It's true that not all 90 units are going to be able to be used competitively. Also I assume you will be wanting to make some theme based sets for the neutral sides (I'm assuming you will change the 8 neutral sides) for when players play against the AI. You'll have to do this if you are changing the names in your mod from 'Lt Infantry' to 'Lt Infantry25' to indicate these are your 25 anniversary units/heroes etc.

That said, if you make a bunch of them duplicate units (ie multiple 1 turn units with poison) then most will never get used other than in your theme sets and you've wasted a lot of your time balancing for things not used.


3 turn units are used in Merc3 and Ally 1. They are also found in the regular army set in slot 6 where the most common choice is the Siege Engine (esp with no Stormheim Battering Ram). Most players will have 2 of the 3 turn units in their army set so when thinking about 3 turn units you need to realize they probably only get to choose 1 since the other will be a Siege Engine/Ram.

For me, 3 turn units need to do something unique that I can't get elsewhere or costs a LOT to get elsewhere on 4/5 turn units. The best 3 turn units are Siege Engines/Battering Rams (high siege), Gnoll Calv/Assassin (high assassin), Cyclops (archery immunity+trample), Moonguard (high missiles+good strength), Roc Rider (flying Siege). Others like the Unicorn can be used (good morale + very high movement) on occasion on certain maps where they are plentiful or in certain army sets designed around them. The rest of the 3 turn units in the game either need to be made a lot better or would be better off being 2 turn units.

Until you publish a list of all your changes (cost, hits, move, strength, skills etc) it's hard to figure out how all the changes to the 1/2 turn units will work out and how good they will be. For example what did you do with Imps? They are ideal 1 turn units other than the CRAZY high cost of 300 because a bunch in a city with Lightning +2 can wreak havoc on a hero stack as good as a city full of Gnolls (+1 Assassin). So I'll wait to see your numbers for the 1/2 turn units to comment further.

The Ghost/Wights change seems interesting. I can't remember if you can put Necromancy on units (or whether it can only be on a hero). You might try and see if it works. If so, it might make a fun skill to put on a 3 turn Undead unit (Wraiths maybe) so that at +3 Necromancy Wraiths could make Wraiths and lesser units.

With regards to Warding, I agree with you about what it means on Wolfriders/Wargs/Scouts vs what it means on a unit like the Rock Elemental.

Rock Elementals saw use in 1.01 and earlier when speed was 2x movement. Mostly for attacking cities full of units with the Assassin skill. At 6/4 they just aren't good enough vs Dragons at 9/3 in hero battles and the 15 move is a killer and they are eaten alive by Golems. They'd need to be at least 7 str and move 18 to be viable in hero stacks and no one thinks of Rock Elementals as fast moving. I don't remember the last time I saw someone use Rock Elementals in an army set unless it was a theme game (ie no dragons).

I rarely see the Royal Dragon used and when I do it's always been in Ally 4. The individual warding just isn't good enough to justify needing more than 1 of them to handle the few cities that have assassin units.

On the other hand, if Imps cost comes down a lot to make them viable 1 turn units (even if their stats needs to go to 1/2 from 1/3) and there is a viable 1 or 2 turn unit with Acid (Slimes aren't good enough) then Warding and Group Warding may become a lot more valuable to have on a Royal Dragon or other unit that could go in a hero stack (Air Elemental with group warding that I mentioned)

Hard to say how good warding/group warding is because you either really need it or you don't need it at all. Something like +2 Group Warding on a viable hero unit like a 7/3 Air Elemental would make that unit get used for sure. +1 Group Warding on a less unit (a 2 turn unit like Pegasi) also has a place for non-hero stacks too.

You have to be careful with Warding on a hero. I originally gave the Monk warding and he became a 1 man killer because of the cheap upgrades and the spells that boosted his hits/strength and the presence of strength items etc. Players were easily able to get a 15/4 Monk (cheap XP table) that was almost unkillable with the Warding so I removed it. Warding on a Vampire might help it get used but I don't think the Monk or Barbarian need it because they get plenty strong now (both can easily reach 15/4 status at L6 if they find a strength item or two) and become hard to kill.

