hashinshin wrote:
So I'm spamming Foragers when I noticed... if a squad gets wiped out in a battle that you win the entire squad of foragers stays dead. This stops the whole late game forager strategy dead in its tracks.



So with that in mind I reiterate: Foragers are bad.

Nope, only if you lose a battle will they stay dead, that is what the last stand ability is for.

Igncom1 wrote:
Nope, only if you lose a battle will they stay dead, that is what the last stand ability is for.

To which I say again: if a squad gets wiped out in a battle that you win the entire squad of foragers stays dead.

hashinshin wrote:
To which I say again: if a squad gets wiped out in a battle that you win the entire squad of foragers stays dead.

No they don't.



The point of the last stand ability to to allow any would be dead squads or commanders to come back to life if you win the battle, but with 1 hp.

Foragers and Necrodrones serve a similar yet different role. Unfortunately for the Foragers they are just similar enough and Necrodrones are SO superior that Foragers just don't remain useful at all.



I'd highly recommend taking 20-30% off the base industry cost of the Forager design (which would then be increased by the cost of items/weapons/armor)to put them more in balance with each other. Especially seeing as how Forager spams tend to run in to Vinesnakes or other AoEs that tear them down. This would keep Forager spam weak to AoEs (as that's intended to be their counter I imagine) with their low health/armor/general stats, but they would be cheap enough that you could easily fill up 2-3 packs of Foragers to overwhelm opponents with a couple Necrodrones to flank.



A similar issue occured in Dawn of War 2 with the Tyranids where Warriors were so superior to 'Gaunts that the spammy alien horde ended up being a tactical elite force.



Also fixing support units would really help. What does the Justicar even do?



EDIT: Apon further reflection I think the problem simply comes down to the Forager just being too squishy to get much done. I strongly urge raising his health to 35 (from 30) to A. Lessen the burden on Necrophage early game, and B. Give him a little bump in reliability in actually achieving melee. Additionally I would increase the base industry cost on the necrodrones by 10% but give them 3 speed in combat. This would enhance their job as a flanker, but reduce their ability to just melee tank it up.

hashinshin wrote:
What are you not understanding here?



If you bring multiple squads to a battle and you win the battle BUT one of your squads gets fully wiped out all the foragers in that squad die. HENCE Foragers late game fall off despite the last stand bonus since it's way easy to get full squad wipe out even in a winning battle.



The ONLY thing I havn't tried yet is doing 5 foragers + other squad sand simply spamming so many squads + hiding the 1 other unit back so that they can never get fully wiped out and simply attrition every battle to a draw (Where they still come back to life.)



Let me lay this out clearly: You bring 12 foragers. 6 in one squad, 6 in another squad. The original 6 all charge in and die, the following 6 charge in and win the battle. The original 6 stay dead.



I JUST got out of a game where I was experimenting with this late game forager spam build people keep talking about and ran in to this very issue. Unless I keep one unit back from every squad and eventually just sit with 2-3 units in the back (With my already way inferior Foragers) I will eventually just get full squads wiped out.

So one of your armys lost?



No crap then, that is the entire point of the ability.



Foragers are still one of the best units in the game, with a incredible amount of attack and the ability to build up enough experience to beat most other newly recruited armys.



Way to get worked up over the obvious there.

You know that ranged armies take 0 damage from farming sub factions, right? The only thing that can even hurt them is the Bos and Jotun. Where as melee armies have about 5 sub factions that can obliterate them.



I don't think you really know what you're talking about. Foragers might "survive" but they give up about 15 HP for that ability then sit in down time making it up.



Play a game with vaulters, then play a game with Necrophage.



Once a battle is won the Necrophage are all dead. Gone. All that XP? Deleted. Try fighting a vaulters force that has cleared out far more enemies than you and has ranged units that are a match for your foragers even in melee. All they have to do is win once, then all your precious XP is gone. The only reason the Necrophage might pull it off is that they know they're gonna go to war so they will gear and specc and use empire bonuses for war. Even then though the Elves will produce more archers than you have foragers and the vaulters will just gun you down and use golems or another sub faction to cock block your entry to them.



and I don't even know why you bring up experienced troops, the necrophage are one of the worst people at getting it because they sit in downtime healing so much because their units are constantly last standing back in at no HP. Vaulters + Wild walkers are ranged. Mages have a ranged hero + the most damaging ranged unit in the game. Broken lords can heal off kills or dust and have no down time if they so choose. Only Necrophage at present have real down time, meaning they're the only force that won't have full vet 2. AND EVEN THEN it's so easy to get vet 2 that by t he time you meet another player your starting 2 units should always be vet up anyway.

The foragers are the most powerful infantry in the game.



So are you going to discuss the foragers, or whine about the ranged units from the other factions?



