|
For goblin fights I like to put my ranged guys which have decent ranged defence up front along with any shield lads and others that can dodge an arrow. That way the archers can counter snipe while the backline has a low-ish chance to get hit. Often this will draw out the skirmishers to try and get at the archers, and the backline pops in to cleave through using the front goblins as cover. Yes, your archers will take hits, but with bone attachments/unhold cloak and nimble, goblin arrows are like gnat bites. This is also fights where fencers shine, quite easily killing 3 per turn and causing routs. A few kite shields are nice on exposed bros, since a 1h is enough to kill most gobbers in a couple of hits, and helps when getting the lines engaged. Fabricated posted:The worst thing about gobbos is being pissed off at archers enough to have some 2h guy charge in and base like 3 of them up- then out come the loving daggers and they literally never miss their bullshit 5% chance punctures. TheBeardyCleaver fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Oct 4, 2020 |
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Goblins loving hate fencers and qatal duelists as much as I hate goblin shamans. Which is a lot. I know there are more dangerous enemies in the game, and Shamans are definitely deal-with-able. But there is no unit I hate more. Especially not after the Orc Crisis and having to fight 16 Orc Warriors and Warlord with a Shaman backing them up. The whole 'they can just decide to net 5 guys in formation' thing and 'if they don't do that, they make one trooper insanely useless and vulnerable for 3 turns' things are a challenge to deal with. Especially when advancing uphill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Shamans are probably the support unit that causes the most problems in a battle. I don't take bullseye, but every time I fight shamans I wish I did, just for a few more %chance to hit the gnarly fucker. Still, methodically killing your way there is as usual the better and more reliable way. I'll still take any decent potshot I can get though. Their morale is rather poo poo, and a some decent archer shots can send them running.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
I would not have won the huge orc fight if my archer hadn't gotten lucky and double 30 domed the Shaman on turn 3. Shamans in fortifications are also extremely vulnerable to Swordlance and Gun, since they tend to line up in a cluster with the shooters and you can shoot through fairly easily with the gun's spread or just hack down the line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
TheBeardyCleaver posted:I don't take bullseye, but every time I fight shamans I wish I did, just for a few more %chance to hit the gnarly fucker. Still, methodically killing your way there is as usual the better and more reliable way. I read through that huge, comprehensive perk guide on steam and the author's discussion on Bullseye was the one weird standout to me. It may be confirmation bias on my part, but it seems like there are rarely opportunities to shoot at completely wide open, vulnerable targets so Bullseye feels like it has a lot of value to me. Usually the targets you want to hit are the ones hiding behind everyone else. If there are open targets, they usually have shields and armor so the hit chances are comparable to covered targets and if you do hit them, it's generally pretty weak. If the plan is to just cut through the line to get to enemy archers/arbalesters/necros, why even have archers? I'm not saying its necessarily wrong, but it feels wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I read through that huge, comprehensive perk guide on steam and the author's discussion on Bullseye was the one weird standout to me. It may be confirmation bias on my part, but it seems like there are rarely opportunities to shoot at completely wide open, vulnerable targets so Bullseye feels like it has a lot of value to me. Usually the targets you want to hit are the ones hiding behind everyone else. If there are open targets, they usually have shields and armor so the hit chances are comparable to covered targets and if you do hit them, it's generally pretty weak. If the plan is to just cut through the line to get to enemy archers/arbalesters/necros, why even have archers? I'm not saying its necessarily wrong, but it feels wrong. I like to not take bullseye. If I'm shooting at the covered archers in the backrow I have a chance to proc overwhelm on multiple dudes
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
The perk guide undersells bullseye a little, I find it extremely worthwhile for dedicated bow snipers as a lot of times what you really need these guys for is shooting high value targets from far away and while they're body blocked, so the 25% adds up a lot. Gunners and thrower specialists can easily get by without since most of the time you'll be firing these at targets merely 2 or 3 squares away
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
