Lancer

[freeman]

Lancer is calvary unit *advanced knight for humans.

HP: 50
Armor: 30
Blocking: 15% front, 5% sides
Movement: 5 spaces
Recovery: 3 turn
Power: 10 + 5 per square
Attack Pattern: 2 frontal square (lance is long)

To aquire power bonus it is count STRAIGHT squares so if you go arround a unit you will not get full bonus.

For example: (legend: C - calvary unit, E - enemy unit, x - empty square)

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xEC xEx xEx xEx CEx
xxx xxC xCx Cxx xxx

calvary go from right to left side of enemy - and dmg is 10+ (3x5) = 25

and if it go full forward then it will gain 35 like this....OUCH that hurt :)
xE
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xC

[Dajae]

You haven't learnt yet?

- Daj

[Cardplayer89]

Too much power... wayyyyyyyy too much power...

[Sodamoeba]

Erm...this unit is so overpowered its not even funny. This is the first unit Ive been able to get to before legacy (hes probably posting right now :mad: ) so im gonna bash the hell out of it :D just kidding just kidding...but honestly, for a unit with the most armor in the game and who is right near the top with HP, 35 potential attack is just plain unfair. Think em through, think em through! :dry:

[legacy67]

You know, as I understand this unit it is not the death machine that everyone thinks it is.

If the Lancer hits a unit standiing next to it: 10 damage

Now as the unit was explained, the damage bonus was only counted for straight squares passed throught to the hit. Now I took that to mean that you had to pass through squares directly in horizontal or vertical lines with the target in order to get the bonus. But then you had that weird diagram that negated all that

(legend: C - calvary unit, E - enemy unit, x - empty square)

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xEC xEx xEx xEx CEx
xxx xxC xCx Cxx xxx

calvary go from right to left side of enemy - and dmg is 10+ (3x5) = 25

This does not demostrate a straight line. Now if the bonus only exists for units in a staright line, then I sort of like this unit:

The diagram would be like this:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX

The green indicates where the target is standing.

The red indicates where the Lancer must start from in order to get the bonus.

With this design I thnk the idea is fairly decent. It would require some good planning to get the Lancer into a position that will get a real damage bonus, and it is fairly easily avoided (or front blocked).

My other change would be to make the damage 4, or even 3. This would make the maximum damage 30 or 25 respectively. I think 4 could be good because it will be hard to set up the full attack, but if you are good enough, you could get the attack of 30.

The armor is a bit high, but then again the blocking is very low. I would say make the blocking 10 or the armor 25.

The attack pattern should also be just one square.

For all those naysayers, remeber that this will be almost impossible to use for damage in the first couple of turns becuase it would likely be going for frontal hits against high blocking units, not to mention to set up a straight line in your formation could leave big defensive gaps. To be effective, this would HAVE to be used as a flanking unit.

With those specifications, this might not be a bad unit. I haven't check for originality yet, but on face value I like this idea.

[Cardplayer89]

Yeah... but... it's a mage killer to the extreme.

If you allign it to where it happens to be facing opposite a mage of any sort, it's almost a guarenteed kill (unless the mage happens to be a bit lucky and blocks)... or, if you move it in front of a mage who just attacked and can't move for 3 turns... or, if you save him for late game, then when the opponent's Cleric is semi-open, it'd be short work of him.

[legacy67]

Well, first off thats why you lower the bonus to 4 or even 3 per square.

But think about it for a moment. First off , to be a full on magekiller it would take all 5 squares to get to 30 if you have the bonus at 4. You would have to spend a turn lining up, then wait a turn for his recovery, and then hope that a number of things hasn't happened:

1. the mage has moved (this can be out of your line entirely or even just moving closer to you)
2. something has moved in your way
3. you have been paralyzed
4. you have been poisoned
5. you have been killed
6. the mage has been barriered

As a magekiller, I think you are more likely to get a killer shot with the LW than with this unit.

This idea is cool because the Lancer is HORRIBLE in close combat. 10-14 or 13 damage in close combat is very bad, especially with such low blocking.

It would take some fairly perfect circumstances to have the lancer lined up for a one shot kill on a DMW, pyro, or DSM, and even then it could be blocked if it comes from the front.

The more I think about it, the more I like this unit. Deadly from afar, useless up close. I think with the changes I proposed it is a fairly balanced unit.

[Cardplayer89]

Note: I made some edits, lol, Legacy must have been posting at the same time... I dunno, I personally think it's too powerful, unless maybe you decreased armor (horses weren't well armored back then... sure, they had some, but not much).

P.S. That's not just for realism, lol, that's because for as much potential damage you can do, the armor is too high.

[Sodamoeba]

Im just gonna back out of the argument that i have barely even been in...I dont want to get in a argument with legacy (why would I attempt something I will surely lose?) and also I am starting to agree with legacy's persistent persuasion...I guess this unit could be okay, but it has a bit more abuse potential than I would like...thats the final 2 cents im putting in this pool...

