Dwarven Balance Discussion

[Mogat]

I would acutally really like to see some replays with this matchup, because I don't see this matchup as onesided as you do.

You said Loriens archers don't do any damage vs. dwarves with shields. So why build archers and fight against the counter-system? Generally Archers are not worth their money in my opinion, even with Lorien (to a certain extent). I personally never build archers as elves. Why? Their damage is not excellent, they are expensive and if I want archers I cannot harass and spread my opponent thin with this. Lothlorines strength is speed, which can excellent be used to pin you opponent in and make him loose quickly.
With archers there is no way to be aggressive (and of course the other aspects I mentioned), and that is what you in edain always have to do.

If you use archers vs. other factions, this doesn't necessarily means, that there is only this one was to play. Sometimes strategy adapts according to enemy faction, which is good.

When I read: "It is also possible to win If you get map control early enough using Lothlorien Swords and Spears" I wonder what holds you back to do exacly this. (Leaving aside that this is anyways always the goal of a good player to get map-control.) So if a player stays defensive and builds archers vs. iron-hills a lost game is likely.

And if you let the dwarf build "an Outpost close to your Camp/Castle with a well and/or statue" then I wonder how he could spend 1200+ ress without being punished hard for this. As with every faction, you are fighting continuously on the map. If the dwarf pushes foreward to capture the outpost --> you harass him, or take an favourable engagement on the map with your quick units vs. the slow dwarves.

To put it short, those were my thoughts considering the matchup and the points brought up, but I would be happy if someone would proof me wrong. I am not as familiar with the fine aspects of balance in this new version, so a replay would help a lot. And I am always ready to test difficult matchups myself 

[Hamanathnath]

You are right Mogat, if you are the Elves, you need to harass Dwarven Settlements to no end.  The problem is that Iron Hills Gaurdians beat Elven Swordmen because of their Armor Ability.  If the Iron Hills Dwarves are allowed to build up, they are near impossible to stop. 

Also remember that Battle Wagons were significantly improved, so if you are not harassing the Dwarves with Spears, expect to see a few of them.  And Spears cost more money, which lowers your harassing potential, and also have very little chance of winning against the Iron Hills Guardians.

[Odysseus]

There is, however; one apparent issue with this. It lacks cohesion with the design of Lothlorien. I mean, they are supposed to be an archer superiority faction, so if the archers aren't bringing in the ''superiority'' then something is obviously wrong, no?

Also, Mogat, I wanted to say that your insight is valuable. It makes me question many things about the mod gameplay-wise, so thank you kindly for that!

[Lord of Mordor]

The thing you have to keep in mind is that the shields only protect against ONE damage type. Heavy Armor doubles a Guardian's health against everything and grants +35% armor against archers as well. In comparison, we felt the shield's bonus had to be more extreme because otherwise it really doesn't do much for the price. Beornings and Galadhrim should be really good against shield guardians though, even with their armor ability. I'm not sure the best solution here is to make it so that Lorien can still "power through" the anti-archer upgrade by simply building more and better archers.

Though I do agree that Galadhon Guardians are pretty lame at the moment, I want to overhaul them sooner or later. With the next patch, we'll also be lowering the cost of all ranged units to the level of Pikemen (300 for regular units, 600 for elite like Galadhrim) to make them more attractive.

[Odysseus]

I wanted to mention that, but I thought it'd be better if LoM did that. I don't want Ea to cut off my tongue .

I suppose you make fair points. The combination of the two gives them near archer immunity though. I don't know if that is really a good thing :/.

[Elendils Cousin 3. Grades]

Beornings are your friend, they force the dwarven player to at least get some pikes while adding considerable damage in their human form.
Edit: LoM was faster^^

There is, however; one apparent issue with this. It lacks cohesion with the design of Lothlorien. I mean, they are supposed to be an archer superiority faction, so if the archers aren't bringing in the ''superiority'' then something is obviously wrong, no?

Lorien is not just archers. At their core they are a high damage, low health faction with superior mobility and a stronger focus on archers to get the best use out of that. I very much like that in different matchups you need to use different strategies to gain an advantage. It just adds to the game when you need to adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents.


Btw am I the only one who doesn't like the new battlewagons and doesn't approve of their increased armor against pikes? I felt they were pretty much fine before, maybe an armor buff against swords but that would have been all I changed...