Also the real risk on a necromancer is not and never has been raising dead weidergangers or fallen heroes. It's that possession spell. That's the dangerous part of them. Hitting them, even if you don't kill them outright, stops that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Also the real risk on a necromancer is not and never has been raising dead weidergangers or fallen heroes. It's that possession spell. That's the dangerous part of them. Hitting them, even if you don't kill them outright, stops that. Yeah exactly. I'll take Bullseye to shoot a necromancer not because he might raise two weidergangers, but because he might possess a Fallen Hero who then acts before all my guys and whacks somebody twice with a greataxe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
Instead of wasting a perk on bullseye; give your archers fast adaptation instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
^^^I'm not sure if the math works out in your favor with FA but maybe? rideANDxORdie posted:The perk guide undersells bullseye a little, I find it extremely worthwhile for dedicated bow snipers as a lot of times what you really need these guys for is shooting high value targets from far away and while they're body blocked, so the 25% adds up a lot. Gunners and thrower specialists can easily get by without since most of the time you'll be firing these at targets merely 2 or 3 squares away I think so too, which is why I thought it was a bit weird. Its something that would be hard to calculate directly with a simulation, too, so its just down to opinion and playstyle I think. One thing I was thinking is that if you only consider a single archer then the argument makes more sense but I usually try to have at least three archers in my backline for most situations. Focusing three archers on a blocked target significantly increases your chances to hit and Bullseye on all three makes a big difference there. If you have three archers taking two 20% shots each, the chance to hit goes up to almost 75% that at least one will connect. Without Bullseye it drops to about 50%, which is significant. Archers aren't generally perk starved either so its just free aim unless you're doing a specific type of build that needs a bunch of non-standard perks. I kind of wonder if that guide author is just a bit contrarian because he also had some hot takes about rotation not being necessary if you just, you know, play good 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:Instead of wasting a perk on bullseye; give your archers fast adaptation instead. That really doesn't help hitting targets behind cover/shielded frontline, since IIRC a hit against a shield or an environmental object counts as as "hit" so it resets the FA modifier. I would actually strongly advice against using FA on archers because of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I kind of wonder if that guide author is just a bit contrarian because he also had some hot takes about rotation not being necessary if you just, you know, play good Ehh, I think he's right about that. If you play perfectly you should never need it, but I can't play perfectly so I still put it on 2-3 tanky bros. To my surprise I haven't had any trouble rescuing people when necessary, and it frees up a lot of perk points across your offensive brothers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:That really doesn't help hitting targets behind cover/shielded frontline, since IIRC a hit against a shield or an environmental object counts as as "hit" so it resets the FA modifier. I would actually strongly advice against using FA on archers because of this. A shield does not count as a hit. A hit that scatters and hits a different hex is though. FA significantly improves your overall hit rate with archers. Bullseye is bad because you shouldn’t be trying to hit blocked targets; it’s a waste of time. Aim at the guy standing in front instead. Having your archers effectively doing nothing for half a dozen rounds because they’re trying to snipe a necromancer or a shaman is dumb when you could have been using those turns to actually kill things and bring you closer to winning. (Shamans will sometimes stand in the open; in which case shoot away) With goblins in particular if you kill some of them you’ll cause morale drops which snowball. When you take bullseye you still have an extra 50% chance to miss - and that’s additive. It doesn’t just cut your chance in half it reduces the percentage by 50. If you had a 75% chance of hitting a target in the open; even with bullseye you’ll only have a 25% chance of hitting it under cover. And goblins have high rdef; so even in the open you were never going to have a really high chance to hit guys down the back. Fast adaptation makes a big difference and if you miss the first quick shot you usually hit on the second. I’d also suggest that you don’t necessarily need to be aiming at the back line - a good archer can one shot goblins when killing frenzy is up; use the archers to pick off the medium range ones that