A spam of unit ideas.

[celebrim]

If enough people are interested in any of these, I'll make a thread for the individual unit. I just didn't want to churn out a dozen or so threads. Most of the units are minor variations on existing 'grey' units. This is intentional. First, I don't like overly 'wacky' concepts, which is one of things causing me to lean away from buying a gold membership. Second, I don't feel confident enough in my knowledge of the game to propose something really bizarre yet, because bizarre things are hard to judge.

Many of the units below may be under powered. A few, like the Hoplite, might be a bit overpowered. I'll leave that to the more experienced people to judge.

Hoplite - Canny master of tactics.
Race - Human
Hit Points: 40
Power: 19
Armor: 30%
Blocking: 80%
Recovery: 1
Movement: 3
Range: 1
Special: Exerts 'Zone of Control' - Enemy units cannot step from one of the 8 squares adjacent to a hoplite to another square adjacent to an opposing unit that exherts a zone of control.
Weak from side, -20% Blocking from side, -10% armor from side or rear
No formation may have more than 5 in any combination of knights, pikeman, and hoplites.

Idea: Designed to be slightly weaker than the knight on the offense, but slightly stronger when on the defence. Works best in teams. Explores the idea of units which are particularly weak when flanked.

Man-at-Arms - Valiant defender
Race - Human
Hit Points: 36
Power: 19
Armor: 20%
Blocking: 60%
Recovery: 1
Movement: 3
Range: 1

Idea: Strictly inferior to the knight, but no restrictions on the number in a formation which allows for melee heavy formations.

[Improved power from 17 to 19, improved hp from 30 to 36, based on comments.]

Amazon - Alert warrior woman with javelins and shield
Race: Human
Hit Points: 35
Power: 15
Armor: 10%
Blocking: 50%
Recovery: 2
Movement: 4
Range: 4, line of sight
Special: Strong from side, +25% blocking from side
No more than 2 Amazon in a formation

Idea: Weaker than the scout in most situations, allowing for flexible mobile formations. Explores the idea of units particularly durable when flanked. (If people find 'Amazon' too cheesy, this could easily be 'Peltast' but I thought some people might appreciate more female characters.)

Pikeman - Displined user of the long pike.
Race: Human
Hit Points: 40
Power: 19
Armor: 25%
Blocking: 60%
Recovery: 2
Movement: 3
Range: 2
Special: Exerts 'Zone of Control' - Enemy units cannot step from one of the 8 squaresadjacent to a pikeman to another adjacent to square adjacent to a enemy unit that exerts a zone of control.
Weak from side, -15% Blocking from side, -10% armor from side or rear
No formation with more than 5 in any combination of knights, pikeman, and hoplites.

Idea: Similar to the hoplite. Explores idea of melee ranged attacks.

Zombie - Fearless unstoppable living dead
Race - Undead
Hit Points: 60
Power: 24
Armor: 20%
Blocking: 0%
Recovery: 1
Movement: 2
Range: 1
Special: Cannot be in formation with 'non-mage' Humans (including Cleric)
No more than 3 zombies in a formation.
(Other ideas include immunity to the enchantress, and vulnerability to clerics targeting 'heal' on them.)

Idea: Potential replacement for Knight in 'evil themed' formation. Less mobile, but powerful attack and very durable against spells. Big weakness is no blocking ability, which means that they should lose to knights head to head and a vulnerable to scouts and other mobile units. Formation limit may not be necessary.

Skeleton - Fearless nimble undead warriors
Race - Undead
Hit Points: 35
Power: 20
Armor: 25%
Blocking: 40%
Recovery: 1
Movement: 4
Range: 1
Special: Cannot be in formation with 'non-mage' Humans (including Cleric)
No more than 2 skeletons in a formation.
(Other ideas include immunity to the enchantress, and vulnerability to clerics targeting 'heal' on them.)

Idea: The zombies counterpart. Formation limit may not be necessary.

