Age of Strategy Forums

Ive seen this in hobbit battle of five armies
A chariot that has goats and spiked wheels and maybe can shot bullets?

That sounds interesting.

Do not like this.
Chariots are rather weak and slow thus this unit will have for cost 4 stats similar to boar knight but without shield and lower attack/health.

Also this doesn't fit as for me dwarves in our setting (it is as if you'll try to give for orcs a battleship or for humans some soet of giant humanoid).

makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:13 am Do not like this.
Chariots are rather weak and slow thus this unit will have for cost 4 stats similar to boar knight but without shield and lower attack/health.

Also this doesn't fit as for me dwarves in our setting (it is as if you'll try to give for orcs a battleship or for humans some soet of giant humanoid).

Chariot isn't weak if the spaced tech is added which would enable other units to be in it.

i mean a bit different thing: it is harder to protect "horse" of chariot or otherwise it will become slower.
It is harder to protect rider of chariot than normal rider.
It is harder for rider to keep healthy while keep standing (usually chariots do not for actual charging riding seats).

That is why chariot for same cost as dwarven lancer will have weaker stats.

I would argue that chariot's momentum is way higher than that of the cavalryman - as it's serval horses pulling a huge amount of mass, and thus it could have higher attack.

Besides, horses (well, goats in this case I guess) can be armored, and the chariot can have built in protection for the rider, making it more tanky than cavalry.

So maybe it can be a very elite cav unit, slow, but with high attack and tanky, also allowing units in. We could make it unable to enter forests to allow it to get more stats and make it stand out from other elite cavalry even more.


I don't see how such an construction doesn't fit dwarfs

Well during charge it can get higher bonus than other mounted units.
But at base no.

Anyway i still do not like chariots for dwarves.
As for me they can fit better for scalefolks.

For dwarves we already agreed on goat rider by the way. It will be slower but will have mountain walking.

The chariot in the hobbit had a built in rapid fire ballista plus it was large and well armoured:


To me, this looks befitting of dwarves over scaledfolks. As scaledfolks are based on a culture that had no need for such things due to their lush environment making these less useful.

First thing first:
Dwarves in our setting are more advanced and are using gunpowder weapons.
Second:
Gnomes will have their own variant of armored mechanical unit with carry cap for sure.
Third:
From looks of this chariot it can be not a "normal chariot" but more like "faster and more armored siege".

Chariot is melee knight-based unit with worse stats than knight has and maybe with carry cap.

As for scalefolks they can have amphibious chariot with komodo dragons.

Then we can make this one be the fast armoured siege unit with 2 cap.

As for scaledfolks, that may be true, however that doesn't change much if they can't pass through forests as most of their home terrain is made up of jungles and rain forests judging by how the temple looks and how some of their structures were originally based.

Undead if I remember also had a chariot suggested for their mummy sub.

Hmm, could also work for defenders come to think of it.

I could even try and design them in that style of armour....

Good points Savra

do not like any fast armored siege unit with carry cap.
siege, armored, fast, carry cap - 2 words there are exesss for balance.

Also chariot of scalefolks can use not wheels but sleigh. Yes speed will be lower in forests but passable.

Chariot for humans (Sandwalkers, elephants will be moved there) and for undeads was planned, yes.

I really like this wagon externally, but in my opinion Makazuwr is right, this unit (Armored, fast, containing fighters and siege) will make it meaningless to use both the ram and the wagon. Why would you need a slow ram if you have a fast siege wagon in which you can hide soldiers? Why do you need a weak wagon if you have an armored one?

If you do something like that, then it should be an elite rider without the possibility of transportation and not a siege.

It seems to me that you can simply redraw the existing dwarf cart and change its statistics.

Actually, difference would be that you can kill it with spearman faster then you would a battering ram, it's more expensive than a wagon, and the ranged attack would be rapid fire but at lower damage as it is designed to take out infantry over structures.

Essentially it's just an advanced horse archer of sorts.

Also, btw undead have a fast siege unit that also is a cavalry, and a anti infantry. It would simply be similar to that in some weaknesses but with shorter range, higher armour, 4 speed, cap 2, and more actions. But with damage being slightly higher then crossbowmen.

I'd just say that we can make it as weaker ballista-like unit with 2 actions and 2 light cannons in place of actual ballistas.
It can have heavy armor (not health though) and good speed for such unit (2-3 and maybe +1 via tech). No carry cap though for it.

Could fit for defenders as their ult ranged unit.

For carry cap 2 + speed 4 cost MUST BE higher than 14. If unit is ranged than cost - 18+ or health must be dropped SIGNIFICANTLY (to level of scout).

Undeads do not own siege unit that is anti-infantry and cavalry BOTH. Their monster unit is a bit faster ballista. It has no (or supposed not to) bonuses against any sort of infantries.

