Elf wagon redesign and buildable - IMPLEMENTED

[Alexander82]

I redesigned the elven wagon to be more... elven

I didn't check the stats it has in the editor but i think it is similar to the human one.

Some times ago Daniel told me iit was ok to be voted in so i think we can put it into the vote list

[Sunrise Samurai]

Flowers. I like.

[Puss_in_Boots]

[Gif terminated to save space]
Human flowers... I like it!

[Sunrise Samurai]

For stats, let's have

Hp 15 (down from human 25)
Speed 6 (up from human 5)
Capacity 2 (down from human 3)
Can move in forest, unlike any other version.

While I have serious objections to ents in wagons, it's only fair to have them able to use wagons as long as giants and catapults can be packed 3 to a wagon. I have objections to that as well, but it seems ingrained deeply in human strategy to be able to rush catapults across the map in wagons that shouldn't be able to hold 1, much less 3.

[Alexander82]

I would avoid to put into wagon anything that is not a human sized unit on foot.

We might open a poll on that purpose in the specific section

[Sunrise Samurai]

Does this mean we can fix that? Can't say that makes me sad. I've never understood catapults in wagons, and will gladly support anything to plug the strange hole in the universe that allows wagons to hold things bigger than they are.

[Alexander82]

I agree with you. The wagon should be a mean to transport infantry units and casters

[Sunrise Samurai]

Ok, so are the specified stat changes appropriate​? Now that we have the subject of large units in another topic, it's best to get this one back in focus.

[makazuwr32]

So can we see elven wagons in the game?
i think that they can be slower (speed 4), but are able to move through forests and also can transport 2-3 units.
Can't transport ents.

[Puss_in_Boots]

We could use slower wagons, it becomes a mean to transport slower units like ent builders and the upcoming woodshaper. Hopefully other future units.
If the player wants to bring elves onboard the wagon. His elven units will not be able to cover an insane amount of 9-10 tiles of range. Only 8, like other races.

[makazuwr32]

Exactly.
And no Ents (exept workers)/centaurs/unicorn riders/dryads in wagons.
There is still enough units for elves to transport with them.

[Alexander82]

The chance to transport through forest seems a great advantage compared to other kind of wagons.

Anyway, still being a wagon, i'd stick with the normal limitations that wagons have.

[makazuwr32]

I see.
Actually Elven wagons don't need this ability to move through forests - elf druid has almost same spell, that can give any wagon this ability.
Still even if they would able to transport ents and so they must be still slower by 1 point.
And maybe even they're buildable only by workers or only in TC.

[Alexander82]

They shouldn't. Imho any wagon shouldn't be able to transport units like giants, ents, mounted units, siege weapons.

I think we should edit the current one to go toward that direction

[makazuwr32]

Then humans at least need another wagon-type units for their artillery only.
And in AoS we also need some kind of artillery-only wagons then.

[Alexander82]

Is that necessary? They can build artillery with workers where they need it.

[makazuwr32]

Actually i think - yes.
Because if you fight with another human in aof or in aos then defending player will definately have advantage because he can just shoot this constructioning artillery and even workers and even more trebushets will become absurdly useless in both games. (they are the only buildable siege in both games in castle only)
They'll become not a siege weapons to restroy gastles but a defending weapons from enemy siege only.
and in reality they were the most useful weapons for a siege.

[makazuwr32]

Sorry for double post of Doom.
I thought about complete redesign of human artillery in both games.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4765#p53295
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4765#p53299

[Alexander82]

Actually i think - yes.
Because if you fight with another human in aof or in aos then defending player will definately have advantage because he can just shoot this constructioning artillery and even workers and even more trebushets will become absurdly useless in both games.
They'll become not a siege weapons to restroy gastles but a defending weapons from enemy siege only.
and in reality they were the most useful weapons for a siege.

I like the 2 forms idea but I think that part of "siege used as defense" might be solved in another way, like adding a higher miss chance that, in case of errors, might hit anything in the siege weapon range (that is more likely to be part of your base if you are defending).

[makazuwr32]

No because actually siege used as defence and medieval siege was actually pretty accurate but in your suggestion to build siege on needed place siege will become ONLY useful in defence.
You can even without siege just shoot those builders to stop construction.

[Alexander82]

Accurate? They generally needed more shots to adjust their aim and remember they were throwind rocks (not the most precise and aerodinamyc projetiles).

Anyway there is a reason if they weren't used

[makazuwr32]

But when you siege in medieval for example castle humans in it had a time to train in that place to shoot precise.
For example when one russian Knyaz' sieged Novgorod two of his three threbushets was destroyed by only one of the city's trebushet with 2 shots.

[Alexander82]

Of course... most of the time they hit what they are aiming for...

[Alexander82]

What about

Hp 20
Speed 5
Capacity 2 (affected by treetop archery, so max 4)

Forestwalk can be given by druids anyway

[makazuwr32]

Agree. sounds good and gives usability to Treetop tech.

[Sunrise Samurai]

I'm having a VERY interesting game with Mak right now, that is proving a few balance changes I've been thinking about are necessary.

We've been in this position for about 10 turns now.
Score is
Me:5416
Mak:1967
Tc count
Me:24
Mak:4

I have 15 great trees. By any reasonable measure, I should be able to crush his base with ease. I can't.

Through an ingenious combination of mages, wagon, and battering rams, he is able to repel any invasion force, regardless of size, without risking anything more than one or two wagons as he ships mages out, 3 to a wagon, launches fireballs, and walks the mages back to the safety of a fortress or castle, leaving an empty wagon as the only thing I can reach.

My suggestions are to first give elves the ability to build wagons. The original argument that they would expand too quickly compared to other races has been circumvented by light cavalry and raptor riders, so that isn't as much an issue anymore. Wagons would enable elves to get a force of fire archers and sentinels in range of fortifications in large numbers for the first shot, rather than having to get hit before reaching the target.

Second, I would like to see an additional rebalance of wagons and other units with carrying capacity. If units such as archers cannot shoot from inside something, mage type units shouldn't be able to cast from inside it either. There's a reason archers can't shoot from transports and wagons, but allowing death knights and mages to fireball from them really defeats that idea. Similarly, undead can make a nice battle wagon with 2 mummies and a lich that can curse, convert, and raise dead all day without putting the slow, vulnerable magic users inside at risk. This really wasn't the idea behind wagons at all.

[Midonik]

Sounds right.
What about etns in wagons?

[Sunrise Samurai]

I'm still standing by the statement that all heavy units, from giants to ents to catapults, be kicked out of wagons.

[makazuwr32]

Catapults/trebushets only if they'll get second form for moving by itself with faster speed than now but without attack.
Because in other case they'll become uterrly useless in attack.

[Sunrise Samurai]

Currently, I'm less concerned with what's allowed in wagons as with elves getting them and preventing spellcasting inside them. I'd like to see Alexander's proposed changes happen too, including the image.