Necromancer - Master of evil wizardry
Race - Human (Mage)
Hit Points: 26
Power: 22, unblockable except by barrier
Armor: -
Blocking: 20%
Recovery: 4
Movement: 3
Range: 3, line of sight
Special: Attacks with death spell. This spell may be used either offensively or defensively, depending on how it is targeted. Targeted on an enemy unit, does damage as above. Targeted on a friendly undead unit, heals 22 damage to that unit alone.
Any enemy human which dies within 3 squares of the Necromancer is replaced by a 'Summoned Zombie'. Summoned zombies are identical to Zombies above, except that they are destroyed with any one hit and otherwise obey the rules for summoned creatures.
No more than one Necromancer per formation.

Idea: Necromancy. 'Nuff said.

[Improved recovery from 5 to 4 based on comments.]

Cyromancer - Master of cold magic
Race - Human (Mage)
Hit Points: 30
Power: 12 + stun, unblockable except by barrier
Armor: 8%
Blocking: 33%
Recovery: 3
Movement: 3
Range: 3, freezes cross shaped area of 5 tiles
Special: Does not benifit from the Dragon Speaker Mage.

Idea: In the right hands, probably slightly more powerful alternative to the Pyromancer. Probably would need formation limit to prevent perpetual stuns.

Dark Cleric - Servant of the dark gods
Race - Human (Mage)
Hit Points: 24
Power: 10
Armor: 20%
Blocking: 20%
Recovery: 3
Movement: 3
Range: 1
Special: Focus 'Curse'. Enemy units in 5 squares of the Dark Cleric take 16% greater damage, and take a 16% penalty to thier blocking percentage.
Cannot be in any formation with the Cleric.

Idea: Cleric's evil counterpart. Curse is seems less potent to me than heal, but still could be useful. Note that this cleric is not a pacifist, and has some minimal combat ability. A formation limit may be necessary as stacked curses could potentially get out of hand.

[Strengthed curse from 10% to 16% based on comments.]

Aeromancer - Master of wind magic
Race - Human (Mage)
Hit Points: 30
Power: 15 + 'push', unblockable except by barrier
Armor: -
Blocking: 40%
Recovery: 3
Movement: 3
Range: 4, straight line originating from Aeromancer
Special: 'Push' attack. Units in the aeromancer's area of attack are forced back one square, if the square behind them is empty (beginning with the unit furtherest from the point of attack).

Idea: Another variation on the Pyromancer intended to give variaty to mage heavy formations. Explores the idea of a unit that can move enemy units.

White Magic Witch - She's a good witch
Race - Human
Hit Points: 28
Power: Dispel Magic
Armor: -
Blocking: 20%
Recovery: 3
Movement: 3
Range: 3, 2 square radius effect
Special: Dispel magic. Breaks focus of targets in area of effect and ends all focus effects in area of effect.
Magic Resistant. 30% damage from spells is instead reflected back to attacker.

Idea: The anti-mage.

Cavalier - Mounted Knight
Race - Human
Hit Points: 60
Power: 28
Armor: 20%
Blocking: 60%
Recovery: 2
Movement: 5
Range: 2, line of sight
Special: Cannot move aside for friendly units.
Cannot change facing after combat phase.
No more than one Cavelier per formation

Idea: The quintesential mounted knight of fantasy.

[Changed move from 6 to 5 based on comments.]

Duelist - Precision killer
Race - Human
Hit Points: 42
Power: 18, blockable but if hits, bypasses armor
Armor: 10%
Blocking: 80%
Recovery: 1
Movement: 4
Range: 1

Idea: Less dangerous to lightly armored foes than the knight, but deadly accurate attack finds the weakness in defences.

[Walrus]

too many ides!

how do you expect me and the other drunkards to respond to that much when we are drunk?!

[deleryn]

Most of these are similar to ones that have been critiqued before, too. The Cryomancer in particular is almost exactly like mine. People didn't like it because of what a bunch could do, lol.

[celebrim]

too many ides!

how do you expect me and the other drunkards to respond to that much when we are drunk?!