KGB

KGB wrote:


You're absolutely right, this was getting too convoluted for me to expect anyone to keep up with my proposed changes. But today's the day I got done with my first rough draft, and here are the entire changes in a google sheet:

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1...6C-z0jE5XKgJ/pubhtml

Click on the 25th Anniversary Project tab to have a look. I hope it's readable - I originally started this sheet to track the differences between Reign of Heroes, DLR and the patches. Maybe I should delete those rows in the 25AP tab to make it simpler?

Thanks for posting the link to the google doc's. It's super helpful to have going forward as you continue to adjust things so everyone can see where things are. The 25 anniversary tab was easy enough for me to figure out. I don't suppose there is any way to be able to sort by columns so I could line up all the 1 turn units (you'd have to be able to group multiple rows together to do that).


Just a few random comments from looking through the entire list:
Air Elem - At 7/2 even with Lightning +4 this unit isn't going to get used by anyone. It's too weak for hero stacks and too expensive to put on city defense or non-hero stacks. I think Grp Lightning +1 (if you don't use grp warding) and 7/3 would get this unit used esp since it could bolster cities full of Imps. Or if you want to retain the Lightning +4 7/2 stats it needs to be a 3 turn unit.

Archon - Your 1100 cost for a 4 turn +3 unit is too high. Compared to Unicorns with +3 for 750 at 3 turns or Silver Dragon at +3 for 1200 at 5 turns but 9/3 vs 8/2. The reason they were set to 800 is because no one ever used them at 1100. It probably doesn't matter that much anyway because they are going to be summoned via the Priest or in Ally 4 anyway so no one is going to pay 1100 in regulars but I just wanted to point that out.

Ballistae - Even with the cost reduction it's not going to get used. The idea of the unit is interesting with the huge city bonus but the 1 hit stat makes it too useless to bother with. Needs to be a 4/2 unit with city +4 and then it might get used.

Cave Wyrms - These guys used to get played because of the 20 move, +2 Siege and Archery immunity (esp with Shaman siege spell). Now I am not sure they will because a 7/3 4 turn unit that costs 1100 just isn't good enough given it will be destroyed by any Trample unit or any flying stack of Dragon type units etc. The cost needs to go down to under 1000 if you want this unit to ever be considered as a replacement for a Black Dragon (and when Stormheim Balrog is compared this unit is definitely useless).

Centaurs - Why the field bonus? These guys live in Woods. Would make more sense to give them something like Woods +3 or +4 so they were true killers in woods.

Dryads - These are useless units at 2 turns for a 2/2 unit with +1 morale. Even if they cost 1 and not 100 I'd never take them. This is another unit that you could consider putting Group Warding on because their magic could be protecting everyone. Then maybe someone might consider them if this was the fastest unit to get Group Warding (ie no other 1 or 2 turn units had it).

Dust Worms - Compared to Treants (7/4 +4 siege 1300 4 turn) their 6/3 +4 siege 1400 4 turn stats looks abysmal. If Cave Worms remain with Acid, these guys need to go to 6/4 (archery immunity) to compete with Treants with their extra 100 cost being for 18 vs 15 moves.

Dwarf Crossbow - I like the lowered cost but it's still not enough when you compare to Archers (+2 missile for 90) or halflings (+3 for 200). They need to be 200 or less to be considered and go back to hills bonus (note, all dwarf units should get dungeon like Runners have)

Dwarf Infantry - Siege on a 1 turn unit is over powered. It renders units like the 2 turn Orog pointless plus it renders all L1 cities void defense wise. If you want a Dwarf unit with siege (thematically makes sense) then this unit needs to become a 2 turn unit like the Orog.

Elephant - Why would anyone take a 7/3 +2 trample for 1400 when you can take an Iron Golem that is 6/3 +3 trample for 1000? Elephants were probably one of the best balanced units in 1.02 and didn't really need anything done to them.

Elven Archers - Increasing the move to 20 is going to over power these units. The only thing that kept them as garrison units was the 16 moves. At 20 moves they can start really moving around the map.

Giant Bats/Rats - I always hated Rats getting that huge banding bonus. To me Rats should be disease carriers (+1 disease) and Giant Bats should be Vampire Bats (the Stormheim unit) with Assassin +1 but less view (2). Then Skeletons (with their useless Warding) could get the +6 Banding bonus (hoard of skeletons which makes them more valuable when created by Necromancy). But that's just my thoughts.

Giant Scorpions - Increasing their costs is less likely to get them used even with +7 vs +6 poison. I think +7 and leave costs where they were.