you have a high chance of hitting. Morale failures will take care of the rest. Goblin archers do gently caress all damage to bros with nimble or battle forged bros with additional fur padding. Just ignore them. I never put a single point into rdef on a front liner; and I never take back liners past about 12 or so; its never been an issue. Side note: I have a suspicion the AI doesn’t factor shields into the equation when deciding which front liner to target with arrows - in my last game none of the front liners had more than whatever rdef they started with but goblin archers would always target this one shield bro that had the lowest rdef without a shield; but whom I’d given a named shield with 30 rdef. Second side note: goblin champions will often spawn with named goblin bows which always seem to have high hit bonuses - you end up picking up bows with +13% chance to hit or some poo poo. Since goblins have such low health you could if you wanted give these bows to your archers when fighting goblins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
Mostly agreed about bullseye, but I'm pretty sure the penalty is multiplicative. Personally I've sidestepped the whole question by never making pure archers anymore. Palcontent fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
Absolutely disagree on not being worth trying to hit blocked targets, as they are usually high value. For example, with Bullseye, you can get hit chances on covered necromancers up to 40-50% with aimed shot, which can be tremendous value since with warbows they can go down in 2 bodyshots and you can get them out by turn 2 or 3 if you're lucky. And as others have mentioned, hitting them breaks possession. It's also great for taking out Hexen. Depends on what you prefer your archers to do really. Bullseye for priority target sniping, FA for more efficient spamming I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
Palcontent posted:Ehh, I think he's right about that. If you play perfectly you should never need it, but I can't play perfectly so I still put it on 2-3 tanky bros. To my surprise I haven't had any trouble rescuing people when necessary, and it frees up a lot of perk points across your offensive brothers. Well, right. You can play a no perk challenge run and beat the monolith if you're good enough. I mean, I don't take rotation on every bro either but I try to make sure that I have enough to get people out of trouble or to alley-oop 2handers into an attack position. I think rotation is arguably one of, if not the, strongest perk in the game depending on how its used. That part of the guide just kind of felt like a low key flex The Lord Bude posted:When you take bullseye you still have an extra 50% chance to miss - and that’s additive. It doesn’t just cut your chance in half it reduces the percentage by 50. If you had a 75% chance of hitting a target in the open; even with bullseye you’ll only have a 25% chance of hitting it under cover. Pretty sure that's not true. Wiki has it as multiplicative. I'll check it out next time I play, though. One thing I couldn't find info on is where FA is positioned in the to-hit calculation. It would be significantly stronger if it were added post block reduction but would be negligible if it was included before. I will disagree with you on the "just shoot whatever" philosophy though since plinking arrows at shielded, armored targets is less useful than shooting at vulnerable, high value targets even with the reduction from cover imo. Also, I'll reiterate that archers aren't perk starved so there's no lost opportunity cost for picking up Bullseye and it can be a significant advantage in a lot of situations. edit: Actually found how FA is calculated - I somehow missed it when I was looking before: perk guide posted:Mechanically it adds to Skill, even though your stat card won't show it. This occurs before things like Morale, Lone Wolf, Nightime, Injuries, etc., meaning those effects will modify the stack value up/down from the base 10% yield. So, its not a flat +10% added to the final to-hit chance. 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Absolutely disagree on not being worth trying to hit blocked targets, as they are usually high value. For example, with Bullseye, you can get hit chances on covered necromancers up to 40-50% with aimed shot, which can be tremendous value since with warbows they can go down in 2 bodyshots and you can get them out by turn 2 or 3 if you're lucky. And as others have mentioned, hitting them breaks possession. It's also great for taking out Hexen. I’ll concede the point on hexen; you certainly want to snipe them. But I disagree strongly on necromancers. For the record I used to take bullseye as well and try to snipe necros. In my last game I tried without, took fast adaptation instead; and realised how much better it was. I also didn’t have an archer till relatively late - only gunners and javelins; and that made me realise you don’t need to waste time sniping necros. Zombies aren’t difficult opponents and you can get a guy in melee range of the necromancer quickly enough. Killing a few more zombies in the mean time isn’t that big of a deal. God knows the new recruits could do with the target practice anyway. Edit: I was wrong, bullseye is multiplicative. I still don’t like it. The Lord Bude fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