[Hamanathnath]

Well yes, Galadhrim and Beornings are good counters to Guardian Spam.  The problem is not only do they cost a lot more the Guardians, which makes them much more costly losses, but they are both easily countered by a single Battle Wagon, unless those Galadhirm are fully upgraded.  To kill a Battle Wagon, you need Lothlorien Pikes, and Lothlorien Pikes won't win against Iron Hills Guardians. 

I understand why Tower Shields have a more extreme buff, but Tower Shields combined with Heavy Armour makes Guardians pretty much immune to Arrows all together.  That's not even counting their ability. 

I personally like Battle Wagons as they are now.  Pikes still kill them ridiculously quickly, so I wouldn't say they are too strong.  However, I do think they should cost more then 20 Command Points.  You can theoritically have an army of 90 Battle Wagons with a maxed out 1800 command points (Imagine seeing that charge at you ), So I would suggest to move them up to 45 Command Points at least, but I don't think they should be higher then 60.

[Odysseus]

Btw am I the only one who doesn't like the new battlewagons and doesn't approve of their increased armor against pikes? I felt they were pretty much fine before, maybe an armor buff against swords but that would have been all I changed...

The team said that they wanted to differentiate it from other cavalry/trampling units, in the sense that it serves more like a supportive siege engine, instead of just cavalry. So, unlike cavalry, they are extremely resilient to turrets and arrows, like rams and other siege engines.

What I don't like about the Battlewagon is that it has near infinite trample. It only really slows down on pikes, but then usually dies anyway. The damn thing can take out many more hordes of swordsmen and archers combined than its worth. On top of that, it has the oil barrel too, which does nasty damage overall. All that for what? 400 resources and 25 command points? Lol.

However, the Wagon is going to see quite some changes for the upcoming patch as mentioned by Ea. I think they make sense, but I had hoped that the Battlewagon would just be used more for support rather than frontline combat due to its insane trampling capabilities, since Dwarves should not rely on trampling, which is a cavalry mechanic and I find that unfitting for the Dwarves :/. Just me though.

[Draco100000]

Battlewagon management is not easy at all, they get slowered easily, just use them by your self insted critic it from the point of view of an elf. Battlewagons are now usefull yeah, same oil barrel than before, same upgrades as before, same dmg. They just are more resilient to all dmg types except pikes that almost instakill them, ( if elite or heroic instakill) So I think it is enough hard to use them now. Increasing their cost you just are sdaying to the dwarven player not to use them. if they cost 600 for example you have to waste 1200 just to get 1 battlewagon while this 1200 can be used for 6 guardian battallions. I see clearly what i would go for in early game in that case. Now the process is 1000 is dangerous do it too early, 1 pikemen can kill them if well combined with archers.... they still being more support unit than caval one thought.

Just dont think you should be able to kill everything with some dumb elvish archers, They key to win in this game is make equilibrated armies with infantry, pikes and swordsmen. Also I would say speed of elves is insane, allowing them to slay dwarves easily.

[The_Necromancer0]

I agree with Odysseus, the Battlewagon trample abilities is even more powerful than the one of the Nazgul before nerf and for a much more minor cost. From experience Nazguls will take small amounts of damage by passing once through a single while the Battlewagon can enter a battalion and rampage it from all sides while taking minimal damage.

[-DJANGO-]

I would not change much regarding the battle wagons. I find them very easily to manage due to their handling. I have too, the impression that they now slow down more than in the previous version (Now they get stuck in Mordor Orcs).
I appreciate a CP increase! If you compare the function of Battlewagons i.e. to Lorien, the wagons fullfill Trampling + Healing/steady Leadership. Lorien needs for that Beornings and Singers (though both units have also other pros which the Wagons dont have). I simply will say with that: Wagons are extremly diverse and are worth all their costs.
Maybe the step to distance them from "onehit" -  trample unit to a more supportive role is a good idea. Still they have their barrel. Though they should deal decent damage trampling, they still are Battlewagons.

[Elendils Cousin 3. Grades]

It already was more supportive than any other cavalry with its upgrades (while needing to trample two or three times to kill swordsmen btw). Battlewagons have an incredible manoeuvrability and their awesome oil barrel, which made it totally fine to me that they died as soon as they touched three pikes - because they never touch them if microed properly. Unlike with horses, that is actually quite easy to accomplish. They can back off instantly by driving backwards. Now pikes don't instakill them anymore, you can literally drive through an entire batallion of pikes and the battlewagon will survive.
I wouldn't change the trampling of battlewagons, it is what makes them unique. Reduce their armor against pikes again so they need to be used more carefully and increase their cp.

