014, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by fernavliz

But maybe you meant something like gunnerpost that besides siegeworks requires smith armourer AND gives construction_cost_bonus (cheaper buildings); I tested that and it crashed. So it has to do with buildings that can train units but that also requires certain level of smith + some bonus (i have no time to test every possible bonus, just with one crash i give up).

No you can make a unit dependencies without crash that just requers a bit work araound
First you ad to siegeworkshop
recruit_pool "your unit" 0 0 4 0 requires factions { faction, }
and then ad to smith armoure building
this line
recruit_pool "your unit" 1 0.2 0 0 requires factions { faction, }
So the if you build the siegeworkshop it will enable the unit but it will not refresh
the recruit_pool in smith building will hower Stuck with this enables the Unit to refresh, but does not appear if it just build the smith building alone

**Cameron Shutters** · February 07, 2014, 11:05 AM

If I remember correctly Neph said the plan is to make Tanks buildable from the Factory; which I agree with personally. It's an incredibly expensive and slow building structure that requires a highly upgraded city.

As for Gunner Posts I think putting them where the Gunners currently reside in the Barracks slot and moving the Gunners down a bit (as they come in too late game as it is, contrast with the Gunner Posts who are way to early).

**fernavliz** · February 07, 2014, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Gebilde

No you can make a unit dependencies without crash that just requers a bit work araound
First you ad to siegeworkshop
recruit_pool "your unit" 0 0 4 0 requires factions { faction, }
and then ad to smith armoure building
this line
recruit_pool "your unit" 1 0.2 0 0 requires factions { faction, }
So the if you build the siegeworkshop it will enable the unit but it will not refresh
the recruit_pool in smith building will hower Stuck with this enables the Unit to refresh, but does not appear if it just build the smith building alone

That´s a much better way to do it. I tested it and it works perfeckt and it doesn´t crash like the way i tried (the same building can recruit a unit but requires a smith level AND have bonus). It would be appropriate for many labrynna units, like make gunnerpost available only when gunners become so; tanks available with siegeworks and factory.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Eldren** · February 17, 2014, 11:30 AM

For those who are having trouble with religious unrest as the Labrynna Regime. I'll tell you how you can make a anti-religious building to counter it.

First step.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Second step.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

If you did it right. Labrynna should have a new building that they can build. Called Schools.

Now enjoy having less or no religious unrest as the Labrynna Regime.

Cheers.

**WindGuru** · April 15, 2014, 05:38 AM

I'm way late with this, but yes, I have to agree that Gunner towers come in too early. At the least they should come at the same time as ordinary Gunners, since they're just Gunners Behind Barricades, but more likely later, since they're supposed to be more OP than ordinary Gunners.

I'm not quite sure why they're considered more OP than Gunners though? If the Gunner glitch was fixed (which makes Gunners nearly useless right now) wouldn't they be about the same? I've noticed light cavalry in large numbers can just as easily overrun my Gunners as Gunner Posts.

Maybe there could be some other late game firearm unit for Labrynna? A bazooka-type unit (bigger barrel, more power and splash damage, less accuracy) might be cool.

**Takoom** · July 09, 2014, 12:04 PM

*This is a very long post but it takes a while to explain a very hard subject its taken a great many tests to figure out

I've been playing Labrynna for a while now mostly in the custom battle department to see how they stack up against their nearest neighbors as well as some more wild cards like Gorons an Twili an what not. An honestly they play very different then any faction i've tried in a while. The set up i use is 1 Knights as Ambi as a General ( i use no hero or merc units in my testing) 4 Tokay Slave, 1 Steam Tank, 3 Knights of Ambi, 2 Palace Guards, 2 Borderguards, 2 Gunners, 2 Pioneers, 2 Mechs, and 1 Cannon against a very hard enemy with a good mix of different units.

What i've found is that aside from Gunners, Cannons, and now (depending on who your fighting against) the Steamtank the units cannot really go up against other faction units and do the amount of damage the enemy does. Where even the Knights of Ambi may inflict about 20-40 casualties the Gunners will cause about 120-150 casualties even when they are seriously engaged in melee and lose about half their force. Now this is very much intentional. Their early melee units are pretty much slave militia and even the description states that Labrynna has a weak melee military (except for their Mechs but thats a different story). What Labrynna it seems is made for is shock an awe. Force the enemy to rout before they can sustain the damage they need. In practice it means you normally rout the entire army leaving it a bloody mess but not truly beaten easily able to reform and come back again. You accomplish this by using Cannons, Steamtanks, and Gunners to if not rout them before they even reach you then to rout them shortly after they engage.