[Kishin]

Note: I made some edits, lol, Legacy must have been posting at the same time... I dunno, I personally think it's too powerful, unless maybe you decreased armor (horses weren't well armored back then... sure, they had some, but not much).

P.S. That's not just for realism, lol, that's because for as much potential damage you can do, the armor is too high.


Are you kidding me? Mounted units were the MOST armored units on the field. They were covered in head to toe in armor.

[Sodamoeba]

Just because thats the way it was in real life, doesnt mean you should make an unbalanced unit...I mean really, could a human ACTUALLY survive having a boulder hurled at him or her (GA)? nope...realism in this case doesnt really matter. ;)

[Cardplayer89]

Uh... horses would collapse if they were armored head to toe... speed was of the essence, and speed can't be obtained if you have 200 lbs of steel on your body.

[legacy67]

I have to go with Kishin here, not becuase of reality, but because the unit should have more armor.

With the same HP as a Knight, but with only 15% blocking and a 3 turn recovery, this unit is very vulnerable. It only has 20% more Armor than a knight (5 from 25 is 20%, 25+5=30, hence 20% more armor), which really is not that much. When you think that a Knight can walk around with that much armor, you can feel pretty sure that a HORSE can carry even more.

Not only that, but for the sake of *sigh* realism, mounted units did have more armor in medieval times.

[Kishin]

^_^ I'm sorry I like to keep it "real" to some degree, and trust me I've riden a horse. Thier so strong that when they take off you feel weightless to it. Heavy armor is nothing to a good horse.

BACK TO THE UNIT, I like it and I don't. It use is very limited, you'd have to plan your attacks very well, or you opponet would have to slip up and make mistake. Best used as an anti mage unit, or if you can get it behind the enemy lines. Than it could do some serious damage. It's a gamble all together. Plus if you want to attack that same unit again, you've got to retreat and attack again. hrm... In an experienced players hands or in a turtle match this could be very good. BUUUUT to a nood it's worthless.

If you worked on the discription and put some more effort into thought and development of this character I would like it. But in it's current state it's lacking apperance pretty much. Spruce it up some, make it look pretty and describe it more. *nods*

[Cardplayer89]

More armor to cover more beast, lol :D Surface area of unit-armor ratios... anyway...

If I were to vote, I'd say no simply because this is (as much as Legacy denies it) a great mage killer. Say a Pyromancer moves and attacks, and is a decent distance away from his formation. 3 turn wait, Lancer moves into position. 2 wait on the Pyro, Lancer finishes recovering this turn. 1 wait on the Pyro, Lancer kills him. It is also a pretty good Scout killer (not one hit, but it definitely takes the Scout out pretty efficiently). Of course, this judgement is probably why I'm not asked to join the board :p that, and i'm like, 2 weeks old and still can't design a Gold-worthy unit, lol :) Oh well, standards are made to be achieved, maybe the next one is worthy (it's already designed, but I'm still waiting for a definite yes/no on each of my last 3 units after the few tweaks I've done, and the 1 or 2 more I might have for the Rifter and Creeper.)

[legacy67]

As a magekiller, with the changes, it will be very hard to kill a mage in one. If he makes it 4 per square, the Lancer would have to set up a perfect shot from the maximum 5 spaces away, and that is no easy task. If he makes it 3 it will be impossible for the lancer to kill in one, but I think I like 4 per square. Remember, the attack must take place in a straight line or the bonus does not happen.

I'll basically say this, if Freeman ever comes back on and puts in the changes that I recommeneded, it is not entirely unlikely that I would vote for it. It is simple, unique, effective, and (changes pending) well balanced. Not only that, but it would add a new strategic element to the game without exessive change to overall gameplay. If the changes are ever made to balance this unit, I will like it.

[Cardplayer89]

Hm... 4 per square...

Actually... I have just realized the error of my train of thought.

Say you were to place a mage in the dead center of the arena. A Lancer, no matter where he was positioned, could not 1 hit a mage. Ever. Hm... -thinks-

I think I can see where Legacy is coming from now... 4 damage per square would probably do just fine... I wouldn't change the blocking... but the armor... hm... I gotta think more about the armor.

I've come to a conclusion. The armor is just fine, because in order to make this unit (it's a horse after all...) it would need to occupy 2 spaces on the board. That alone would make striking a pain. Also, I have a question about the lance... it says damage is 2 frontal squares, right? So what happens if the 5th square is the 1st square (closest to Lancer)? Can it deal 30 damage to 2 units standing beside each other?

[Sodamoeba]

with the changes legacy makes, go figure, its allll good :yes3:

[Contendor]

Having a unit like a knight would be called overpowered, because you can't have more than that. Simply overpowered.

[Walrus]

what is with these stupid necros.