I don't. I expect you to pick out one tiny thing that you really hate and say something like, "Idiot. You're so stupid! That suxor!!!!!!11!!!!!! How could anyone be so stupid!!! I can't believe you posted something so stupid that it insults my intelligence like that!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!1 I hope you die a painful death"

I believe that is the normal behavior for drunkards posting messages.

[TAO_Chaos1]

The search button is your friend, use it;) . Most of these have been made before this, i remember Deleryns unit is just like your Cryomancer, so use the search button and dont post this many in one thread, it's too much to readin one thread.:dry:

[TAO_Chaos1]

I don't. I expect you to pick out one tiny thing that you really hate and say something like, "Idiot. You're so stupid! That suxor!!!!!!11!!!!!! How could anyone be so stupid!!! I can't believe you posted something so stupid that it insults my intelligence like that!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!1 I hope you die a painful death"

I believe that is the normal behavior for drunkards posting messages.
CALM DOWN! His statement is true, and trust me Walrus knows more han you will ever know.

[deleryn]

So what did you expect O.o? Seed doesn't ever look at these anymore. He's prolly already seen some like these, though. ;)

[Walrus]

I don't. I expect you to pick out one tiny thing that you really hate and say something like, "Idiot. You're so stupid! That suxor!!!!!!11!!!!!! How could anyone be so stupid!!! I can't believe you posted something so stupid that it insults my intelligence like that!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!1 I hope you die a painful death"

I believe that is the normal behavior for drunkards posting messages.

okey dokey thenl

THE CHAVALIER IS SPELT WRONG AND IS WAY OVERPOWERED. 28 POWER, 6 MOVEMENT AND 60 HEALTH WTF?! YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID FOR SUGGESTING THAT PIECE OF SHIT I HOPE YOU DIE IN A FIRE. AND IF YOU DONT I HOPE YOU USE A CONDOM EVERY TIME YOU HAVE SEX SO YOUR IDIOCY HAS LESS CHANCE OF MULTIPLYING!

better?

[TAO_Chaos1]

okey dokey thenl

THE CHAVALIER IS SPELT WRONG AND IS WAY OVERPOWERED. 28 POWER, 6 MOVEMENT AND 60 HEALTH WTF?! YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID FOR SUGGESTING THAT PIECE OF SHIT I HOPE YOU DIE IN A FIRE. AND IF YOU DONT I HOPE YOU USE A CONDOM EVERY TIME YOU HAVE SEX SO YOUR IDIOCY HAS LESS CHANCE OF MULTIPLYING!

better?
Ahahaha what he said ^^^ :bigsmile:

[Hellblazer]

Lets' let this serve as a lesson. I can understand two units in a thread.....but thirteen?!

[Cuathon]

any idiot can post variations. if we allowed variations we could chrun out 20 plus units a day. also your units are very unoriginal and have been suggested multiple times. you might also note that side blocking is always 100% front blocking. immunity to any unit is nto a good idea either.

i note that you say explore in some fo the units, but rerally you are walking a well-trodden path that gos nowhere and produces nothing of value.

[celebrim]

okey dokey thenl

THE CHAVALIER IS SPELT WRONG AND IS WAY OVERPOWERED. 28 POWER, 6 MOVEMENT AND 60 HEALTH WTF?! YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID FOR SUGGESTING THAT PIECE OF SHIT I HOPE YOU DIE IN A FIRE. AND IF YOU DONT I HOPE YOU USE A CONDOM EVERY TIME YOU HAVE SEX SO YOUR IDIOCY HAS LESS CHANCE OF MULTIPLYING!

better?

:D

Why, yes, actually that's better. I was beginning to think I'd dropped into some wierd alternative dimension in which people in cyberspace didn't unleash flames at every posibility.

Yes, the Cavalier is a bit powerful. I wavered between 5 and 6 movement. I think upon further reflection 5 would be better.

But what's a better movement, 5 ordinary movement or range 4 teleport?

