Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

You are entirely correct, protection doesn't matter at all against missiles. It's a yes or no deal, which is why shields provide such a strong protection against missiles. Like the shield which gives an added air shield? Already removes a higher percentage of missiles on its own.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

Except it seems that lightning from Storm Demons does not follow this--they absolutely destroy troops even if they have 7 parry tower shields. Thunderers, on the other hand, follow standard shield parry rules. The difference is huge.

And reading the manual again, shield parry is stupid effective and several times more important than shield protection(especially when you already have ~20 prot). It would make sense for at least Runeguards and Ironbreakers to have absolutely badass shields, and probably the standard infantry too. By "absolutely badass" I mean vanilla tower shields(or kite shields, even).

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

Sorry, I was kind confusing back in my message. Rdonj was questioning the benefit of the custom "Dwarven Shields", since they don't grant extra parry compared to normal shields and thus make them more vulnerable to arrows. My response to that was the fact htat due their high prot values, dwarfs pretty much ignore arrows already.

As for the custom shields, I meant to say that their melee shield blocks are more efficient due to +2 extra prot, which is the bonus granted by the "Dwarven Shields". (the basic clansdwarf, for example, has 32 prot shield block. Even giants have trouble hitting through that, so they "need" clean high attack hits to damage dwarfs)

You sure? Thunderers should ignore shields, since their damage is in the secandaryattack, not the weapon itself (it's a lot like how the Sauromatian poison archers always get the poison damage through, unless the arrow misses completely). I really didn't notice any thunderer shots lost to shield block in my testing (but I was moslty fighting against abysia in that test). The Storm Demon ignoring shields is probably some special hardcoded (a'k'a not moddable) tag it has on the weapon.

IIRC, the manual values are incorrect. Someone tested them a while back and the protection by parry wasn't as big as the manual would make you believe. Can't recall the name of the thread in question, though. IrC vets might recall the exact numbers.

As for the tower shields on Runeguards/Ironbreakers, it would just make the weaker, since it'd just boost their encumberance without that much gain. I think they're pretty fine as they are.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

A prospector and a some rangers makes a crazy effective force for the price. Expansion, stealthy raiding and regular battles. I´m beating equal numbers of Ashdods elites WITH magic support with ease and have yet to face anything that stands a chance.

Flanking just seems crazy good, broken even. The question is, can it be effectively countered in early game in MP.

I know this will be different in MP but considering you can pump out one of these stealthy raiding forces in every fort every turn it seems a bit too powerful to me. On top of that they break down walls before anyone can say slartibartfast.

As the nation looks now I´d just take uber scales and rush everyone one by one with prospector raiders, wars that would end the same turn they started.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

To ignore the shields, it would need to be secondaryeffectalways, I believe. I haven't checked which secondaryeffect you've used (nor tested my claim).

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

Yeah, the dwarfs have great protection under those shields, so they are largely immune to short bows/long bows/composite bows. Of course, due to the way dominions works you still get the occasional fantastic hit (such as an unfatigued, e9 runeguard taking 13 damage from a random short bow). That's not really a big deal though. The part that sort of bugs me, is that dwarfs don't use short bows, they use 12 damage crossbows, which happen to be some of the best weapons to use to kill dwarfs since they only use mediocre shields. That said, I'm not sure how much I really want to see 8 encumbrance ironbreakers, or 7 encumbrance runeguard. If the price of having reasonable encumbrance levels is being a bit vulnerable to missile weapons, I can live with it.

They are quite amazing in melee though.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

Prospector/Ranger is pretty nifty...but you're using all your commander slots for noncasters. It's really nasty if you can catch someone unawares(sieging their cap from stealth before they can manage to reinforce province defense), but if they even have a turn of preparation, they should be able to fend you off. Flanking shenanigans only really work in smaller engagements(with the amusing exception of castle storming), unless you have like a dozen prospectors.

Strictly though, if you take Prod-3 you are somewhat of a terror(early game) against certain nations. But that's because you're not recruiting casters and going for a blitz-kill or two.

And Ashdod is prettymuch the worst nation to go up against Dwarves with. You have no chance of ever sieging a dwarven castle, you're the one outnumbered(noone wants to be outnumbered by dwarves), you rely overly much on protection(Adons get absolutely creamed by base 24 damage warpicks, E9 bless or not), and if things go south the Dwarven player just goes after you with some Giant slayers or something. They're not called that for nothing. I'd be terrified of Dwarves if I were Ashdod--especially since the scary armies are stealthy.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

Yeah, prospectors kinda got me suprise. The summoning thing was just supposed to be a nifty bonus and nice defendive trick. I was sort of thinking "Nifty, didn't see that coming". I've been playing with them a bit and the battle AI going crazy because of them really seems like a bug (and makes raising pd quite ineffective countermeasure against them). It's just.. cheap. Having a unit that's really only effective because the AI is retarted.

I don't think they're really that broken balance wise. Your forts cost a ton, which makes it even harder to "spam" them without heavy consequences. I'll probably nerf them anyway though, since I really don't like how they play out in the battlefield. It just seems.. buggy and cheap.

I'll have to think of something. I might up their costs further, or reduce the amount of miners summoned to 3 or perhaps make them noleaders. Or I might remove them as a recruitable alltogether and make them summonable by some remote "miner ambush" spell.

This very well might be the case. In any case, I'll take a look into it.

Yeah, if you go with the regular "crossbows at the very back"-placement, you will get friendly fire. Remember that dwarfs are about tight communities and teamwork, you need to place your crossbows closer to avoid friendly fire. Don't worry, they can take the heat.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

Speaking of those dwarfs archers, they maybe take the heat a bit too easily. I think you can bypass basic melee units altogether, as the shooters have damn good melee weapons, combined with surprisingly high attack skill. They tend to beat the crap out of indies with no support, twenty of them being able to reliably expand versus anything, well you'll take some hits against knights, if you don't bother buying a prospector.

Flanking a dwarven army can lead to sharp consequences !

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, version 0.7
 

I like that these guys aren't aiming for Ashdod. Ashdod, to me, has kind of taken on the role of "Eeeevil Empire" status, and these dwarfs, with their slayers and such, seem like a good remedy for that. They might not be able to defeat Ashdod on their lonesome own, but they seem like they'd make ideal partners in an alliance against the Nephilim.