I would say that all of the units Labrynna have are largely balanced but the Gunners. I've tried them with both fire by rank and without. What i've come to find is that they are largely very over powered. Their role is to stand on the sidelines being covered by a spearmen unit for cavalry cover an slowly but surely kill and rout the enemy. The problem though is that the enemy cannot concentrate the number of infantry needed to kill them as 1 unit of infantry usually routs before being able to engage or shortly after when your spearmen unit comes to bail them out. Cavalry is largely also useless against them because of the numbers of soldiers they have (Gunners have the highest soldier count in the Labrynna roster of units) and the defending spearmen. Enemy cav either rout before being able to engage or flee after maybe killing 10-20 gunners in exchange for usually the entire cav unit (they take heavy losses charging the gunners and then continual losses as they run). Ranged be it artillery or otherwise also cannot really effect gunners all too drastically as Gunners out shoot just about any ranged unit in damage and shot distance. Coupled with the large soldier count they can easily shrug off ranged assaults as they easily have the soldiers to spare to decimate the enemy ranged with.

This coupled with the fact that using Gunners with so many soldiers is largely very annoying to use to their fullest, or you have about 50 units that are doing nothing but being ready to replace the first or second rank.

Either using fire by rank or not having any more then 3 ranks is terrible for Gunners as i've said before.

With fire by rank on each additional rank makes the next volley take that much longer for the unit to reorganize -> load -> aim and fire, meaning to use them effectively you need to spread an 180 soldier unit into as close as you can get to 2 ranks. This makes them extremely hard to protect effectively, meaning they will take losses. Where if they were say about 100 soldiers you could easily protect them meaning little to no losses. The point I'm trying to make here is that they seem to be given more units to intentionally get them killed where with less soldiers you would see really little to no loss in performance. You would have almost the same amount of guns firing at any point before losses start happening with 100 Gunners as you would with 180 unless you stretch your ranks out to insane lengths. This also leads to the point of being over powered when you do stretch them out. If you do stretch out a 180 soldier Gunner unit so that you only have 2 ranks you have a unit that literally routs or kills an enemy unit in 2 volleys. The "Musical Chairs" effect in the unit with just 2 ranks is very negligible meaning the next volley is coming just a bit longer then if they had fire by rank off an did a kneel to let the next rank shoot.

With fire by rank off anyone not in the first or second rank do nothing but wait to move to the forward ranks to take a place of a lost soldier. Stretching a 180 soldier Gunner unit to 2 ranks with fire by rank off makes this unit able to inflict casualties on a HTW war crimes level. Have you seen a Deku scrub graveyard built in 1 minute?

I've come to the simple conclusion that Gunners need a serious nerfing to their number of Soldiers. You can punish them up close, you can bombard them from afar an they will never take the number of casualties needed to finish them and the rest of a Labrynna army. The only time ive seen my Gunners take any real losses, and then therefore the rest of my army started suffering was against the Zora. With their combined artillery and mages they knocked my Gunners down by about 50-80 soldiers very early on in the fight. The Zora also fought longer before routing. But this also changed the normal Labrynna tactics of shock and awe into whole sale slaughter. My forces took the biggest beating i've ever seen, but where most enemy armies would have routed and saved a good majority the Zora did not meaning that there was almost no Zora to escape the battle (They changed the rules! They were suppose to run! Instead both sides bled to death.... But there was a lot more Labrynians left bleeding in the end.).

What i propose to balance gunners is to remove fire by rank, but also lower their soldier count to 120 (Maybe even less, I'll have to run tests to see if that is even low enough!). Doing this will have the effect of balancing them so they are not so over powered, but also help them in the long run to be a much more easily manageable unit. It will:

1) Make them a very effective unit able to inflict high numbers of casualties and rout most units still.
2) Make a much smaller and easily defendable unit.
3) Create a unit that cannot shrug off being engaged by enemy cav/melee/ranged which is the biggest thing that needs to change about them
4) Stop the over powered -ness of having a 180 soldier Gunner unit with 2 ranks decimating enemy units in 1 to 2 volleys (No more War Crimes!).

Let me know what you all think!

**SirMark9** · July 09, 2014, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Takoom

Here is a long and useful post.

Keep in consideration Battle Size which will increase the numbers of units on the field if you have it set to a high setting.

However, I would agree on the size of the Gunners. In the code their size is set at 75 soldiers, where the "default baseline" (Hylian Crossbow or even Town Guards) have a max of 50 men!

I'll adjust the numbers to 40 (from 75, 50 seems to be the default), and remove the fire by rank ability. This adjustment will be placed out Friday when the Community Patch 2 releases.

**Nergali** · April 19, 2015, 07:21 AM

Three suggestions here. First, could the Lantern Shield be incorporated into the Labrynna Regime, perhaps utilized by the Homeguards (as perhaps an upgrade) or perhaps even duel wielded by mechs? It was essentially a fusion between a buckler, a gauntlet, a sword, and a lantern.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The second suggestion is a modified version of the medieval gun-shield. Just as it sounds, its a fusion between a firearm and a shield. In this case, it could perhaps be modified for a more ornate design, and perhaps made into a tower shield for increased stability as well as allowing a larger gun to be built into it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Finally, my third suggestion is incorporating the handheld cannon utilized by Aaru to retake Hyrule Castle towards the end of Twilight Princess. Perhaps a larger version used by a secondary mech unit, under the idea that they're the only ones strong enough to carry/use it?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: