Celtic warrior needs a proper damage bonus list

[godOfKings]

I think this is long overdue, its time to make some changes to it so as not to make other specialised anti infantry units obsolete

At the very least, it shouldnt one shot some 3 turn medium armored units, for example hatamoto, and bonus against heavy infantry should probably b even lower, for highest bonus, i think against light infantry can b 50% so base dmg does 11, twice atk and can still one shot most light infantry

There r ways to increase celt warrior base dmg such as bard, druid, war paint, sword mastery 2, even upgraded celt warrior has 8 base dmg, blacksmith's weapon buff and high morale related buffs and auras

[DreJaDe]

I was thinking of this too though I don't know if it's really balanced or not.

This thing destroys my Legionnaires for breakfast.

Though if it's me, I think making it a three turn might be enough.... Idk..

[b2198]

I think the problem here is similar to the problem of anti-mounted units in general pre-1.149: his scalings are too high, x4 damage against every other melee foot unit is just unbeatable for other units in terms of raw damage when upgraded/buffed. And even though the buff part will be getting way better with the changes Endru is making to buffers, they will still have 40 ((8+2)*4) raw damage with just upgrade and blacksmith techs, without even mentioning druid's +5 that becomes a +10 (it only lasts for 1 attack, so x2 instead of x4).

And yeah, 2 actions means their damage gets reduced 2 times, but even against another infantry with, say, 10 armor, they will still deal 20 damage with blacksmith+upgrade (or 40 with 2 buffs from druid), so that doubled reduction is far from enough to balance them.

[godOfKings]

How about this:
Bonus:
50%: light infantry (deals 15 x 2 dmg when base atk is 10)
30%: medium infantry (13x2)
20%: heavy infantry (12x2)

It also takes a long time to upgrade celt warrior to have 10 base dmg so starting dmg is lower

[Endru1241]

How about this:
Bonus:
50%: light infantry (deals 15 x 2 dmg when base atk is 10)
30%: medium infantry (13x2)
20%: heavy infantry (12x2)

It also takes a long time to upgrade celt warrior to have 10 base dmg so starting dmg is lower

These bonuses would perfectly do the job.
This job I mean:

not to make other specialised anti infantry units obsolete

Because celtic warriors would become unusable without buffs instead.
Melee light infantry are practically only anti-mounted.
So those along with medium would be the only possible targets left.
Attacking e.g. foot knight would mean on game start:
4 damage x2 and 4 damage taken from the counter each attack.
On late game without buffs (so only blacksmith and war paint):
5 damage x2 and 11 damage taken from counter each attack.
Both cases in one turn we deal less than 1/3 hp, while loosing over 70%. And then enemy turn happens, so even weakest shooter can finish it off.
Even against medium infantry it won't do much good. Take swordsman at the start:
8x2 and 3x2 from counter.
At late game:
10x2 and 11x2 taken from counter.
So at the start it's dealing over 85%, while taking over 50%.
But at the late game it's dealing over 80%, while loosing 100% hp.

And we are still talking about specialised anti-infantry unit, without any other capabilities, very weak against arrows and one of the lowest hp.

[b2198]

4 damage x2 and 4 damage taken from the counter each attack.
On late game without buffs (so only blacksmith and war paint):
5 damage x2 and 11 damage taken from counter each attack.
Both cases in one turn we deal less than 1/3 hp, while loosing over 70%. And then enemy turn happens, so even weakest shooter can finish it off.

Wouldn't it be floor(10/2) - 2 = 3 damage from counter on game start, since they don't take bonus damage on counterattack?
And floor((14+2)/2) - 5 = 3 damage still from counter in late game?

Unless I miscalculated those, they would deal ~36% ((8-4)*2/22 = 8/22 ~= 36.36%) in early game and ~32% ((13-8)*2/31 = 10/31 ~= 32.26%) in late game in a turn and take ~54% ((10/2 - 2)*2/11 = 6/11 ~= 54.54%) in early game and ~40% ((16/2 - 5)*2/15 = 6/15 = 40%) in late game damage back, while having only half of their cost (and excluding druid vs battlefield blacksmith, which is clearly stronger for druid's side).

Even against medium infantry it won't do much good. Take swordsman at the start:
8x2 and 3x2 from counter.
At late game:
10x2 and 11x2 taken from counter.
So at the start it's dealing over 85%, while taking over 50%.
But at the late game it's dealing over 80%, while loosing 100% hp.

