I'm not suggesting this to be the only fix to the problem. I think it would just be a good option in the game. Many complaints were that battles end too quickly, units die too fast (including the player), so even fixing that is nice, isn't it?
Sure it would improve that, but it will take time and focus away from fixing the root of the problem - armor - and create increased confusion in feedback when everyone is working on different damage settings; it's already confusing enough that there are idiots who give feedback saying "no, armor seems fine, I can get hit all day and not die" when they're playing on 1/3 damage to player settings.
With reduced damage some players won't even feel the need of armor getting buffed anymore, because the numerous complaints are that they are getting one-shotted/rocks deal way too much damage etc.
A few, maybe. The majority of players will still be very annoyed, because there are plenty of other complaints other than that which the damage slider won't fix, as I already said.
* It won't fix archers being significantly better than other types of unit. Therefore, it won't fix the tactical and balance issues that causes.
* It won't fix the problem of nobles, companions and higher-tier units not performing significantly better than lower-tier units.
* It won't fix damage values being unrealistic- it will make it worse, if you use it to turn down damage and as a result some melee damage which is already quite low then doesn't even scratch the enemy.
The worst-case scenario is that someone at TW thinks the same as you: "Oh, we put a damage slider in. I guess we don't need to fix armor anymore, they can just turn down the damage if it's too high." And then all those problems above will remain. So your suggestion could actually be harmful instead of helpful.
What I'm getting from armor not being buffed still, despite the numerous requests, is that TW really wants it the way it currently is (...) and that they like fast-paced battles so this is why the armor system isn't being changed
I used to think that armor wasn't being changed just because they like it the way it is, but I asked Duh_ and he said: "not to my knowledge, We are discussing armor and how to improve it." Some of Callum's statements also seem to indicate that TW is receptive to changing armor.
I find that it makes sense that archers are stronger than melee units at range, so that isn't the problem for me. The problem is that they're just way stronger than them at range, to the point that only recruiting ranged units is actually a viable "strategy". Plus, they're not all that bad in melee either.
Agreed.
If you reduce damage all around the board at least, then their ranged advantage would surely become more insignificant (which is their main problem), as in melee they will *also* deal reduced damage. The main problem currently is that ranged deals so much damage at range that melee units don't get a chance to get close, they die before that and then they get overpowered in melee. So at least that will change.
Yes, it could make some small positive impact, but definitely wouldn't be enough to fully solve the problem. It would just create new problems.
For example, right now Sharpshooters take 2 shots to kill an armored troop. They can shoot about 6 times across a battlefield before a melee attacker can reach them. A sword-using melee T5 unit can kill an armored troop in, say, 8 slashes, which is kind of realistic for slashing attacks vs. mail.
Let's say we used your slider to reduce all damage to 25%, and also, as you suggested, took away sharpshooters' good armor and melee fighting ability.
So now, a Sharpshooter takes 8 shots to kill an armored melee troop; this is enough that some melee troops can now close the distance to fight and have a good chance of winning. But now, the sword-using melee unit takes
32 slashes to kill an armored enemy. His sword damage was debatably realistic before, now it's made of Nerf foam.
And they have to get into melee range to do it,
and their attacks can be blocked by both weapons and shields (while arrows can only be blocked by shields). So you've made your melee damage ridiculously weak and ranged infantry are
still way better by comparison.
Even if you buff armor, unarmored units will still disappear from existence on hit, so small battles like looters etc will still be the classic: get close, looters die in 2 seconds, looters run away. It's so anticlimatic that I'd be very happy with an option to at least improve this by 1 single hit. Yes, make armor improvements (but that alone won't solve some of the current issues).
Small battles like looters against a high/mid-level player not being challenging isn't a problem to be solved. It's a good thing. The player should feel powerful once they have good weapons and good skills. If they want a challenge, they should not be fighting the weakest enemies in the game-- they should be moving on to more challenging, armored enemies. Looters should be an ez win if a high level player decides to waste time chasing them down.
When it comes to low level, keep in mind that weaker weapons+lower weapon skills = less damage, even against unarmored enemies. I don't see unarmored units being able to be slaughtered by good archers as an issue.
However, looters routing super easily is indeed a problem, which can be fixed by changing the morale system.
Fixing armor, and altering morale, will fix all of the problems you mentioned and plenty of others.