On perks; I give archers the following (not necessarily in this order): Student Fast adaptation Crippling strikes Executioner Bow mastery Footwork Nimble Berserk Killing frenzy Recover Gifted or colossus depending on the starting stats of the bro. I really don’t want to cut any of those. Possibly I could cut recover but I do tend to use it - 3 quick shots per turn add up - and if i did cut it I’d be more likely to take pathfinder than bullseye.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
If you're not sniping priority targets with archers why did you even bring archers? I feel like the main thing with archers for me is that with bullseye, you get ~50% shots on necros/hexen/goblin shaman whereas if you don't have bullseye you're taking ~50% shots on dudes with shields. If I'm hitting shielded dudes I would rather just have another polearm guy who's not costing me ammo. I have tried a dedicated thrower and he probably doesn't need bullseye, but he burns through ammo fast and I'm not sure if he's worth it compared to a polearm guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Archers/throwers have some of the highest damage potential in the game, and they can focus fire to start killing multiple enemies from round one. If there are no unshielded targets then you don't really need archers, but it also doesn't matter because shielded enemies are harmless and the fight's trivial anyway. IMO late game hexen are the only difficult fights made much easier by sniping high value targets, but aren't important enough to warrant a dedicated perk. OTOH southern armies with a lot of gunners might be another use case for bullseye, which would make it more valuable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
I build my archers/throwers for pure damage. I tried some new strategies in my last run, and the key things I've learned are that: 1. Archers are obviously really good, but I was overvaluing them and not using them as efficiently as I should have. I used to focus on sniping archers/necros/shamans/overseers, but now I do a lot less of that. In the general sense I've come to believe quite strongly that it's better to just kill things as quickly as possible than it is to spend time trying to hit a hard target. 2. I was seriously undervaluing throwing javelins, and they are very often better than archers. There's no hard and fast rule of always do this or never do that. Often you will be able to shoot at archers/shaman/etc that are out in the open. Other times you won't and you'll attack other targets. Guys with polearms are very high priority targets for example. Sometimes you just attack a target even if they have a shield. If your archers/throwers are at endgame with ratk in the 90s or even high 80s you will still hit a good proportion of the time. Apart from hexen which are a must kill asap target the main thing is that you're doing as much damage per turn as possible. For me the main distinction is armour. When you factor in the damage bonus for aiming at a target 2 tiles away (which is what you're doing the vast majority of the time with a thrower) Heavy Javelins and Warbows do exactly the same amount of raw damage, the difference is in Armour penetration capability. If you're fighting lightly armoured opponents, you take bows. If you're fighting heavily armoured opponents, you take javelins. If you're fighting ancient dead, you take throwing axes. A lot of the time I'll take 2 of one and one of the other; other times I take either 2 archers or two throwers and have a third polearm. Against goblins I find if you just take as many ranged attackers as you put on the field it really doesn't matter if they root you - their melee will still come to you, and you can still pick them off just as well with your ranged attackers. The roots slow things down a bit but they aren't the hugest problem. If your melee guys are spread out a bit and your ranged attackers are all clustered together the shaman will often root the archers. Alternatively fight the goblins at night - the shamans will spend their time casting night vision on the archers instead of rooting you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 07:13
|
|
|
I used to have bullseye snipers as well, and sure, sniping things is both fun and useful. I've just (like Bude) found it far more efficient to kill things real fast than trying to get fancy (and I like fancy builds). Instead of bullseye I will now take an additional weapon spec(usually throwing) for the extra killing power. Who cares if a shaman roots you when all his friends are dead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 07:37
|
|
|