And wouldn't it be dealing ~89% ((9 - 1)*2/18 = 16/18 ~= 88.89%) in early game and ~83% ((14 - 4)*2/24 = 20/24 ~= 83.33%) in late game while taking ~36% ((floor(9/2) - 2)*2/11 = 4/11 ~= 36.36%) in early game and 40% ((16/2 - 5)*2/15 = 6/15 = 40%) in late game? That doesn't seem that bad imo.

And we are still talking about specialised anti-infantry unit, without any other capabilities, very weak against arrows and one of the lowest hp.

Maybe it could get recategorized to medium infantry and get +1 melee armor and +1 hp along with those, so that it would be more fragile against heavy and medium cavalry but way more durable against infantry in general, and also in early skirmishes against light cavalry, while still remaining almost as fragile against archers too?

[Endru1241]

4 damage x2 and 4 damage taken from the counter each attack.
On late game without buffs (so only blacksmith and war paint):
5 damage x2 and 11 damage taken from counter each attack.
Both cases in one turn we deal less than 1/3 hp, while loosing over 70%. And then enemy turn happens, so even weakest shooter can finish it off.

Wouldn't it be floor(10/2) - 2 = 3 damage from counter on game start, since they don't take bonus damage on counterattack?
And floor((14+2)/2) - 5 = 3 damage still from counter in late game?

Unless I miscalculated those, they would deal ~36% ((8-4)*2/22 = 8/22 ~= 36.36%) in early game and ~32% ((13-8)*2/31 = 10/31 ~= 32.26%) in late game in a turn and take ~54% ((10/2 - 2)*2/11 = 6/11 ~= 54.54%) in early game and ~40% ((16/2 - 5)*2/15 = 6/15 = 40%) in late game damage back, while having only half of their cost (and excluding druid vs battlefield blacksmith, which is clearly stronger for druid's side).

Even against medium infantry it won't do much good. Take swordsman at the start:
8x2 and 3x2 from counter.
At late game:
10x2 and 11x2 taken from counter.
So at the start it's dealing over 85%, while taking over 50%.
But at the late game it's dealing over 80%, while loosing 100% hp.

And wouldn't it be dealing ~89% ((9 - 1)*2/18 = 16/18 ~= 88.89%) in early game and ~83% ((14 - 4)*2/24 = 20/24 ~= 83.33%) in late game while taking ~36% ((floor(9/2) - 2)*2/11 = 4/11 ~= 36.36%) in early game and 40% ((16/2 - 5)*2/15 = 6/15 = 40%) in late game? That doesn't seem that bad imo.

And we are still talking about specialised anti-infantry unit, without any other capabilities, very weak against arrows and one of the lowest hp.

Maybe it could get recategorized to medium infantry and get +1 melee armor and +1 hp along with those, so that it would be more fragile against heavy and medium cavalry but way more durable against infantry in general, and also in early skirmishes against light cavalry, while still remaining almost as fragile against archers too?

Your calcs should be right.
I have no idea why I didn't halve or floored in wrong order counter damage.

Anyway my point is it's too weak.
Celtic warrior is one-shotted by foot knight, so it has to at least deal substantial damage to it on it's own turn.
And same for going against other infantry - even if increased slightly in defence - it won't survive on the field.

That is just removing any usage from celtic warrior.

[godOfKings]

Celt warrior is 2 turn unit while foot knight is 4 turn unit

Initially foot knight has 4 armor and 22 health so celt with 7 atk and 20% bonus deals 8-4 or 4 dmg per hit so 8 dmg total,

8 dmg is quite good for a unit with 22 health, it only has 14 has hp remaining, and celt is both only 2 turn and not a dedicated anti heavy infantry unit like maceman

When u have elite foot knight 31 hp and 6 armor, celt should also have equivalent turn investment to get the 10 base dmg so it can now deal 12-6 or 6 dmg per hit so 12 dmg total, which is also substantial against a heavy infantry with only 31 hp

I see its perfectly balanced and not a case of 2 turn unit one shotting 4 turn unit (in fact it might still one shot if buffed with druid atk and extra action spell, but ya more investment is needed for this op dmg so its not straight forward)

It is not weakening celt use, i think rather its a perfect balance between overused and underused, the sweet spot of balance

Also late game celt has 17 hp, 3 armor and dont get counter bonus dmg, even survives counter atk of buffed berserker thats almost 20