Giant Spiders - I'd make them +2 in City the way they were feared city units in War2 in addition to what you've already done.

Gnoll Infantry - They probably cost too much at 100. I think cost of 75 with the original 2/2 stats vs the 3/2 for 100 makes them more likely to get used because its the Assassin +1 that makes them valuable.

Green Slime - Even at 100 cost for a 2 turn unit no one uses them. The reason is the Acid +2 isn't good enough. But you have Acid +3 units already so the only way this unit gets used is if you make some unit have Group Acid +1 so that you can mount a defense in a city. Or these guys have to become a 1 turn unit (with lesser strength obviously) like the Imps so you can get masses of them easier.

Gryphons - 6/3 3 turn +2 morale for 750. Compared to Eagle that are 6/3 3 turn +2 morale for 750. Why would any one take Eagles esp when both move 24+ and Gryphon also has city bonus to strength. One of those 2 units needs to change in some way.

Hellhounds - A 1 turn 2/2 unit with +1 fear for only 100 is a steal price wise with that 22 moves. Might be too cheap.

Ice Demons - I understand the idea of Fire + Ice Demons giving Fear and Chaos. But you just made the Summoner hero and specifically the Demonic Hoard spell that much more powerful because now you get strong fear and chaos in one spell along with solid combat stats (7/3 and 8/3). This might over power the Summoners spells.

Pikemen - I'd like to see Field +2 so they have a chance to shine in the open.

Siege Engines - This might be the most controversial move with the Siege going to +3. I know it's meant to allow the new +4 units like Treant to get used. But those units also cost a LOT (1000+). What this does is make the Thief that much better with his Siege for 1 AP since he can get to +4 and +5 so easily. Also makes the Shaman spell better too. You have to hope you didn't over power those heroes (make them must have) by this change or else those units with +4 Siege need to get down to 900-950 range instead of 1200+

Troll - I like the Archery immunity but think you also need to increase the move to 18 or 20. The reason is you have a pair of 2 turn units (Dk Pegasi, Ghosts that also have +2 Fear) that give Fear +2 and fly and move 20+ so this unit is going to be VERY hard to justify taking at 3 turns for +2 unless it moves a long way in addition to the Archery immunity and even that might not be enough.

Undead Beasts - You reduced Slayers from 1300 to 1100 and Reds from 1600 to 1500 so this guy at 1400 is costed wrong now. Given how much better the Red is, this unit needs to get down to 1200ish.

Unicorn - No one is going to take this unit over the Archon. It was an ideal 3 turn unit and should have remained there and probably didn't need any adjustments at all.

Wraiths - As mentioned, I think you can give Necromancy to units. Giving this unit +3 Necromancy so it can raise it's own kind and others would be neat and unique. More importantly the +3 Fear could then go to the Troll who needs to be better than the Dk Pegasi/Ghost

KGB

KGB, I don't know how soon I'll be able to give you the long reply your post deserves, but I wanted to let you know right away how much I appreciate your detailed critique.

One major point is that really needs serious consideration what kind of stats and abilities warrant a 1100 - 1400 price tag.

In vanilla, Undead Beasts pretty much have the strongest sub-dragon stat line at 8/3 with 20 movement. In RoH, they were the only units beside Dragons that took 5 turns to build. I kept the price, but reduced the build time.
Generally, Chaos seems to be priced higher than Fear on units, probably because heroes who can reach Leadership 4+ are more widely available than access to Morale 4+, and, of course, killing heroes is more valuable than killing morale-based non-hero stacks. So maybe the 1600 for Reds is warranted.

In SH, the Emerald and Brass Dragons give you (what I would estimate) 95% of the capability for 80% of the price, which is obviously a bargain, but not good game balance.

Some opinion about some units. The rest I have no comments or are irrelevant because they are too slow (the most 2 and more turn units with move 20- are useless to me). I don't like the most of the upkeep reduction.
Useful is good level.
Air Elem. uselss->useful (flying alternative to v. useful Chimera), so I don’t agree to KGB
Archons useful-> agree to KGB
Centaurs, Driads agree to KGB
Dwarf Infantry still useless
Bats/rats/skeletons – more like HR ideas than KGB
Elven Archers useful->must have (it means too good)
Elven Cavalry useful->useless
Elven Infantry useless->maybe
Gnolls infantry still useless
Hellhounds still useless
Ice Demons less useful to me (it was never much) but improve Summoner utility (now absolutely worst hero) so good change for me
Light Cavalry maybe->maybe+
Mummies too expensive->useful (or more)
Nightmares useful->I don’t like flying ability for this units
Peasants rather useles->never take it
Plague Carriers useful->v. useful (too much for me)
Scouts useless->maybe
Siege engines still rather useless (too slow but I understnd this)
Unicorns useful->rather useless (4 turn) agree to KGB
HR
Agree that Emerald and Brass Dragons are better now than Red and Green.

