New Unit - Slinger - IMPLEMENTED v.0997

[ollie444]

I was surprised this had not been mentioned before.

This is an image of what they would look like.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... linger.png

I currently have 2 options about this:

Option 1:
They could be like archers, but with different bonuses.
Cost: 2
Range: 1 less than archer
Attack: 1 less than archer
Speed: Same (or 1 more?)
Armor: Same
Health: Same
BONUSES:
(Basically effective against low-armor units)
Archer + variants
Horseman + variants
Ornithoper
BAD AGAINST:
Spartan Hoplites
Swordsmen + variants
Pikemen + variants
Walls and buildings


Option 2:
Like archer but shoots multiple shots!
Maybe shoot 3 stones, each with good chance of hitting (for horses this would be 1/2 and etc for other units)
I guess same stats as prev.

PLEASE GIVE FEEDBACK!!!

[COOLguy]

And bonus vs. Goliath?

Sound's cool. We need a different icon for when they shoot. (a stone)

[ollie444]

What do you think, option 1 or 2?
Or your own design???
Or slightly editing each?

[COOLguy]

I like #1 best.

Only I think they should be more like skirmisher, but longer range and less armor. The way they are now, based off the archer, makes them underpowered and too weak. no one would build them, because they would build archers and skirmishers which are the same cost.
Same attack power and hp, though.
Bonuses are good. Maybe not against ornithopter.

Or option 3: They could cost 3 turns and be a like skirmisher with bigger range and attack and normal armor.

[ollie444]

I think archers were more effective than slingers, so I think they should cost less or same, but I don't think they should have 1 turn to build, so I'm trying to give it different attributes so it is the most unique possible.

If I was choosing, I would probably want option 2, because that is the most different I could get from other units, but I'm inclined to hear other's arguments.

I thought of a fourth option. Have slingers as the default "archer", so the archery range research goes: Slinger > Archer > Crossbowman, if you get me...
You wouldn't require an upgrade for archer in this case.
Pros:
Making slinger worse than archer WITHOUT making it 1 turn, or underpowered.
More depth to game
Cons:
Would change the game quite a bit
We would have to invent more pre-units for the other units, e.g. for swordsman.

I've thought of some-
Clubman > Swordsman > ...

[Stratego (dev)]

you can operate with double attack/turn or even 3 attacks.

[COOLguy]

Ok, I'm glad to hear your mind now.
In that case, I also like option 2.

[COOLguy]

Here are two options for images. Tell me what you think.

Plus a rock.

[ollie444]

Don't mean to be pedantic, but why is there a phallic symbol on his shield?
Plus, is there any easy way to flip the image? - just because its in their left hand, and slingers were mainly right handed.

Stone is good.
I prefer solomon, if you elongate the sling a bit.

But overall, I'm impressed-

you very artist at this!

Ok, I'm glad to hear your mind now.
In that case, I also like option 3.

Did you mean option 2?

[COOLguy]

Ok, the fixes will be here shortly.
You stole the words right from my mouth. I edited my above post. #2

[COOLguy]

Final image?

[Stratego (dev)]

i suggest thinning the leather that holds the stone - to maximum 1px

[COOLguy]

His sling or his pouch?
I will do it as soon as you tell me.

[Stratego (dev)]

the sling.

[COOLguy]

Here, Daniel. Do you like this?
Sorry, there were spammers about, but I am busy, and it is getting late.

[Stratego (dev)]

seems ok for the first sight, i will check it more detailly, what about the stats?
i think this one i will put into game soon - because i like the unit concept.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok, it is in, up on server in 5 minutes

[ollie444]

I think you should make the sling thicker, because it's hard to see and doesn't look right. I think 2 pixels should be enough.

[balint]

Hi, what about a stunning hit?
it has a skill called stunning hit, which stuns the attacked unit for 2 turn (have the highest chanse on high health troops)

[ollie444]

Stunning should definitely be added, I think.