If a player really wants to kill heavy infantry with celt, he should use celt chariot, not celt warrior, in fact putting celt warrior inside chariot should allow it to one shot heavy infantry

[b2198]

Celt warrior is 2 turn unit while foot knight is 4 turn unit

Initially foot knight has 4 armor and 22 health so celt with 7 atk and 20% bonus deals 8-4 or 4 dmg per hit so 8 dmg total,

8 dmg is quite good for a unit with 22 health, it only has 14 has hp remaining, and celt is both only 2 turn and not a dedicated anti heavy infantry unit like maceman

When u have elite foot knight 31 hp and 6 armor, celt should also have equivalent turn investment to get the 10 base dmg so it can now deal 12-6 or 6 dmg per hit so 12 dmg total, which is also substantial against a heavy infantry with only 31 hp

I see its perfectly balanced and not a case of 2 turn unit one shotting 4 turn unit (in fact it might still one shot if buffed with druid atk and extra action spell, but ya more investment is needed for this op dmg so its not straight forward)

It is not weakening celt use, i think rather its a perfect balance between overused and underused, the sweet spot of balance

Also late game celt has 17 hp, 3 armor and dont get counter bonus dmg, even survives counter atk of buffed berserker thats almost 20

If a player really wants to kill heavy infantry with celt, he should use celt chariot, not celt warrior, in fact putting celt warrior inside chariot should allow it to one shot heavy infantry

I agree

Anyway my point is it's too weak.
Celtic warrior is one-shotted by foot knight, so it has to at least deal substantial damage to it on it's own turn.
And same for going against other infantry - even if increased slightly in defence - it won't survive on the field.

That is just removing any usage from celtic warrior.

With category change to medium infantry and +1 armor it wouldn't be one-shotted anymore, considering war paint for them and both unit and blacksmith upgrades for both sides, they would take floor(16*1.3) - 6 = 20 - 6 = 14 damage, out of 15 hp. It would also be better against light cavalry in general (taking 8 damage instead of 9 early on to light cav. on hit, and same 2*1 damage on counter, so they can survive hitting twice and getting hit once without dying, and later on against late hungarian hussars with war paint + blacksmith upgrades, elite celtic warriors would take 14 damage instead of 15, so won't get one-shotted anymore, and same 2*1 damage on counter) and would take less damage from other infantry too (like getting only 2*2 instead of 2*3 damage on counter against men-at-arms, for example)

[b2198]

How about this:
Bonus:
50%: light infantry (deals 15 x 2 dmg when base atk is 10)
30%: medium infantry (13x2)
20%: heavy infantry (12x2)

It also takes a long time to upgrade celt warrior to have 10 base dmg so starting dmg is lower

Maybe also something like 70% or 80% against irregular infantry too? So that they can still be used against zerks and highlanders, for example.

[godOfKings]

Main point is a 2 turn unit not one shooting a 4 turn unit, or multiple full health 2 turn units, especially units that were upgraded with expensive research, and adjusting bonus accordingly

Maybe also something like 70% or 80% against irregular infantry too? So that they can still be used against zerks and highlanders, for example.

So it could b this bonus or irregular could join the light infantry group with 50 % bonus

In recent multiplayer matches i saw ballista once again useful as anti zerks due to longer 7 range

[phoenixffyrnig]

How about instead swapping him out of TC for another unit, such as woad spearman - make him more of a rewardable choice than a ubiquitous possibility? Seems to be fashionable to nerf the Celts, but they really aren't that easy to play with, especially compared to Japanese or Norse. So if the wish is to nerf their only worthwhile cheap unit (and ruin any balance for a Celtic army), what are they, as a faction, going to get in return?

[godOfKings]

So u mean to say celt is only celtic warrior and nerfing this unit will make the whole faction weak? The fact that it is cheap means u can easily spam enemies to death and my nerf suggestion doesnt make celts completely useless, pair with archers and celts can still kill most 2 turn units, its just to make it no longer possible to easily one shot most units, even maceman or flailman cant one shot a single unit with 15+ hp using only its base dmg (except shielders), and they cost 3 turn, not 2

Also, i think swapping him out of tc would actually b a bigger nerf than just reducing its bonus slightly

[godOfKings]

Just checked, thanks to recent category changes 2 spearmen can b one shotted by a single celt warrior in a turn, even skirmisher and archer have better survivality now, with proposed 50% instead of 100% bonus celt will need both actions to kill 1 spearman

[godOfKings]

I think the problem here is similar to the problem of anti-mounted units in general pre-1.149: his scalings are too high, x4 damage against every other melee foot unit is just unbeatable for other units in terms of raw damage when upgraded/buffed. And even though the buff part will be getting way better with the changes Endru is making to buffers, they will still have 40 ((8+2)*4) raw damage with just upgrade and blacksmith techs, without even mentioning druid's +5 that becomes a +10 (it only lasts for 1 attack, so x2 instead of x4).

And yeah, 2 actions means their damage gets reduced 2 times, but even against another infantry with, say, 10 armor, they will still deal 20 damage with blacksmith+upgrade (or 40 with 2 buffs from druid), so that doubled reduction is far from enough to balance them.

@phoenixffyrnig here b2198 mentioned the main reasons y celt warrior needs this nerf, i m sry mate i aint blaming u i too use celt warriors too frequently

[phoenixffyrnig]

nerfing this unit will make the whole faction weak?

Not weak, but so easily countered. Tbf though , Vs a good player, this is the same thing.
It is straightforward to beat a Celtic army.

How about instead swapping him out of TC for another unit, such as woad spearman

I'm considering the faction as a whole here, and offering a suggestion that does redress the balance by limiting his availability.
Spearman and saethwr and gaelic warrior and gollowglass and chariot - all factory specific. Putting a unit in a chariot - easy to kill both. Highlanders - very limited effectiveness on the battlefield. Chieftain - arguably the weakest leader. How would you field a Celtic army?

My suggestion negates the spam argument. But then again, many things are "too strong" when spammed - hatamoto, axemen, longbowmen, triremes, hwacha, forts, ballista towers... instead of trying to nerf everything that is strong in a specific context I feel we should be more focused on the bigger picture, and counterability. How strong really is an Elite Celtic warrior against a master slinger or a heavy Knight? Not at all! He's got one job that he's bloody good at, but he's useless for everything else - in a way, that is balanced.

Macemen can one shot most heavies. Flailman, well if we use your suggestion of pairing with an archer, then he too will finish the job. My question still stands - what would you give the Celts in return for nerfing their only worthwhile cheap unit? Every unit is too strong if you only focus on how good they are at the role they have been designed for.

[phoenixffyrnig]

@phoenixffyrnig here b2198 mentioned the main reasons y celt warrior needs this nerf, i m sry mate i aint blaming u i too use celt warriors too frequently

How about instead swapping him out of TC for another unit, such as woad spearman -

And I reply by repeating myself. Zerk was too strong for a unit that was available everywhere at any time - that was not a problem with the unit. Same thing here.

(let's not even bother by saying Zerk costs 4 instead of 2,because a Zerk would take many times the killing than a Celtic warrior)

[phoenixffyrnig]

And this post is definitely not due to me raging on our multiplayer battle result

And no, I'm not getting defensive about that, as mentioned elsewhere I have ditched the celts as a signature style, I just don't believe an automatic movement towards nerfing is the best way to find balance when
a) easy counters exist
b) the spammability argument is an argument against how they are used (ie availability, multi buffing etc) rather than a problem with the unit itself.

If we nerfed everything that was strong we would end up with all our units with 20 armour and 1 attack (réductio ad absurbum, I admit, but it is a relevant point).

[godOfKings]

Both u and endru, all of ur arguements r simply ignoring the fact that druid exists and the influence druid has on wat a celtic warrior can now achieve compared to in the past, even with my nerf suggestion, at the minimum celt warrior will b as capable as it was in the past b4 druid's existence

[Endru1241]

Celt warrior is 2 turn unit while foot knight is 4 turn unit

Initially foot knight has 4 armor and 22 health so celt with 7 atk and 20% bonus deals 8-4 or 4 dmg per hit so 8 dmg total,

8 dmg is quite good for a unit with 22 health, it only has 14 has hp remaining, and celt is both only 2 turn and not a dedicated anti heavy infantry unit like maceman

When u have elite foot knight 31 hp and 6 armor, celt should also have equivalent turn investment to get the 10 base dmg so it can now deal 12-6 or 6 dmg per hit so 12 dmg total, which is also substantial against a heavy infantry with only 31 hp

I see its perfectly balanced and not a case of 2 turn unit one shotting 4 turn unit (in fact it might still one shot if buffed with druid atk and extra action spell, but ya more investment is needed for this op dmg so its not straight forward)

It is not weakening celt use, i think rather its a perfect balance between overused and underused, the sweet spot of balance

Also late game celt has 17 hp, 3 armor and dont get counter bonus dmg, even survives counter atk of buffed berserker thats almost 20

If a player really wants to kill heavy infantry with celt, he should use celt chariot, not celt warrior, in fact putting celt warrior inside chariot should allow it to one shot heavy infantry

8 damage in early game is only somewhat higher than swordsman 5 damage.
And late game 10 is barely higher than men-at-arms 8 damage.
A unit that is both more resilent and specialised in something completely different.
Celtic warrior was designed as general anti-infantry unit, so making it not have amlost any advantage against some infantry (heavy ones) is weird.
And suggesting to use chariot is similar as if someone giving idea to get macemen rid of anti-heavy bonus, because nords already have axer knights.

And btw. Celtic warrior on late game has 15 hp, not 17hp.

With category change to medium infantry and +1 armor it wouldn't be one-shotted anymore, considering war paint for them and both unit and blacksmith upgrades for both sides, they would take floor(16*1.3) - 6 = 20 - 6 = 14 damage, out of 15 hp. It would also be better against light cavalry in general (taking 8 damage instead of 9 early on to light cav. on hit, and same 2*1 damage on counter, so they can survive hitting twice and getting hit once without dying, and later on against late hungarian hussars with war paint + blacksmith upgrades, elite celtic warriors would take 14 damage instead of 15, so won't get one-shotted anymore, and same 2*1 damage on counter) and would take less damage from other infantry too (like getting only 2*2 instead of 2*3 damage on counter against men-at-arms, for example)

We can make it barely survive by changing defensive stats and categories.
And still have average resilience weaker than swordsmen.
While not having any advantage against units they are supposed to be a counter of.

Maybe also something like 70% or 80% against irregular infantry too? So that they can still be used against zerks and highlanders, for example.

Thanks for reminding about irregular infantry.
Lacking bonus against them without noticing would be like a stab in the back.

On the other hand having bonus damage higher than vs other units suggests having some strong capabilities to deal with such.
Do celtic warriors had some kind of strong organisation to go against irregular, often not using any formations groups of enemies?

Balance wise it fills the gap, but still leaves no anti-heavy capabilities.

How about instead swapping him out of TC for another unit, such as woad spearman - make him more of a rewardable choice than a ubiquitous possibility? Seems to be fashionable to nerf the Celts, but they really aren't that easy to play with, especially compared to Japanese or Norse. So if the wish is to nerf their only worthwhile cheap unit (and ruin any balance for a Celtic army), what are they, as a faction, going to get in return?

That's strictly against spamming, while the topic starts with idea, that even single celtic warrior is too strong with current bonuses and it's obviosuly right.
I only don't like to go with too much of a nerf.

Both u and endru, all of ur arguements r simply ignoring the fact that druid exists and the influence druid has on wat a celtic warrior can now achieve compared to in the past, even with my nerf suggestion, at the minimum celt warrior will b as capable as it was in the past b4 druid's existence

Well if we use the argument of specific buffers then japanese are way stronger.
Let's compare with hatamotos. Both fully faction buffed at the late game:
Celtic warrior:
16 attack x 2 , 15 hp, 5/4 armors (9/12 on enemy turn), 5 speed
Hatamoto:
15 attack x2, 25 hp, 6/4 armors, aura giving enemy -2 attack, -1/1 armors, 4 speed

And attacking elite foot knight they'd:
celtic warrior: (19-8)*2 = 22 damage, while taking (floor(16/2)-5)*2=6
It's left with 9/15 hp and takes 16*(100%+50%) - 9 = 15.

hatamoto: (15-7)*2 = 16 damage, while taking (floor((16-2)/2)*(100%+30%)-6)*2=6
It's left with 19/25 hp and takes (16-2)*(100%+30%)-6=12 damage, so left with 7/25 hp

Remind me which one has bonuses against buildings and which one is supposed to go against infantry?


Anyway - all in all - I agree, that current damage bonus is too high.
But those new proposed bonuses are clearly going overboard with nerfing.
And this opinion is coming from the person, that doesn't play neither celts, nor against them.