What has better range, 5 movement + 2 ranged attack, or 4 teleport + 3 ranged attack?

Which is better, a 28 power attack or a 28 power unblockable attack?

Which is better, 68 hitpoints and 16% armor or 60 hitpoints and 20% armor?

At worst, the Cavalier is as powerful as a Dragon Tyrant, which means it would need to count for two units. I suspect that its slightly less powerful than two units and slightly more powerful than one unit. The movement restrictions are intended to try to bring the Cav down closer to the level of a single unit, but I agree that they don't quite get there.

[TAO_Chaos1]

If anything, why are you saying if anything the cavalier is overpowered, you need to do a lot to it to make it not:dry: . The Cavalier is a DT, only with a sword? lol.

[The Coder]

Too many. And many are weaker than existing TAO units.

quality > quantity.

[Walrus]

At worst, the Cavalier is as powerful as a Dragon Tyrant, which means it would need to count for two units. I suspect that its slightly less powerful than two units and slightly more powerful than one unit. The movement restrictions are intended to try to bring the Cav down closer to the level of a single unit, but I agree that they don't quite get there.

it IS as powerful as two units as it has extremely high singular stats.

a theory which i have always tried to support in CAU is stat scaling; TAO is turn-based, meaning that no matter how many units you have, you can only make one move per turn.
hence, a unit like the dragon tyrant which counts as 2 units, means that whenever you use the tyrant, you are effectively using TWO units in that turn.

this theory has very strong implications on how units in TAO should be balanced in regards to units taking up multiple/<1 spaces in a formation.

taking a knight as our "base" unit, a tyrant should NOT simply be twice as poweful as a knight, owing to the fact that despite its higher power, you still only require one turn to move/use the tyrant. this means that in order to achieve balance, the tyrant should only realisticlly be "worth" about 1.5 knights in terms of stats, as the fact that it can be moved in a single turn contributes highly to its overall strength.



now consider the Cavalier (note the spelling :dry: ). The same applies. If you want to have a unit which takes 2 unit slots in a formation, it cannot simply be knight with twice the stats, as that would be imbalanced due to the fact that by moving this óber-knight, you would be moving 2 units in one turn effectively. As such, there is a multiplier effect for when trying to make units with "costs" of more than or less than one. A unit which counts as two units should only realistically have the strength of 1.5 units or so, similarly, a unit which only counts for half a unit on the battlefield (many have been made, see my undead for an example) should have around 0.75 of a knights strength, as you can only use one at once, as such by moving one of these units you would only be moving 0.75 of a "real" unit per turn.

[/rant]



i am the master of CAU, honest.

[celebrim]

it IS as powerful as two units as it has extremely high singular stats.

That's basically what I said in my previous post. As well, the fact that I was aware this was a very powerful unit with 'singular stats' ought to be obvious from the fact I resticted it to one per formation. But while that is true, it still suffers in comparison to the DT in several ways.

a theory which i have always tried to support in CAU is stat scaling; TAO is turn-based, meaning that no matter how many units you have, you can only make one move per turn. hence, a unit like the dragon tyrant which counts as 2 units, means that whenever you use the tyrant, you are effectively using TWO units in that turn.

That sounds reasonable.

this theory has very strong implications on how units in TAO should be balanced in regards to units taking up multiple/<1 spaces in a formation.

Frankly, I think one of the implications is that the DT is a mistake. As I indicated from the initial post, I'm rather unhappy with the direction that the game seems to take after you pay for it. Rather than being an extension of the free game, it seems like a completely different game altogether with a great many of the gold units apparantly obseleting 'grey' units. Also, the design for the gold unit doesn't seem to me to be as elegant as the 'grey' units. They are, for lack of a better word, 'wonky'.

If someone had proposed the DT, all your objections would still be valid. Nonetheless, we are were we are, and its worth nothing that as much as the idea of equally balanced units might be conceptually appealing, games have been successful with highly unbalanced units - for example, chess.

"taking a knight as our "base" unit, a tyrant should NOT simply be twice as poweful as a knight, owing to the fact that despite its higher power, you still only require one turn to move/use the tyrant."

Agreed.

However, a knight cannot be taken as a "base unit". If the knight was an example of a balanced unit from which other balanced units could be derived, there would not need to be a restriction of how many knights could be placed in a formation. Again, its plenty obvious that the units are not equally balanced. Better questions to ask are, "If we include this unit in the game, what units will it obselete in all formations?", and "Would every formation include this unit if it could?" But those questions in themselves are only instructive not definitive. All formations tend to include clerics, but that doesn't mean that the cleric makes for a less interesting game.

"this means that in order to achieve balance, the tyrant should only realisticlly be "worth" about 1.5 knights in terms of stats, as the fact that it can be moved in a single turn contributes highly to its overall strength."

Two points.

First, in this context as you are aware from your own argument, 1.5 >> 1. Even the DT, which I still maintain is a superior unit to the Cavalier, doesn't have stats 150% higher than the knights.

Secondly, the Cavalier as decribed is not a "knight with twice the stats", and I did not create it as an absolutely uber-unit. It's power is only 27% higher than a knight's, and it attacks 50% less often. Due to lower armor its effective hitpoints are only about 13% higher, and it blocks attacks less often. Six movement is I agree a mistake, and the movement restrictions I placed on it don't do enough to prevent it from attacking the rear of a unit but I don't believe that - with corrected movement - that this is a unit 150% as powerful as a knight.

[Serge]

Not too many people got upset when I did this. Which both had a ton of unit ideas in one thread, but, most of them were simply variations of existing units. (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9704)

As for this group, if you lack the attention span to read them all, don't post in the thread. I guess you could read some and respond to just those, but the "OMFG NOT SO MANY UNITS AT ONCE! LOLz!eleven!!" comments are PC+1 and unneccessary.

I'll respond when I finish reading.

[Serge]

Alright, most of what people said was pretty accurate. They have all been done before and they're all pretty boring.

Also, I hate any idea that has to do with Skeletons/Zombies/Necromancers. Especially Necromancers.

[deleryn]

Maybe it's more like a medley?

[Walrus]

Alright, most of what people said was pretty accurate. They have all been done before and they're all pretty boring.

Also, I hate any idea that has to do with Skeletons/Zombies/Necromancers. Especially Necromancers.


i thought my Necromancer was good :(

[celebrim]

i thought my Necromancer was good :(

One wonders if you had named it an Ovinomancer and had it summon Rabid Ewe's whether it would have improved his opinion. :)

I'm skeptical of the criticism of people that approve or disapprove of a game element solely on the basis of flavor. Flavor is not game play. It's just part of the spice.

Nonetheless, after everyone accused me of re-hashing old ideas I spent alot of time searching the forums. First, I do not concede that in general the ideas are re-hashing of old ideas, except where they are obvious (for example your Zombie and my Zombie are very similar), and where my ideas are similar to previous ideas (such as the Cyromancer), my idea is the superior implementation. Quite a few of my units had no real counterpart, and shared nothing with other units I could find except the name. That however is another topic.

I had serious problems with your Necromancer.

Basically, the entire undead team was too tightly integrated, lending itself to creating a single novelty formation and not generally enhanced game play. Also, given the way unit drops happen on the sight, it would be a long time before anyone accumulated an 'Undead team', and before getting a Necromancer all the other drops would be useless. Almost all the following 'special rules' are bad in one way or the other:

"All Undead units excluding the Necromancer are damaged 6 points by cleric healing, as opposed to being healed."

That is rather unspecific. What sort of healing? Your own cleric? Your opponents cleric? Either? If your opponents cleric, is this in lieu of the normal targeting of his own team?

"All Undead units are immune to the attacks of the Dark Magic Witch."

I'm skeptical of this sort of thing, which is why I made it merely an option to consider when I discussed the zombie and the skeleton. While this sort of mechanic has been used successful (for example Stratego's 'Spy' peice), its potentially unbalancing and can create alot of frustration. "Oh, you've brought 3 Dark Magic Witches. Too bad half my team is undead!" It wouldn't have been so bad if you'd made a specific unit (say your Banshee) immune to the DMW, but making the whole team immune to a unit - especially a combat unit - seems rough.

"No Undead units may be present on the battlefield unless a Necromancer is present, and if the Necromancer dies, all other Undead on the team will gradually rot away, taking 5 points of damage per turn until they die. They cannot survive without the Necromancers magic."

This is just bad design. It makes the Necromancer far too important to the outcome.

"Excluding the Necromancer, any undead units who die do not simply vanish, but leave a visible corpse on the field for 5 turns."

There is an implementation problem here. Currently the game doesn't deal with two graphics occupying the same space. It's not clear to me that this would look good or how much new code would be involved. If the game has a 2D isometric engine and not true 3D, this would be a huge challenge.

"Each team may only have a maximum of 5 points worth of Undead units excluding the Necromancer."

This is a kludge fix for the fact that your Necromancer is overpowered. Again, it tends to make for overly integrated teams and reduces creativity.

"The Necromancer has no direct offensive attack, instead, he can use his dark powers to revive the fallen undead forces on the field. He may revive any fallen Undead, friend or foe, excluding another Necromancer. The range of this ability is infinite, however, a single necromancer cannot control more than 3 Undead creatures on the field of battle due to limitations on his mental capacity."

I have serious problems with this on several levels. First, the fact that his range is infinite means that he doesn't really need to risk himself while the Zombie(s), Vampire, or Demon rushes in. He can revive a Zombie, Vampire, (or a Demon!) every three turns if need be. That's alot of hitpoints (and a full often overpowered unit) brought back. I suspect that it will be unbalanced, and if not unbalanced then at least make for tedious games with predictable strategy.

"The Necromancer also has the ability to summon a wall of bones next to him, this wall will take up 3 spaces in a row, the middle spot being the square targeted. The Necromancer may only target one of the 4 squares next to him. The Bone Wall has 60 life and 50 armor. Its purpose is to defend the Necromancer against attacks. The Bone Wall is immobile and has no attack, and the Necromancer must maintain focus to sustain it. The wall is LOSable in the same was as a furgons shrubs, so the necromancer is still potentially vulnerable to scouts. "

This is more of the 'kitchen sink' approach to creating units that I'm not a fan of. What's the game play purpose of all of this? As a less serious criticism, this violates existing rules about summoned units, namely that they should be destroyed in single hits.

As far as the rest of the article goes, its funny you'd criticize me for the Cavalier considering the stats of your 'Demon'. Thirty power unblockable? Thirty armor and 60 life (plus decent blocking)? Stoned that's what 180 damage, and your Necro can bring him back to life???

Don't get me wrong, not all of your ideas are bad. I liked the idea of units that counted as 1/2 units. I liked the Vampire, and toned down abit from being an resurectable uber-Knight it might be a fun unit. However, the whole 'life stealing' thing was an idea that I'd had for a unit in the first 48 hours of playing, so even you'd have to admit its hardly orginal. So the fact that its both unoriginal and poorly conceived doesn't speak well of you as a designer. Lastly, I liked your zombie - sans the poorly concieved special rules. Then again, its not all that original either, as we can find lots of zombie ideas and similar but differently named units in the forum.

I also found it funny that you'd complain about me having too many ideas.

"Personally, i really like this idea, though that may be coz i made it"

I think that about covers you as a designer. I read through your unit compilation, and I couldn't really see why you thought you'd designed well the units you thought you'd designed well. It seemed to me to be rather arbitrary personal preference.

[Cross Punisher]

Hoplite - I don't really get its purpose. It's a weaker knight as you say who's special ability seems only to apply to knight (and assassins)

Man at Arms - A weaker knight that can't even kill a cleric after it heals. Why would you really want a countless supply of them?

Amazon - A weaker scout with a special that makes its low side blocking, average.

