Selon Lari Nieminen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My latest idea: > > Name Alignment GP HP Melee Ranged > -------- --------- -- -- ------------------ ------------- > Townsman Lawful 8 18 4-3 stave (pierce) - > Huntsman Neutral 8 18 - 4-3 bow > Henchman Chaotic 8 18 4-3 cudgel (impact) 4-1 sling
About the stats : - keep in mind that 4-3 (5-3 on melee if strong) means a powerful unit (for a level 0). I'd say with these stats the Henchman should rather cost 9. I you compare to the Footpad, it has a superior melee attack. For me it is a problem. While there is no RIPLIB problem, i don't see any background reason why the Henchman should loose some melee power while advancing to the Footpad. - i don't like to have a unit that isn't special in its background without a melee attack. This should be reserved for special units such as the Dark Adept or the mudcrawlers... Giving it a small blade attack (like 3-1 dagger for example) would do the trick and won't cause RIPLIB problems (since both the Poacher and the Bowman would be strictly superior. About the names : - To me 'Huntsman' sound like a levelup of the 'Poacher' - For the 'Henchman' there is already a widespread UMC outlaw unit (Currently for 1.3.x only in the Extended Era, but also in a some popular campaigns that will proably be ported to 1.3), that is similar but with a few differences (in particular: no ranged attack, more different graphics). IMHO we should either : - pick the UMC unit as a base (perhaps resize the graphics to the new human size, tweak the stats if necessary) or - get a different name > Townsmen advance to Spearman(, Fencer?)(, Sergeant?). > Huntsmen advance to Poacher, Bowman. > Henchmen advance to Thug, Footpad(, Thief?). > > Peasant would be dropped entirely. The Townsman would be the equivalent > of the old Peasant, just without the rural implications (and ranged > attack?). The art would be easy to adapt. Although Townsman does have > urban implications, it might still work in all the cases Peasants are > currently used in. Alternatively, we just won't touch Peasant, except > it's advancement options; this sounds like a very viable option. I don't like the idea of replacing the Peasant with those civilians. I find the current peasant better if you want a unit for in rural context, especially something like a farmer. While the new units would be better in some more urban context (for which the Peasant was not made). > So, with this suggestion we'd basically have one melee/lawful peasant, > one ranged/neutral peasant and one outlaw/chaotic peasant. The one thing > I didn't like about the previous proposal(s) was the overlap in the > advancement options which this system eliminates, as well as having one > unit of each alignment (personally, I'd find having three neutral lvl > 0's a bit boring). Having advancement overlap isn't that bad to have, > but I don't think it should be done if the whole thing can be done in a > clearer and simpler way. In any case, this is just a proposal and I'm > not hugely interested in how it ends up being done. > > Obviously, the stats are sketchy. The Townsman/Peasant/Villager/whatever > is the biggest problem, since IMO Fencer and Sergeant are a bit funny > advancements (mostly Fencer; Sergeant sound reasonable enough) and > having only Spearman would be boring (Spearman itself having three > advancements helps a bit, though). > Current Peasants can advance to the Bowman too... IMHO that's fine (for the Peasant): - 2 advancements is enough - they are the only two that mesh well... The other lvl 1 loyalist units suppose some wealth the peasants don't have. About all this : IMHO it looks like a problem with NR, i've never really felt it was wrong in other campaigns like TSG. I think it might be good to make these as NR-specific unit, at least at the begining. Do other campaigns really need this ? _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