Let's not get to the other extreme and nerf it out of usage.

[b2198]

How about instead swapping him out of TC for another unit, such as woad spearman - make him more of a rewardable choice than a ubiquitous possibility? Seems to be fashionable to nerf the Celts, but they really aren't that easy to play with, especially compared to Japanese or Norse. So if the wish is to nerf their only worthwhile cheap unit (and ruin any balance for a Celtic army), what are they, as a faction, going to get in return?

nerfing this unit will make the whole faction weak?

Not weak, but so easily countered. Tbf though , Vs a good player, this is the same thing.
It is straightforward to beat a Celtic army.

How about instead swapping him out of TC for another unit, such as woad spearman

I'm considering the faction as a whole here, and offering a suggestion that does redress the balance by limiting his availability.
Spearman and saethwr and gaelic warrior and gollowglass and chariot - all factory specific. Putting a unit in a chariot - easy to kill both. Highlanders - very limited effectiveness on the battlefield. Chieftain - arguably the weakest leader. How would you field a Celtic army?

My suggestion negates the spam argument. But then again, many things are "too strong" when spammed - hatamoto, axemen, longbowmen, triremes, hwacha, forts, ballista towers... instead of trying to nerf everything that is strong in a specific context I feel we should be more focused on the bigger picture, and counterability. How strong really is an Elite Celtic warrior against a master slinger or a heavy Knight? Not at all! He's got one job that he's bloody good at, but he's useless for everything else - in a way, that is balanced.

Macemen can one shot most heavies. Flailman, well if we use your suggestion of pairing with an archer, then he too will finish the job. My question still stands - what would you give the Celts in return for nerfing their only worthwhile cheap unit? Every unit is too strong if you only focus on how good they are at the role they have been designed for.

@phoenixffyrnig here b2198 mentioned the main reasons y celt warrior needs this nerf, i m sry mate i aint blaming u i too use celt warriors too frequently

How about instead swapping him out of TC for another unit, such as woad spearman -

And I reply by repeating myself. Zerk was too strong for a unit that was available everywhere at any time - that was not a problem with the unit. Same thing here.

(let's not even bother by saying Zerk costs 4 instead of 2,because a Zerk would take many times the killing than a Celtic warrior)

And this post is definitely not due to me raging on our multiplayer battle result

And no, I'm not getting defensive about that, as mentioned elsewhere I have ditched the celts as a signature style, I just don't believe an automatic movement towards nerfing is the best way to find balance when
a) easy counters exist
b) the spammability argument is an argument against how they are used (ie availability, multi buffing etc) rather than a problem with the unit itself.

If we nerfed everything that was strong we would end up with all our units with 20 armour and 1 attack (réductio ad absurbum, I admit, but it is a relevant point).

Moving them to veterans roundhouse would still not be enough imho. While this could work with a more reasonable nerf, it alone doesn't solve the problem, just pushes it later in the game. Differently from zerks, where the problem was that there was no easy way to stop them early on, so pushing them to only be available a little later in the game solved it, here the problems are two imo:

1. celtic warriors are too good of a counter to ANY melee foot unit, not just some categories of them, and that detracts a lot from that entire category of units, since celtic warriors are so easily avail... ok, this point I'm handing to you, moving them to veterans roundhouse would help for sure, but still not entirely, because
2. celtic warriors have the SECOND BEST damage scaling in the entire game against any flesh-and-blood units, seconded only by backstab ninjas, which (I believe) were made to be sneaky one-shoters, similar to assassins (which could use some changes, but that is for another topic), both of which cost 4 turns, and after the cultural separation of buffs, ninjas won't have nearly as much potential for getting a lot of buffs and upgrades stacked to deal ridiculous amounts of damage, as they will only get a +2 from bushido aura, +2 from blacksmith and +1 from tell fortune, resulting in a maximum possible damage of (4+2+2+1)*5 = 45 if everything is set up previously for them to do that. Meanwhile, celtic warriors with war paint + geass:attack + blacksmith can deal up to (8+1+5+2)*2 = 32 damage TWO TIMES per turn, and the only part of this that is harder to set up is the druid usage, but that harder usage still doesn't make up for a 2 cost unit dealing up to 64 damage in a single turn even after the buffer changes imho.