Pikeman - An altered version of your Hoplite which is a weaker version of a knight with a special ability that again only seems to apply to knights (and assassins)? Also your definition for "Zone of Control" is slightly different for the Pikeman than it is for the Hoplite. Which is it?

Zombie - Hard to decide between the ability to use 3 of these or 2 scouts and some knights... but I'd choose the latter. This can't replace a knight.

Skeleton - Again this unit doesn't allow the use of some very important units for golds, that being scouts and knights. Also your concern for both the Zombie and the Skeleton about vulnerability to clerics trying to heal them seems irrelevant because as you say they can't be used with clerics.

Necromancer - Not practical enough, because you can't use a cleric which heals multiple units. This only heals 1 unit at a time, and on top of that has to be reasonably close to heal the one unit it can heal at a time. Also because this only heals undead units you might have some units not capable of being healed at all. Also please specify what happens if you use this on a friendly unit that isn't undead.

Cyromancer - I like the idea for this one.

Dark Cleric - Give up the possibility of a cleric to do at most an extra 3 damage to 1 unit or split and extra 10 damage among 5 units? No

Aeromancer - Believe me, the idea of a unit that can move enemy units has been explored an exhaustable amount of times.

Sorry I got to tired after that, it's really just too many units to look at at once. Most of them seemed to be alterations of existing units, and the only one I found most original was sadly the Cyromancer which is really just a pyromancer mixed with a Berzerker.

[Cuathon]

no offense but there are already exsting units that are much better than the amazon and man at arms. cavalier is very overpowered. aeromancer is unoriginal and overpowered. necromancer is very underpowered. cryo overpowered. dark clericis severely underpowered. pike man and hopelite are also underpowered. almost all the units are unoriginal concepts. did you try the search function at all?

[celebrim]

no offense but there are already exsting units that are much better than the amazon and man at arms.

I believe I said that in thier descriptions. How could I be offended by it?

What I was going for was a way around the restrictions on the number of knights and the number of scouts. How would you have a team of say 5 knights, or 4 scouts? The answer, make a slightly inferior version of the scout or knight. Maybe this one is too inferior, but that doesn't invalidate the concept.

"cavalier is very overpowered."

Ok, that's possible.

"aeromancer is unoriginal and overpowered."

Compared to what? The 'push' seems a neglible power in most situations. Otherwise, it is comparable to the DMW (weaker attack, slightly more durable), which is sufficiently unpowered to get little or no respect in gold.

"necromancer is very underpowered."

Ok, that's possible. For most of these units I tried to err on the side of underpowered rather than overpowered. It's too easy to fall in the trap of creating 'gift' units otherwise.

"cryo overpowered."

As should have been evident, I was worried about that too. Stunning is a very powerful attack. Mass stunning even more so. I'm not familiar enough with gold to know whether gold has the tools to deal with something like this. Certainly gold has more powerful units than this available.

"dark cleric is severely underpowered."

That's easily fixed.

"pike man and hopelite are also underpowered."

Really? At the least, I thought they'd be knights #4 and #5. If anything, I was worried people would say that they are overpowered. Perhaps I didn't explain ZOC well enough.

zzz
zHz
zzz

The 'z's are the Hoplite zone of control. No enemy unit can step from one 'z' to another one. So in...

.zzz.
.zHz.
.zEz.


The enemy ('E') needs to move 6 squares to flank the Hoplite instead of 2. It would need to move 10 squares to attack the rear of the Hoplite instead of 4.

Now, imagine two hoplites standing near each other. For example...

zzzzzz
zHzzHz
zZzzZz

...forms a wall which only vunerable in the squares marked 'Z', presumably the forward face of the Hoplite.

And in...

zzz
zHzz
zEHz
xzzz

'E' cannot move without teleporting. Does that explain it better now?

[Cross Punisher]

The way I understood it (before you specified the range better and the units that it applied to) was that a unit that was in range of the ZoC wasn't allowed to STOP on a square that was again in that unit's ZoC.