If I was playing one of the starts that restricts you to 12 men I’d do that too - I’d have a hybrid archer/thrower; but otherwise I’d rather build seperate bros so I can tailor the perks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 07:45
|
|
|
Sure, a specialist will always beat the jack of many trades, so I'm not advising that people always do this. Just making a point about there being a good many perks that are better to take than bullseye. If you really enjoy sniping though, go for it! I just find it to be a bit of a trap. But a trap is not that much of a trap if you go into it knowingly? As far as rotation goes, yes you don't need it if you're a master chess player who can think 20 moves ahead (or probably even 2 turns), but it is nice for flexibility and peace of mind. HOWEVER, where it really shines is when you rotate people into place to be able to focus fire down a priority target, like a chosen hammerer, before he can get off that sure fire injury strike. Adrenaline and rotate can pull some nasty tricks here to turn a battle pretty quick. Edit: this is also where recover becomes better, as you can spike damage at a high cost and then spend a turn to do what it says on the tin. TheBeardyCleaver fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 07:58
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:On perks; I give archers the following (not necessarily in this order): The discussion between FA and BE is interesting but I feel like people focus too much on sniping casters when explaining why they pick BE. Yes that is a thing that you sometimes do but usually it's better to thin the ranks faster and then be able to charge the casters. For me the value of BE comes from having comfortable chances to quick shot pikes and 2h users that creep towards your line with a shield or other body in front of them. Or doing the same when they can use some terrain cover during their approach. Someone out there probably crunched the numbers between the two perks for such a scenario but to me BE is the solid choice that will "always" apply while FA is fickle since you lose the stack on scatter and on hitting blocking terrain TheBeardyCleaver posted:As far as rotation goes, yes you don't need it if you're a master chess player who can think 20 moves ahead (or probably even 2 turns), but it is nice for flexibility and peace of mind. Tin Tim fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 12:47
|
|
|
Tin Tim posted:Isn't crippling strike absoulte rear end for the player? Like the effect is so minor since wounds don't matter when targets die a round or two later(or even on the same turn since you said you want archers to kill asap) and you also still have to rng into a wound that actually would make a meaningful difference. Easy replace for bullsye imo since pathfinder is also super weak as a perk. It never really matters outside of fringe cases and the few fights you're forced to take in swamp during your campaign. Also recover is real good but it's less noticeable on archers until you hit serious fights with 20+ enemies It's expendable, but it does help - I only have room for it on throwers and archers. On throwers, you're often attacking stuff like orc warriors or barbarian chosen. Crippling strikes pretty much means you give them an injury on the first or (with orcs) the second attack. They have big health pools so the injury does work. plus the damage bonus from executioner is substantial and crippling strikes helps to activate it. On archers it's more debateable since you're more likely to be hitting things with smaller health pools but I still like it. You injure on the first shot, kill them on the second shot with the extra damage. I used to take it on polearms but now I only take executioner, so that I can fit in both overwhelm and fearsome. Crippling strikes is definitely a personal choice of mine though and not by any means an essential perk. I used to use bullseye, in the last game for the first time I cut it in favour of fast adaptation and I definitely prefer FA. even the best archers miss quite a bit and FA reduces misses considerably. You could take both of course but if you've only got room for one or the other I definitely think FA does more work. I would actually argue that Recover isn't nearly as good as most people think it is, EXCEPT on archers and some other builds - you very rarely use it, and often on a melee bro once you run out of stamina (and I invest very heavily in stamina) you're better off mathematically switching to the single target attack (which does more damage than the AOE in any case) than you are wasting a turn on recover. I cut recover in favour of pathfinder on my 2handers and so far I'm not regretting it. Where recover is good is: Archers and throwers (although I can't fit it in my throwing build) because you often attack 3 times per turn, and they do so much damage; plus you burn through fatigue really fast. Duellists, particularly if you're using a heavy orc weapon. With these two archetypes because they only use 4 ap per attack you can attack once to kill an enemy, get the 4 