My suggestion is now:

• Make celtic warriors medium infantry (more durable against heavy infantry, less so against medium and heavy cavalry)
• Increase their base armor from 2/1 -> 3/2 to 3/1 -> 4/2, so that they will get one-shotted by considerably less units and will have an easier time attacking without dying from counter.
• Make them only available in veterans roundhouse and barracks, so that they are a light/medium infantry counter solution more exclusive to the celts and infantry users in general, instead of being spammed from any TC when any infantry approaches.
• Switch their current bonuses for the following ones:
  • 70% against [light infantry][melee] or [irregular infantry], reducing total scaling from 400% to 340%, making them the (as far as I've checked) 4th best scaling against flesh-and-blood, with second and third place becoming svardstavier, against elephants, and japanese cavalry, against heavy infantry (this one I believe might need a nerf soon too, but that too is for another topic. Also I might be wrong here, didn't test it enough yet and haven't calculated yet their possible stats after the buffer changes). And reducing maximum damage possible from 2x32 to 2x27 (2x22 to 2x18 without druid) (, which is still VERY high, but now only against these targets, and being not as available as before.
  • 50% against [medium infantry], reducing total scaling from 400% to 300%, and maximum damage possible from 2x32 to 2x24 (2x22 to 2x16 without druid), which is still very high, but some of them will now at least take both hits to kill, and will be dealing a little less damage back on counter, so that they are a little less susceptible to dying after attacking.
  • 40% against [heavy infantry], reducing total scaling from 400% to 280%, and maximum damage possible from 2x32 to 2x22 (2x22 to 2x15 without druid), which is still decent even when considering how much armor these usually have, and they will take a lot less damage from these targets when attacked due to the category change, making being one-shotted way less likely.

(Adjusted a bit the numbers after reading Endru's response that was posted while I was writting this)

[phoenixffyrnig]

Both u and endru, all of ur arguements r simply ignoring the fact that druid exists

Not at all - but we cannot be balancing units to what they could achieve with the help of buffer units, but to their strengths and weaknesses in open play. Otherwise axe throwers would be imba because of the effects of herbalist, or Zerk needs nerfing because he can be barded, anti cav needs nerfing because of the battlefield blacksmith, and Japanese units need their attack reducing because Mask of Oni brings a morale penalty to the enemy. Buffers exist to enhance strength, not to make a unit usable.

That's another bugbear of mine in balancing discussions I'm afraid. Yes, if we apply every bonus possible then every unit is OP - we need to focus on standard use, not optimum power in a perfect world. Gaelic warrior is pretty useless, but with bard, druid, herbalist, drummer, morale, tell fortune, battlefield blacksmith and a full stomach with a strong wind behind him he's a bogging murderer! Shall we make him cost 5 turns because of that?

Yes, druid is powerful, but (again I point out) he is currently the only buffer who is limited to his own race, the only buffer who's buffs are one-use only, AND the only buffer who's buffs can be removed by an opponent. The Celts have their own disadvantages - battlefield prowess is their strength. Swings and roundabouts. The obvious question is why lead with heavy infantry against an opponent using Elite Celtic Warriors and druids?

Main point is a 2 turn unit not one shooting a 4 turn unit

... yet you then state a unit in a chariot should be used Vs heavy infantry. This could then easily be killed with just a little help by a halberdier. That's a 2 turn unit killing >4. I've addressed specific issues you have raised, explained my overall thinking of the bigger picture, even put out a compromise solution, but I still have many unanswered questions. Sorry man, but I'm not the one ignoring things, let's have a bit of give and take here.

[b2198]

Well if we use the argument of specific buffers then japanese are way stronger.
Let's compare with hatamotos. Both fully faction buffed at the late game:
Celtic warrior:
16 attack x 2 , 15 hp, 5/4 armors (9/12 on enemy turn), 5 speed
Hatamoto:
15 attack x2, 25 hp, 6/4 armors, aura giving enemy -2 attack, -1/1 armors, 4 speed

And attacking elite foot knight they'd:
celtic warrior: (19-8)*2 = 22 damage, while taking (floor(16/2)-5)*2=6
It's left with 9/15 hp and takes 16*(100%+50%) - 9 = 15.

hatamoto: (15-7)*2 = 16 damage, while taking (floor((16-2)/2)*(100%+30%)-6)*2=6
It's left with 19/25 hp and takes (16-2)*(100%+30%)-6=12 damage, so left with 7/25 hp

Remind me which one has bonuses against buildings and which one is supposed to go against infantry?