.

Then we'll make it the defenders ultimate ranged unit then.

Come to think of it, we might be able to make use of these in more areas of the defenders then just their ultimate ranged unit, for example we could make a variant in place of a lancer, and possibly one in place of normal cav, and simply make mammoths be their special mount units like imperial drake knights and the Uruks great beast rider.

By the difference in variants I'm referring to faster armoured ones that would cost more then other races. There downside will be their lack of mobility in forests.
(If we went by current stats)
Eg:
Imperial knight:
Cost:8
Hp:70
Atk:25
Rng:1
Sight:7
Spd:6
Arm:6
P.arm:6
Res:50%
Bonuses:
100% battering ram
50% archers, throwers, infantry, siege machines

Defenders war chariot or something:
Cost:9
Hp:65
Atk:15
Act:2
Rng:1
Sight:5
Spd:4 can't pass through forests
Arm:6
P.arm:8
Res:50%
Abilities:
Wheel blades
Bonuses:
100% battering ram
50% archers, infantry, throwers, siege machines

Upscale these to what the new stats and bonuses will be like and it should be roughly similar.

Were imperial cavalry have mobility, attack, and health, plus cost 8, the dwarven war chariot thing would have less health, mobility (can't even move through forests), attack, but better p.armour and 2 actions due to the 2 side riders at the cost of 9, if not even 10 turns.

In the end the dwarven one fits more better as a defensive unit like the sub they go with, while the imperial fits more of an offensive role.

If you want I could upscale these too.

Upscaled:

Imperial knight:
Cost:8
Hp:280
Atk:75
Rng:1
Sight:7
Spd:6
Arm:12
P.arm:12
Res:50%

Defenders war chariot:
Cost:10
Hp:260
Atk:45
Act:2
Rng:1
Sight:5
Spd:4 can't pass through forests
Arm:12
P.arm:16
Res:50%

To be honest my main concern is: \ how can we fit all that stuff in a 32x64 tile?

Were there is a will, there is a way.

We could probably just use 2 mountain goats for it, the chariot I might have an idea.

Btw, updated it to cost 10, as the lancer would make more sense as a cost 9.

Alexander82 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:33 am To be honest my main concern is: \ how can we fit all that stuff in a 32x64 tile?

But before I start this, do you want this in that colour? If you want I could model the dwarves defenders based off that too, it might look nice compared to the other.

I think that such a unit, if we ever decide to put it in, should not cost that much. I think of it more like something heavyer than cavalry but not as much as actual siege units.

I also see the point of maka (and I guess it could have problems to move on rough terrains as well).

Alexander82 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:10 am I think that such a unit, if we ever decide to put it in, should not cost that much. I think of it more like something heavyer than cavalry but not as much as actual siege units.

I also see the point of maka (and I guess it could have problems to move on rough terrains as well).

I was actually basing it off of the dwarves style as the dwarves basic units cost more then other races, eg dwarven warrior to human warrior. The cost difference is why I set it so high but in the end we could lower it still.
Basically these would fit defenders well as they are more defence oriented compared to other races cavalry units.

Uhm ultimate cav unit of defenders specifically was supposed to be mammoth rider (as well as ranged variant).

As for ult ranged unit — remade current rifleman (will keep 2 forms - movable and stationary with shield, alas no bonus attack/health/range).

I prefer no chariots (actual chariots i mean, i am fine with sort of ballista unit pulled by goats).

I still see no reason for this unit as melee for defenders when we will have mammoth rider for them. That rider would probably have 150-200 hp (current stats, 600-800 upscaled), shield, 8/8 base armor and cost probably around 10-12 turns. And can move through forests (alas probably speed will be kept at 2 and given some charge ability for bonus speed once in a while at cost of armor and action).

The issue I had with the mammoths was that you can't make them genuine Lancers unless you changed humans ones to be similar, with the cart thing we could do something like this.

The reason I didn't see the mammoths as a main mount but more of a special mount was because they don't fit for both dwarves elite mounts.
The alternative to this is to give them razor boar's like these:

If I make it similar to how Uruks mounts are facing I might get the size large enough.

But who said that for defenders it is mandatory to have a lancer unit in the first place?

It is fine if slayers will have great lancer unit while defenders don't.

Defenders are not supposed to be offencive sub but defencive. Thus some infantry-based anti-cav units will fit them better as well as some moving wall-like units.

Slayers will have by the way bears as mounts.

I think of slayers as being similar to that of minotaurs of orcs, in that they are both well suited for offensive then defensive, however having a lancer like unit for defenders might still be worth doing since it would have better survivability. Even if we make it so that the lancer is just a razor back rider or whatever, the other main cav could be the mammoth rider.

The lancer could be similar to imperial Lancers but with less speed and better armour, plus cost 8-9.