[Elite KryPtik]

Agree that Battlewagons have been made really strong in general, I think that an increase to cp and trample deceleration would be fine. I have no issues with their current armor values.

Everybody keeps on mentioning the speed of the elves, but if we are talking about the specific matchup vs dwarves you seem to be forgetting something extremely important about the dwarves: the tunnel system.

How can you possibly argue that you can outflank and harass the dwarves when they can teleport troops instantly to whatever you are trying to harass? 1v1 Lorien Swordsmen lose to Iron Hills Guardians, which means that if you split your troops up to harass external settlements you are sentencing them to death against a skilled dwarf player. I think Haman nailed every other point on the head except this one.

This is one of the prime issues in this matchup, besides the fact that Iron Hills can just spam you with guardians with tower shields and win. The protection that dwarves have through the tunnel system is currently unmatched, and makes harassment almost impossible unless you use large groups of troops, in which time the dwarves can easily move forward and harass your own farms, which don't have the ability to have troops teleported to them.

EDIT: I just thought I would draw some correlations for those of you who don't think that the battalewagon trample is too strong. So lets compare, If we look at other factions basic cavalry we have Gondor Knights at 700, 120 command point cost, who get stuck after trampling half a battalion of orcs, and the multitude of different cavalry Rohan has, who cost 400(I think, I always get them fully discounted at 280) and 90 command points, and have the same trampling power as Gondor Knights.

Compare this to the battlewagon, with a default cost of 600 and 20 command points. The resource cost is ok, command points are pretty low. Then we look at the trample, a battlewagon can easily kill a battalion of orcs without slowing down, and can throw powerful explosive casks which by themselves can wipe out clumped infantry. On top of this the battlewagon can be provided with leadership and healing capacities, all for 25 command points. Now, if anybody wants to argue that is not over-performing for 25 command points, you are either biased or a fool, no offence of course

So, to wrap it up, I just think that Battlewagons need a command point cost increase to at least 60, preferably 90, and an increase to trample deceleration, to be just above normal cavalry in their trample strength, say able to trample 1 full battalion of orcs or troop equivalent before slowing down. I think the armor buff was sorely needed, but giving them a straight armor buff without nerfing some other aspects made them a little bit overpowered. Food for thought

[Mogat]

1) I think a drastical increase of the damage the battlewagon takes from pikes and a cp increase is a good idea. There is in my opinion no need to slow down their trampling

2) I did not forget about the tunnel system of the Dwarves. It is just so, that harassing dwarves is still really good possible, even if taking the tunnels into consideration. Iron hills can never force an engagement if you got a batallion of pikes in position. Moreover you don't harass one farm. You harass 3 farms. Simultaniously. And if some dwarves come out of the network you get some nice hits with your units clumped beind the building onto it and run away as soon as the dwarves start hitting (in some of my tournament games you can see executed lorien harass vs. dwarves btw.)

My proposition to test this matchup is still active, I would be fine with it if somebody prooves me wrong 

[Odysseus]

I concur with Elite. The main weakness of the Dwarves SHOULD be their lack of mobility, except Ered Luin. However, the Tunnel system almost completely negates that. I have always thought from the very beginning when the Dwarves were introduced in BFME II that it was ridiculously overpowered, creating these weird games where cavalry have to harass and go back and forth each time to actually take down a single resource building and avoid pikes simultaneously, while requiring godly micro. Since nobody seemed to really care about it, or that it was generally accepted, I said whatever to myself.

Maybe if there was some kind of upgrade in the Stonemaison at level 2, like Military Tunnels or something that enables travelling through the tunnels for the Dwarves, maybe people would actually buy the damn Stonemaison building in the base and it would give the Dwarves proper mobility issues, instead of now, you have to get lucky to take down a settlement.

Yes Draco, I am criticising the Dwarves. That is the point of the discussion. I'm not saying Battlewagons are overpowered, I'm just saying that I do not like how they perform in their role at the moment. It's not impossible to deal with them, but I think the wagon is far more trouble than its actual worth to take down. The thing is almost as expensive as its counter, costs 25 CP, and barely gets stuck on pikes, unlike cavalry.