After changes, it would become:
celtic warrior: (22-8)*2 = 28 damage, while taking (floor((16/2)-6)*2=4
it's left with 11/15 hp and takes 16*1.3 - 10 = 10, so left with 1/15 hp

Even though heavy infantry wouldn't be their best target anymore they would still be good against it. And with medium, light or irregular infantry the result would be WAY more in favour of them.

Also hatamoto costs 3, while celtic warrior costs 2.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Simple question from this debate - should all faction specific units require the respective faction building to be available from TC?

Edit - the logic being to help avoid mixing and mashing for a "best of all worlds" army which (even for me as a non purist, non historian, non entity) just doesn't seem right.

[L4cus]

in this case i think no and yes, some basic untis should be aviable, but more specific shouldnt...something similar with faction leaders, they should be only aviable on their own factory...

[b2198]

Not at all - but we cannot be balancing units to what they could achieve with the help of buffer units, but to their strengths and weaknesses in open play. Otherwise axe throwers would be imba because of the effects of herbalist, or Zerk needs nerfing because he can be barded, anti cav needs nerfing because of the battlefield blacksmith, and Japanese units need their attack reducing because Mask of Oni brings a morale penalty to the enemy. Buffers exist to enhance strength, not to make a unit usable.

That's another bugbear of mine in balancing discussions I'm afraid. Yes, if we apply every bonus possible then every unit is OP - we need to focus on standard use, not optimum power in a perfect world. Gaelic warrior is pretty useless, but with bard, druid, herbalist, drummer, morale, tell fortune, battlefield blacksmith and a full stomach with a strong wind behind him he's a bogging murderer! Shall we make him cost 5 turns because of that?

Yes, druid is powerful, but (again I point out) he is currently the only buffer who is limited to his own race, the only buffer who's buffs are one-use only, AND the only buffer who's buffs can be removed by an opponent. The Celts have their own disadvantages - battlefield prowess is their strength. Swings and roundabouts. The obvious question is why lead with heavy infantry against an opponent using Elite Celtic Warriors and druids?

I'm speaking here about stats after the buffer changes (so after the changes that will make buffers buff only their faction units.

Also you can't remove Geass:Attack during the opponent's turn, and the main problem here is damage output.

[b2198]

Simple question from this debate - should all faction specific units require the respective faction building to be available from TC?

Edit - the logic being to help avoid mixing and mashing for a "best of all worlds" army which (even for me as a non purist, non historian, non entity) just doesn't seem right.

I believe so, though in this specific case I believe moving them entirely out of TCs would be better.

Edit: actually, there are some "faction-specific" units (not sure if you can call them that) that I'm not sure if it would make sense to require specific faction building to make, like flailman and maceman.

[phoenixffyrnig]

I'm speaking here about stats after the buffer changes (so after the changes that will make buffers buff only their faction units.

Good. Yes, so am I normally - I mentioned that purely to illustrate a point. However there will remain various buffs that will be stackable - optimum play in perfect conditions (easy to postulate, difficult to achieve) should not be a part of any balancing discussion imo.

... damage output.

That's a huge part of a TBS game isnt it? Maximising damage for the maximum reward. In fact, I would say things like that are essential, to give impetus and weight to attacking play...? *disclaimer - I'm a very attack oriented player, possibility of bias in this statement...*

[phoenixffyrnig]

Edit: actually, there are some "faction-specific" units (not sure if you can call them that) that I'm not sure if it would make sense to require specific faction building to make, like flailman and maceman.

Yes, good point - an important distinction. I would say there is a difference between units that are of a certain faction and units that have been categorised within a certain faction. A future tidying up, possibly.

[b2198]

I'm speaking here about stats after the buffer changes (so after the changes that will make buffers buff only their faction units.

Good. Yes, so am I normally - I mentioned that purely to illustrate a point. However there will remain various buffs that will be stackable - optimum play in perfect conditions (easy to postulate, difficult to achieve) should not be a part of any balancing discussion imo.

... damage output.

That's a huge part of a TBS game isnt it? Maximising damage for the maximum reward. In fact, I would say things like that are essential, to give impetus and weight to attacking play...? *disclaimer - I'm a very attack oriented player, possibility of bias in this statement...*

Yes, perfect conditions should never be assumed when balancing a multiplayer game, but my point is that even in suboptimal conditions they are still too bursty compared against most other units in the game (with costs considered).