Posts from UNIT - Creature Balance + Visual Changes

Increasing the range is precisely what would be "over the top"; crossbowmen would simply become a flyswatter for high-tier creatures, as now, completely negating armor at a distance of 7 tiles (1 tile for the creature itself + 6). And in general, the ability itself is very unbalanced; -50% armor is still manageable, but 100% is too much.

Just increase the range of the precise shot and that's it (-1 cell from the calculated formula for a shot without penalty). You could lower their maximum damage slightly, take away 1 point of attack. That would also be the simplest way.

- Archangels. Attack 30 (-1), Damage 30-50(-20 minimum damage), +Child of Light, +Enemy does not resist.
(The acquired abilities are compensated by the loss of stable damage)

- Cerberi. Defense 3(+1), Health 20(+5).
(Compensating for the creature's excessive fragility)

- Fire Hounds. Defense 4(+1), Health 20(+5).
(Compensating for the creature's excessive fragility)

- Hell Horses. Initiative 14(-2).
(Correction of excess faction initiative)

- Cave Lords. -Spell "Fire Storm", -Spell "Destruction Ray", +Spell "Berserk" at expert level.
(Now this unit can get rid of a threat before it reaches them... but only once per battle)

- Archliches. -Spell "Plague", +Spell "Raise Dead"
(Replacement of a useless spell, increasing the tactical survivability of the army)

- Harbingers of Death. Attack 24(-2), -Doom Grip, +Annihilation <animation+description fixed>.
(Increasing the unit's competitiveness by increasing special ability damage, but slightly cutting attack)

- Beasts, Furies, Megeras. Weekly growth +1.
(Correction of army proportionality)

- Minotaurs, Guardian Minotaurs, Overseer Minotaurs. Weekly growth -1.
(Correction of army proportionality)

- Dark Riders. Defense 10(+1), Health 65(+5)
(Slight increase in survivability)

- Agile Riders. Defense 10(+1), Health 65(+5)
(Slight increase in survivability)

- Cave Hydras. Initiative 9(+1), -Regeneration, +Acid Blood.
(Now this unit has a greater focus on dealing damage)

- Dark Hydras. Defense 17(+2), Initiative 8(+1), -Acid Blood, + Regeneration.
(Now this unit has a greater focus on tanking)

- Mistresses of the Night. Defense 18(-2), Damage 20-27(-3 maximum damage), Initiative 10(-1), Health 90(-10), +Shooter.
shot animation is present
(Mistresses of the Night are now full shooters; they will feel less comfortable in melee than before)

- Black Dragons. -Magic Immunity, +Fire Element Immunity, +Water Element Immunity, +Earth Element Immunity, +Air Element Immunity, +Aura of Terror.

- Senior Gremlins. Defense 4(+2), -Repair, +Sabotage.
description and names of gremlin upgrades have been changed
(Damage remains small, but stability is increased and the special ability is replaced)

- Saboteur Gremlins. -Sabotage, +Repair.
(Small swapping of upgrade abilities)

- Djinn Sultans. Attack 15(+1), Defense 15(+1), Initiative 11(-1), Health 60(+15)
(Increasing damage resistance)

- Djinn Viziers. Defense 17(+4), Damage 14-17(-2 maximum damage), Health 65(+15)
(Increasing damage resistance)

- Rakshasa Rajas. Initiative 9(+1).
(Reducing turn loss from charge)

- Rakshasa Kshatriyas. Initiative 9(+1).
(Reducing turn loss from charge)

- Titans. Damage 45-70(+5 maximum damage), +Air Element Immunity.
Ability "Lightning Strike". Now deals 40 units per creature (+15)
(Now Titans are more clearly specialized in single-target damage)

- Thunderers. +Air Element Immunity.
Ability "Storm Summoner". Now deals 35 units per creature (+25)
(Thunderers no longer possess a useless ability, but it can still only be used once)
unit texture changed + description change

- Death Dancers. Attack 3(-2), Damage 2-4(-1 minimum and -1 maximum), Speed 7(+1), +Charging Strike
(Now the unit's damage will directly depend on distance; the more cells it moves, the more damage it deals and the less damage it takes from a counterattack. Much more effective against high-level creatures)
small cosmetic changes