ap back from beserk, and then use recover on the same turn. Polearms - The warscythe does a lot of work; it's easier to deploy the AoE so you tend to use it more and you often do it twice per turn; and they don't need as many perks as frontline 2handers so it's easier to fit recover in. The Lord Bude fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:I would actually argue that Recover isn't nearly as good as most people think it is, EXCEPT on archers and some other builds - you very rarely use it, and often on a melee bro once you run out of stamina (and I invest very heavily in stamina) you're better off mathematically switching to the single target attack (which does more damage than the AOE in any case) than you are wasting a turn on recover. I cut recover in favour of pathfinder on my 2handers and so far I'm not regretting it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
I almost never need Recover. It's very much my 'I'd rather have something that makes sure they're dead faster than something to use if this drags out' skill. E: You know, I thought some of the 3 skulls I was taking seemed way too drat easy. The patch today fixes 'some locations needing to be destroyed for contract not generating the proper defenders'. Night10194 fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Just finished my second holy war, never working for the north again. Southerners are a way bigger pain in the butt to fight, it seems like conscripts just hold up better than foot men and assassins are a much bigger nuisance than any of the special units the north has
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
Moonshine Rhyme posted:Just finished my second holy war, never working for the north again. Southerners are a way bigger pain in the butt to fight, it seems like conscripts just hold up better than foot men and assassins are a much bigger nuisance than any of the special units the north has 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
I feel like you give up too much siding with the south in the Holy War. Southern armies are a good source of gear you'd otherwise struggle to get like assassin's Armour and headpiece which have better durability than anything else that fits within the 15 stamina nimble limit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:Where recover is good is: This is pretty much where I put recover as well. On archer/throwers I have to choose between footwork/pathfinder and this though, and I'm not sure what I like best yet. It really depends on the fight. As far as rotation goes I've also put it on my one shield tank, my battleforged swordlancer, and my bardiche. The latter just because i wanted one more rotator to switch in. I find that 3 is enough to pull arse out of fire, but variance of mileage and all that. It's a very nice perk though, and I haven't really regretted it when taken. Yet another edit: about to come up on a holy war as fourth crisis, and haven't done one yet. Anyone have an opinion on what's best to side with when you're well geared and moneyed? I suppose fighting the north is more profitable in the sale of salvage, but what about champion stuff? Not sure if there are many champions on the spawned armies though. What about reputation hits? I assume the opposing faction gets cold status when it's done? TheBeardyCleaver fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:On perks; I give archers the following (not necessarily in this order): Rofl. If you're a new player please don't follow anything posted by above e: Sorry, too crass. I'm all for playing how you want to and having fun, but don't post lists like this as the 'true archer build' or whatever because there's some serious garbo in there Toozler fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Oct 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
That is an...interesting...archer build for sure. I'm still not convinced that CS+EX is useful in enough cases to warrant the perks, especially with a bow spec'd archer. Heavy javs maybe, but bows don't have enough armor pen to make it worthwhile on the really scary health pools, I don't think. I haven't tried it though, so I'm not going to try to make a declarative statement about it one way or another. Its certainly not going to help with goblins, though. I would 1000% take gifted over FA. Gifted is strong af. One thing I have been doing in the new expansion is auto-picking Colossus on literally everyone. New recruit has good stats/stars? Student->Colossus->[build plan]. Bad stats? Colossus->Gifted->FA->[probably dead by now]. There aren't many cases where you're gonna be like, "I think this bro has too many hit points". The way it scales with Nimble is insane and it's added protection from the big, armor penetrating attacks for BF bros. The reduction in wounds is huge, too, and it makes Gifted better. I'm surprised to see some folks not putting it into their builds. TheBeardyCleaver posted:This is pretty much where I put recover as well. On archer/throwers I have to choose between footwork/pathfinder and this though, and I'm not sure what I like best yet. It really depends on the fight. That's super interesting - I can't imagine an archer without recover. Berserk is strong and bowshots are fat intensive even with the spec.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
