Posts from UNIT - Creature Balance + Visual Changes

How much should we increase it, then?

Heh, the solution was obvious when it came to the crossbowmen.
PS: It would have been good to give the elemental gargoyles an enchanted armor, otherwise the obsidian ones are clearly the favorites.

-Arcata Warriors. Health 20(-10)

-Banshees.

-Crossbowmen. Damage 3-5 (+1 minimum damage and -3 maximum), Health 13 (+3), +Maneuvering.
Ability "Accurate Shot". Now the range is 4 cells (+1).
(Thanks to the "Accurate Shot" ability and increased range, Crossbowmen deal colossal damage if they shoot from close range, and "Maneuvering" will allow them to severely "punish" the enemy if they attack in melee)

I didn't understand from the description whether their auras were removed or not. If not, then my suggestion is, of course, irrelevant.

I suggest remembering that "warrior" is spelled with an "I" (воИнственный), not "war" (война) or, which is approximately the same in terms of error, "voeny" (воЕнный) or "voyany" (воЯки). Moreover, this name (Warriors of Arcata) exists in the game. Although, I feel that I wrote this in vain, so that a trend of "voenov/voyanov" instead of "voinov" doesn't start. :D

Added 10 minutes ago

An interesting nerf for an already weaker tier. I recommend that before making such controversial changes, at least familiarize yourself with the TE mod, which has already solved a similar problem, namely, equalizing the tiers, or RTA (similarly). Then you will have an idea of which direction to move in (benchmarks based on Tournaments). I will not offer my mod for consideration, because I did not just equalize creatures, but created new ones, based on a new mechanic, which is somewhat different from the goals set here.

The tests were conducted in many ways, but the most illustrative one is 100 archers against 6 lava dragons, which were easily defeated with a single shot...

Armor-piercing attack is devastating at all ranges, as mentioned above, and completely outclasses direct attack.

Also, I thought "without being excessive" implies minimal, conservative changes to obvious imbalances. This mod, however, seems to offer an alternative balance without restrictions, just like many others. Because the changes are actually significant.

Tests are tests, but tournament practice is tournament practice (a hint that test conditions may be incorrect).

Direct attack units already outperform in ranged damage (except for the armor-piercing range), on average by a factor of 1.6, and with reduced damage, the difference becomes twofold. And considering the blessing (divine power), the gap reaches 2.5 times. A slight increase in the ability's radius is good, but it doesn't compensate for such a huge gap. The "maneuvering" ability doesn't suit the "box" formation that is usually used when deploying archers, making it less useful. Extra hit points for archers are not a priority, unlike damage. It's even stranger to make human archers more durable than dwarven ones.

Regarding grammatical errors, you may not be very interested in this, but readers definitely are - a low level of literacy directly affects the perception of the material.

Added after 20 minutes
How the Arabs are balanced in the RoTA:
upgrade - 12 hit points instead of 10, initiative 9 instead of 8
alternate - damage 2-6 instead of 2-8

In the TE:
upgrade - damage 3-7 instead of 2-8, range 4 instead of 3
alternate - damage 2-6 instead of 2-8

As you can see, in both tournament mods, they understand that it is necessary to reduce the damage of the alternate upgrade, while the upgrade is strengthened without nerfs.

And you call this balance... when crossbowmen will heavily tip the "scales" in their favor? What did they do to deserve such an advantage? And what's the point of the alt.upgrade then?

Fine, and how exactly do you think they should be tested? Fully buff a unit-dummy, move them to the other end of the battlefield, apply every possible debuff to the crossbowmen, and only then shoot with them? Just so everything is correct...

Low literacy might be a factor, but my grammar is more than adequate.
Do you really think that a small typo in one word out of the entire text makes the material impossibly difficult to read? Or is your policy "Let's find something to nitpick"?

For now, they provide adequate competition to the alt.upgrade version.

Shooters are supposed to outplay them in long-range combat, that's their main design, but in close-range shooting they lose by more than 2.5 times to the crossbowmen, and that's without considering buffs. Leaving them their "native" damage + shooting across half the field would be too much. As for health, the calculation here is that they should be able to survive melee damage and deliver a strong counter-strike from maneuvering.

It is not stated anywhere in the thread that my mod is "tournament-grade," and I see no point in tailoring it to them.

This is not a typo, but a typical and rather crude mistake. You can ignore it and confidently continue writing "wars" if you don't particularly respect your readers.

I think you need to gain more experience in balancing.

How are you going to use this maneuverability in a real battle?
In a breakthrough, will you constantly sacrifice archers, exposing them to attack? In the final stage, will you rely on the opponent attacking the archers in melee instead of simply blocking with a small stack and finishing them off at the end of the battle? Or, as an option, by countering with a low-level stack with almost zero defense?

I'm talking about nerfing the unit, because I can clearly imagine a classic breakthrough through archers. Against neutrals, 3 or 4 squares often don't make a significant difference, but 80% damage means that you will only be able to kill 80% of the neutrals, compared to the old archers, before they start attacking (which leads to extremely undesirable losses).

so that upon taking damage in melee combat, the units have something to counter with + can retreat, so that on the next turn they have the ability to shoot.

I assure you, I have enough experience in this matter; it's just that you apparently perceive the concept of "balance" in your own way.