- Peasants. Defense 2(+1).
(Compensating for the creature's excessive fragility)

- Militia. Defense 4(+2).
(Compensating for the creature's excessive fragility)

- Demonesses.
small cosmetic changes (Demonesses became a bit more chaste; children play the game too xD)

- Dark Wyverns are now Poison Wyverns (model unchanged). -Regeneration, +Acid Blood.
(Regeneration is a rather weak ability for a level 6 creature, and acid blood will reduce the "temptation" to attack the unit)

In general, the changes you are suggesting are very "fanatical," because even in my mod (where creatures are balanced from scratch), crossbows/archers differ less from the original. And perhaps other units as well, I was just too lazy to check them all (that's why I only touched upon the Arabs). It seems to me that the goal here is no longer to balance the upgrades, but simply to come up with new creatures.

Just increase the range of the accurate shot and that's it (subtract 1 cell from the calculated shot formula without penalty). You can slightly reduce their maximum damage, take away 1 attack point. That's the easiest way.

The blinding ability needs to be removed from the shamans. What could be worse than an Orc with Darkness?

The blinding ability needs to be removed from the shamans. What could be worse than an Orc with Darkness?

No new creatures are being created here; my only task is to make all creatures useful, which isn't always possible with the old set of abilities.

The answer is very simple: because it creates a significant imbalance.

Shamans have an alternative, and one without retaliatory fire, which in itself is a fair counterweight. As for dark magic... doesn't the slow effect given to them by the developers belong to darkness?

I see only one way out of this situation: increase its range to approximately +-6 cells, but in return, significantly nerf the damage. But I think that's absurd. It's easier to get rid of the ability and find a worthy replacement for it.

the best unit for the Tira faction (Kshatriyas)

and what benefit would such a buff give to the Rajahs?

How can you not come up with something new when you're creating completely different creatures? Where have you seen crossbows with tier 4 damage, maneuvers, retaliatory fire, piercing shots, etc.?

I'm not afraid of new things; I'm just stating a fact. Many of the modified creatures certainly fit the description of "new," but it's not a given that they also fit the description of "balanced." If your goal is to create new creatures, that's fine.

Because this is the minimum range where the ability doesn't seem ridiculous. How can you talk about imbalance when forest archers ignore 50% of defense at all ranges (combined with direct hit), and that's where the "imbalance" lies, with their overwhelming damage that can't be countered by defense. Or the 100% defense ignore on a charge from lizardmen (you can't really hide from a speed of 8 either). This ability (armor-piercing) simply pales in comparison to overpowered abilities like stunning every 2 out of 3 hits (by the way, where's the vampire balancing?).

Blindness (control) takes Orcish magic to a completely new level (not just point buffs/debuffs of level 1). This doesn't align with the character of the Faction. Orcs don't blind. Orcs don't cast spells. Orcs kill.

Mostly reasonable comments, but here... Against a human player, I would personally choose Rajahs. AoE abilities against human players don't have consistently good effectiveness, while retaliatory attacks are always useful. Although, on the other hand, Kshatriyas have a very good AoE, better than many others... But still, I would choose Rajahs. Am I wrong?

Orcs don't cast spells? Does the original version of the Shamans agree with you?

There are more pressing tasks right now, and the situation with crossbowmen is not yet clear, and there have already been enough variations with aimed shots; I hope that at least someone will test a couple of the options I have prepared and finally come up with a fresh idea.

I don't have the time or desire to reread your "wall" of comments about each fix, because the approximate content of each of them can be gleaned from the first two, and there's not much point in arguing with you, because we have very different views and preferences regarding creatures, as well as play style; it will be a waste of time and will turn into an even bigger argument.

Shamans also have an alternative, and it doesn't have a drawback, which in itself is a fair counter. As for dark magic... isn't the slow effect given to them by the developers considered dark magic?

In general, an area-of-effect attack is much better than a retaliatory attack (retaliation can be countered with single-target attacks); moreover, in terms of other stats, Kshatriyas are significantly superior.
I am considering the effectiveness of abilities against humans by default; how they work against AI is not as important to me.