Thanks for the second opinions, Anomander. I find it especially interesting when the two of you disagree about something.

I still won't be able to post a long reply today, but as a heads-up, I've done a reformatting on the third tab of the spreadsheet that makes it much easier to compare units of the same tier.

Haven't figured out yet how to make the sheet sortable, but that should be less pressing now.

I'll bet that a lot of our disagreements come from the types of games being played.

Anomander is playing a fair bit of 4 player games which are quite different than 2 player games because you only get half the number of cities, ruins etc and you meet enemy players that much faster. He didn't mention whether they play hidden maps or non-hidden and that's a major difference (fast scout units with huge view matters a lot on hidden maps so you can find ruins and mana cities but hardly matters on non-hidden).

There is also a difference between PBEM play (take your time) and live head-2-head play (always rushed for time) and another big difference is army start (1 army, 1-4 armies, 3000 points). I play quite different army sets depending on army start.

I'm definitely assuming that EVERYONE plays the largest maps with max cities/ruins/sites. I can't recall the last time I didn't play that type of game.

KGB

KGB wrote:


I'm going to tackle this piecemeal, so this is just the start.

Looking at the T1 missile units, here's what my thoughts are: Archers are the default missile unit. Given how essential missiles are vs flyers, these were over-buffed with the price reduction. All missile units should be fairly expensive just for the chance to outright kill all flyers and most other units on a lucky roll. Maybe making them cost an even 100 would be a good template to balance other units around them.

Elven Archers, I've been mulling over a couple of different options to balance them. Thematically, it just doesn't make sense to me that they're slower than humans while all other elves are faster. I considered making them a T2 str 4 unit, but then they'd have to be balanced against Centaurs. Reducing their missiles to 3 makes them a faster, glass cannon variant of Halflings. That's my current preferred solution.

Halflings are interesting as a decent T1 missile unit that can't get instant killed by lightning. That's pretty much it for them.

Dwarf Crossbows are another tricky issue. Thematically, dwarves are expensive, elite troops for their tier, but in the metrics that matter - strength, missiles, movement - they're equal or worse to Halflings. I already had City +1 as a buff to Gnoll Crossbows, and I think specialization for siege warfare makes thematic sense for crossbowmen if you look at historical examples like pavise use and increasingly heavier crossbows and arbalests; so this way, dwarves' missile attacks are at least equal to regular Archers in the most common battles. I still want to keep dwarves more expensive than halflings, if possible. This may be a good case where tweaking the medal chance makes a bit of a difference. Medals don't work on missile attacks, but with 3 hp, dwarves get a bunch of regular rolls too.

I love how Ballistae are handled stat-wise, even if it's not competitive. A single-shot glass cannon, that's cost-effective in cities. Essentially turning them into a T2 8/2 unit is a cure that to me looks worse than the disease. I can tinker with price and medal chance a bit more, but I want to keep it intact as a concept. The thing about 1 hp units is that they're generally cost-effective against trample, at least in theory. And they also benefit disproportionately from weapon master sites or Mighty Feast.

Regarding Centaurs, since vanilla DLR has no horse archers at all, these guys fill that gap. There's some speculation that the mythological Greek centaurs originated from the Greeks' first contact with nomadic horse archers from the steppes north of the Black Sea. Be that as it may, I do think buffing them to be better on fields, which are a more common battlefield than forests, is warranted. Maybe they don't need to lose the Forest movement bonus. IIRC, there's this oddity with the vanilla stats that some units have a movement bonus for Forest, while others have Woods, but only the former gets used on random maps.

The only remaining vanilla missile unit are Moonies, for whom the only potential change I'd make is raising their cost a bit.