I mean; I have gifted in the list; it is in fact super good. I do take it second; I was just being lazy when I wrote the list and didn’t remember it till the end. I happily admit that crippling strikes isn’t the flashiest perk but I’m all about maximising damage of my archers and I don’t have a great many useful alternative options. As I said; I don’t take bullseye any more because I realised it isn’t getting much use; and my testing has shown that FA significantly increases the consistency of hits which in turn improves damage. Also: saying crippling strikes is bad because archers have low armour pen is staggeringly dumb. If a bro has low armour pen crippling strikes becomes more useful because they need the extra help to cause injury. Again however; I’m well aware it’s the least impactful perk but there really isn’t a better option. As for colossus I always take it on front liners but I usually don’t on back liners because I can get to my desired hp target without it unless their starting hp is super bad. you raise attack and stamina every turn; you take resolve to 50 ish; and after that there’s nothing really to do with your stats but raise health every turn; my archers usually end up in the high 70s or low 80s. Yes colossus is really good but there is still a point where you don’t really need more health.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
I need to look at the numbers on CS again. Haven't really been paying attention to injuries properly, but I have executioner on a couple of guys since they didn't really need gifted or an extra weapon (yes, i know most bros could do benefit from a polearm in the pocket). Been giving the lads a perk every 5 veteran levels now to test things, may try to see if CS/EX will give them that extra edge. Won't do anything against Skellington&Gobber, but still interesting. I try to keep my core builds to level 11 and just add the fluff in veterancy to keep things in the vicinity of honest, and this may be a thing that isn't strictly needed to function, but nice to have. Editorial: 800peepee51doodoo posted:That's super interesting - I can't imagine an archer without recover. Berserk is strong and bowshots are fat intensive even with the spec. TheBeardyCleaver fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Oct 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 13:03
|
|
|
One important thing for the recover discussion is also what difficulty you play on I think. If you just play for casual fun then it's likely that you don't really need it because the game rarely throws large enough groups to fight at you(outside of zombo hordes). But if you're playing on higher difficulty settings then I have a hard time seeing how you get through 20+ gobbos/orcs/ancient undead regularly without popping at least a few recovers after ten turns of constant combat800peepee51doodoo posted:One thing I have been doing in the new expansion is auto-picking Colossus on literally everyone. TheBeardyCleaver posted:This is pretty much where I put recover as well. On archer/throwers I have to choose between footwork/pathfinder and this though, and I'm not sure what I like best yet. It really depends on the fight. TheBeardyCleaver posted:I need to look at the numbers on CS again. Haven't really been paying attention to injuries properly, but I have executioner on a couple of guys since they didn't really need gifted or an extra weapon (yes, i know most bros could do benefit from a polearm in the pocket). The Lord Bude posted:As for colossus I always take it on front liners but I usually don’t on back liners because I can get to my desired hp target without it unless their starting hp is super bad. you raise attack and stamina every turn; you take resolve to 50 ish; and after that there’s nothing really to do with your stats but raise health every turn; my archers usually end up in the high 70s or low 80s. Yes colossus is really good but there is still a point where you don’t really need more health. The Lord Bude posted:Also: saying crippling strikes is bad because archers have low armour pen is staggeringly dumb. If a bro has low armour pen crippling strikes becomes more useful because they need the extra help to cause injury. Again however; I’m well aware it’s the least impactful perk but there really isn’t a better option. Tin Tim fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Oct 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:Also: saying crippling strikes is bad because archers have low armour pen is staggeringly dumb. If a bro has low armour pen crippling strikes becomes more useful because they need the extra help to cause injury. Again however; I’m well aware it’s the least impactful perk but there really isn’t a better option. I mean, I