I agree. Slowing/speeding up combined with blinding is a minor trick, not a spell; at the same time, Chain Lightning (available after eating) is a balancing necessity (anti-hit and anti-blind).
Furthermore, in my mod, the concept of "not casting spells" is expressed even more strongly (one type doesn't cast spells, but only debuffs with an attack; the second type inspires and prays, doesn't cost mana, doesn't depend on magic; the third type casts situational light/dark spells that don't depend on magic). Because personally, I don't agree that shamans have spells that depend on magic, even if they are simple speed/slow tricks. What about blinding?

In order to have something to test, you need an appealing option, not just guessing.
Experienced players already understand what Arabs with 7-10 are like, even without testing.
If a new unit is offered (new abilities such as piercing, maneuvers, retaliatory shot, etc.), the appealing option will be the one that doesn't duplicate existing units (centaurs, succubi, mages). But that hasn't been offered.

Translation: you don't have the time or desire to balance anything. Because any balancer listens to the opinions of experienced players, rather than ignoring them. Arguing is not necessary here; it is enough to take note, analyze, and draw conclusions. Instead of taking criticism personally, defending yourself, and making excuses.

To introduce a new ability, you need a lot of time and the desire to delve into the chaos of game data and all related factors, which in turn creates unnecessary hassle; you can do without it.

Listening to opinions and doing things on demand are different things; I heard you, analyzed it, and made the appropriate conclusions; that's all for now. As for criticism, I value constructive criticism and pay attention to it, because it sets the right direction. But the way you criticize is just an excuse to nitpick, and you can do that with anything. And if you don't have any specific suggestions, then I suggest we end our conversation.

All characteristics are balanced to the maximum.

And if you add silence to them, they will turn into a copy of battle mages; not only will they silence the damage from piercing shots, but they will also silence magic.

1) Imba damage 7-10, not much different from armor-piercing damage of 6, but on top of that, it also deals almost as much ranged damage as the Archer.
2) The Arabs become an enhanced version of the Archers, while this tier doesn't need to be improved (Archers are already imba); new Archers, see point 1.
3) Similar to point 1, but also with a useful ability.
4) Similar to point 2 regarding the Arabs, but the Archers have insane damage and an ability (enhanced arrow is no worse than a direct shot).

You are proposing significant changes, but you are too lazy to work on them seriously. In that case, it is better to choose a policy of careful edits (minimalism). Fewer edits mean fewer potential complaints, fewer misses (because you first fix what is really necessary, and the rest... you just don't fix). If the goal is not to create a new game with new content, but to rebalance, then each edit is a bad thing (a price to pay).

The shamans in my mod are not being discussed here (this was an example of how to consistently develop the concept of Orcs in terms of rejecting magic, not destroying it).

My criticism may be harsh, but it is always to the point. At least, in matters of game balance. You are ignoring my experience, as well as the experience of tournament mods, which have significantly more participants than readers of this topic, and at the same time, you don't really take into account the opinions of other forum users. Of the 4 proposed options for the Arabs, how many were based on suggestions from other players? It seems that no one suggested increasing the damage of the Arabs to the heavens, giving them the retaliatory shot, piercing shot, enhanced arrow, stopping arrows, or increasing the damage of the Archers.

This is what I would remove from the mod description; it sounds arrogant, and at the same time, balance can only be verified in practice (and you haven't verified it), besides, you yourself admitted that it is not ideal and that many more iterations are needed. Any theoretical calculations are the result of assumptions, and each assumption is a source of errors. With so many changes, you have a lot of errors (there should be), you need to have an army of testers, or hold tournaments, or test a lot yourself, in any case, invest heavily (to the maximum), and the opinions of more experienced players can simply shorten the path, but it will still be long. If we are talking about balance.

The fastest way is to take tournament mods (TE or RTA). Look at where the most significant changes have been made and note these points. Then work on them, thinking about how you would do it yourself, based on some of your own criteria, but without violating the general meaning. This will be objective - the method of the most popular edits. And at the same time, it won't be a copy. It also saves a lot of time on edits that are not needed and on questions that you don't have to answer.

The ability of battle mages drowns out the damage from piercing shots and has nothing to do with magic (a clumsy name).