KGB
I usually play 1 vs 1 (2 vs 2 rarelly).
1 unit on start. Live only (5 min. turn). I understand that this is different than pbem.
Largest maps with max cities/ruins/sites of course.
I last played yesterday. An important lesson (rather a reminder). Army strength doesn't matter against competent Warlords.
I prepared an army set focused on being strong also without a lord. And I have it. A lot of very strong armies. But such an army will never defeat a lord. Even if the lord's army receives losses, it will immediately replenish them. So the game is decided by the battle of the lords anyway.

HR
Without suggestions for changes, I will only write how I evaluate the current archers.
Similar and very high usability:
Archers (cheap and still archers ), Elven Archers (4 arch. but slow and expensive), Moonguards (strong, 4 arch., but too slow to lord armies and expensive).
Useless because we have better ones:
Dwarf archers (slow, expensive, hits aren't important), Balistae (paper as 2 turn unit and only 1 arch.).
Separate category:
Hallfings are good but little worse than Archers (price) or Elv.Archers (archery).
Centaurs are outclassed by Outriders (stormheim).
Stormheim:
Outriders are v.h.usability.
Marksman too expensive and 2 turn so they are worse than Elven archers.
Rovers weak (I never see them).

I think now that a rough outline is in place, it makes the most sense to follow a top-down approach - balancing from the strongest, most expensive units downward. So I will address your feedback once we get to those tiers. I'm almost completely happy with all the Dragons' abilities and stats as they are, now it's mostly a question of fine-tuning the cost, upkeep and setup.

So here are my main questions:

Black vs Blue - We know that there are two bugs that affect lightning; first, it seems to ignore warding when the lightning unit is one the attacking side. A bit fringe, but beneficial. Second, if an acid attack triggers, a lightning attack no longer can. So in a direct duel, blackies completely outclass blues.

Knowing this, do blue dragons even have a chance to be competitive? And either way, what's a fair difference in price to address this discrepancy?

Blues are still meat units, and lightning is still useful, though I would rate even lightning 5 below trample 1 vs ground units. One thought I've had just now is to increase Blues movement to 30 so they can match Silver Dragons, but that would shrink the niche of my rebalanced Air Elementals further.

I've tweaked the upkeep costs, but upkeep only plays a role for regular units.

Next question, Green vs Red, aka Fear vs Chaos. Chaos is the dedicated anti-hero ability, while Fear counters a smaller selection of heroes, but also the ubiquitous Morale units. It's an open question to me whether Leadership 4+ or Morale 4+ is more common in competitive hero stacks. High Leadership usually costs a significant amount of AP, while high Morale can be achieved by combining a L6 spell with an Archon or Unicorn, or even weaker units if an item comes into play.

I'm still in flux with my hero rebalancing, but the changes in my first experiments tend to favor generally cheaper access to either (and Fortify too) for different classes. I'm in favor of Red and Green Dragons, and Chaos and Fear, having the same cost. As KGB pointed out, I haven't been consistent about making Chaos cheaper on lower tier units, but that's the way I think I should go here.

Green vs Gold: We've talked about this before. There's an asymmetry in the benefit of negative modifiers, which get capped at -1 no matter what, and positive ones. Yet, Greens completely neutralize Golds while still reaching that -1 cap. The way I understand it, Gold Dragons' role is more to lead powerful non-hero stacks in the early expansion phase so you have fewer losses there. For min/maxed hero stacks, their Morale 4 is overkill. But for the former reason, I'm wary of buffing their Morale to 5. So my concrete question is, should they be cheaper? 1400? If their best notional use is to build more strong stacks than your opponent has heroes, should their upkeep be lower? (Anomander has pointed out that that's not really a competitive strategy.)
Some hero classes don't have good access to positive modifiers, so maybe there's a niche for them there?

Silver Dragons don't have a uniquely powerful ability, but they're a bit faster and cheaper, while still having dragon combat stats. Here, it's a question what the proper price points between them, Archons and Unicorns are, to make them worth considering as a replacement. I think 1200 plus the dragon tax is fair. It's hard to beat the price of summoned units, though. One thought I've toyed with is to give the Paladin a summoning spell for Silvers that would be more expensive in both AP and mana that the Priest's Divine Aid.

I like Undead Dragons as designed. 4 hp doesn't help against missiles but makes them tougher than other dragons against everything else. Curse isn't useless, but it's a good thematic compromise for a dragon that no longer has a breath attack. They had very low upkeep. I understand the theme behind it, but I've still increased it to not be completely meaningless for their tier.