understand how the perk works. Its more of a question of why you would be using archers in a Chosen/Orc fight in the first place. Again, maybe a throwing spec for the big damage increase at short range but I find it hard to see how bows help against Orc Warriors and the like. Not opposed to being shown different though! Tin Tim posted:Pathfinder is a waste outside of that stam neutral 2h build, don't pick it. This has been my biggest change in playstyle lately, but in the opposite direction. I never ever took Pathfinder and thought of it as a mostly useless perk but changing my perspective and viewing it as a stam buff made me reconsider. Now I've started putting it on my 2Handers, as you say, and its been pretty legit so far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Tin Tim posted:One important thing for the recover discussion is also what difficulty you play on I think. If you just play for casual fun then it's likely that you don't really need it because the game rarely throws large enough groups to fight at you(outside of zombo hordes). But if you're playing on higher difficulty settings then I have a hard time seeing how you get through 20+ gobbos/orcs/ancient undead regularly without popping at least a few recovers after ten turns of constant combat Back line needs resolve if you are using fearsome. With gunners and warscythes you can mass apply fearsome and it does huge amounts of work. I put it on everyone that carries a gun, a polearm or a 1h weapon. I can have those large 20+ groups of orcs all fleeing by round 3. I took out a party of over 40 orcs when I attacked a camp at the same time a roving band of orcs was just close enough to be dragged into the combat. Fearsome is insane now. Outside of that I think you should still maintain a minimum standard so you don't have your archers breaking; it's not like you need other stats - ranged defence is the big waste that people invest in, it's pretty pointless - once you have around 15 or so enemy archers will mostly just target something else, and between nimble, bone plating, and the fact that enemy archers have poo poo accuracy it really doesn't matter if your archers eat an arrow every now and then. Almost 1k hours put into this game, and even now playing on expert I've never bothered to give anyone more than mid teens ranged def and it's never, ever been an issue. Sometimes you take a couple of max rolls in initiative on builds with overwhelm. Overwhelm has been a big sleeper for me, I take it on polearms and gunners and nimble duelists; and it makes a huge difference. Applying a stack of overwhelm is like giving your entire front line a few extra levelups of mdef. I think footwork is pretty important on the back line, you can't always rely on rotate. On the front line I actually use it offensively, to get my 2handers into optimal AoE position; but I skip it on duelists since they don't need to reposition to aoe. I wouldn't be comfortable with 60 hp on anyone. armour pen is more common now, and I don't believe in my back line being total glass cannons when it's easy to get them to 75-80. My front line is generally at 100 with colossus, although on nimble front liners since they take less damage I've settled on 80 as enough. Higher health pools mean less chance of getting an injury. on CS - with CS an archer with a warbow has a very good chance of inflicting an injury with one shot (typical targets orc young/beserker noble war soldiers, nomads etc - against orc warriors/chosen I wouldn't bring archers); then following up with a damage boost on the second hit. Also want to emphasise that CS and executioner don't need to be a combo and for eg I skip CS on polearms but still take executioner. As for recover and pathfinder I take one or the other on different builds and I'm still very much experimenting - I think the in depth perk guide has a very good analysis on both. I do maintain that people tend to over estimate the usefulness of recover and underestimate pathfinder - pathfinder reduces your overall fatigue build up quite a bit on anything other than vanilla terrain; and I've found I very rarely use recover even on long fights because by the time you need it you're either just mopping up leftovers, or you no longer have tight clusters of enemies to AoE so you use the single attack - which usually does more damage. I used to take recover religiously on everyone and I never used to take pathfinder but the past couple of games I've been analysing how much use I actually get out of it and I don't think it stacks up outside of sunken library/black monolith - and the monolith was an absolute cakewalk on my last run; It was over in 12 rounds and I didn't lose a single guy. One thing that I think people have missed is that potions are very good now that they get used on the overworld map and last an entire combat. It's not a big deal to just give your entire company 'Better than iron lungs' for the 2 or 3 fights in the game where you need it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 19:41
|
|