This topic was created on the topic on the comparison between foragers and necrodrones, but I suppose if you are going to keep changing the subject to your favour, then you are never really going to be wrong.



If you wanna discuss ranged units, then create a thread to do so, otherwise just keep on chatting on about how the counter to infantry happens to counter infantry.

Just repeatedly saying "teh foragers are the most powerful infantry in the game" doesn't make it true. Say it 50x, still not true. The fact of the matter is I doubt you've tried out other factions or maybe you havn't even played Necrophage to begin with. You clearly havn't played multiplayer or experienced much of the game.



Necrophage early game is weak. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. It's made intentionally weak as a balancing act.

Once you get to mid/late game you start fighting other players.

Other players have stronger units that won't lose a battle.

If you lose a battle (which is easy to do when your infantry have 2/3 the stats of theirs) your entire bonus is pointless.

The forager bonuses rests on never losing a battle which I say is too harsh a penalty considering how weak they are.



Consider Necrophage vs. Necrophage itself. Is a player spamming Foragers going to beat a player spamming Necrodrones? Can you ever imagine that happening?

So now we are discussing the entire game it's self.





Yeah, necrodrones are a better individual unit then the foragers, but considering that necrodrones are a flying unit, and foragers are a infantry, that is hardly surprising.



Comparing the foragers to archers, cavalry and flying units isn't going to buff up your argument here, because it doesn't apply.



The necrodrone is a different unit type, if they were both infantry, then we could have a comparison, but otherwise you are just pulling at straws here.



The forager is the best infantry unit, and not because of its one on one battlefield performance, as the role of the unit is to overwhelm enemys, not be be even with them.



And as an argument point, shouting that you think I haven't played much of the game only goes to show you don't have much of an argument to begin with, discuss the point, not the players.



So either discuss the point, or you prove that you had none, and just wanted to yell on a forum for a couple of hours to relive stress.

the problem is what you're saying is so insane that the only rational way to deal with it is to no longer even argue with you.

Igncom1 wrote:


Comparing the foragers to archers, cavalry and flying units isn't going to buff up your argument here, because it doesn't apply.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong here. Because all units fight under the same rules on the same battlefield and against each other, all units, regardless of type, can be compared validly. Comparing an archer unit to an infantry unit is not an apples-to-oranges comparison.



Further, comparing the foragers to the necrodrone is relevant because flying units don't actually do anything different than infantry. They both move the same, attack the same, and fill the same role (currently that of screening for whatever ranged unit you can muster).

Kyeudo wrote:
I'm sorry, but you are wrong here. Because all units fight under the same rules on the same battlefield and against each other, all units, regardless of type, can be compared validly. Comparing an archer unit to an infantry unit is not an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Well I believe it is a bad comparison, archers have a different role on the battlefield to infantry, as to why I believe they are inherently incomparable.



Like comparing a AA unit and a tank in a RTS game, they are both units that kill, sure, but don't have the same role.

Further, comparing the foragers to the necrodrone is relevant because flying units don't actually do anything different than infantry. They both move the same, attack the same, and fill the same role (currently that of screening for whatever ranged unit you can muster).

Flying units are faster and have different perks indicating their use and point.



But as I have stated before my point on this is not about the unit's on battlefield capability, but it's strategic value.



Be glad we have both if you disagree, which is more then fine.

hashinshin wrote:
the problem is what you're saying is so insane that the only rational way to deal with it is to no longer even argue with you.

So here proving that you had no point or argument in this discussion, just you trying to force your opinion onto me when I didn't agree.

We are discussing it, you just keep dismissing every fact.



I say the Necrophage is better, you say it's a different unit type (as if unit types matter other than which slayer your opponent has.)

I say Necrophage armies will be more successful, you say again it's a different unit type.

I say other factions have significantly better early games and mid games AND late games, you say the Forager is the best infantry unit.



You're not interested in discussion, you're basically trying to recruit to the cult of the Forager and people won't believe you. The necrophage have advantages and disadvantages and I say the Forager is too weak overall AND the Necrophage start is too weak because of how weak the Forager is. The Necrophage advantages only start kicking off at your second city if you can dump a food stockpile + your hero in to it to kick start it. Except by that point other factions are rolling around with their hero stomping everything out while you're using your hero to administrate to deal with your food penalty.



All again because the Forager is a weak unit.

And it is fine to disagree with me too, by the way.



I believe however that the overall value of the unit justify's the means, that is my opinion on the matter, just as that was your opinion.





Still, the necrodrone is good unit, there can be no denying that, and if you feel that necrodrones are superior enough to not need any foragers in your army, then more power too you.



I however, still believe differently.



Different factions may indeed have better starts, mid and even late games, but im not going to sit around and just complain and be envious of that, i'm going to play to the necro's strengths and build armys to take the power and resources my factions cannot make in peace.



The necros are a faction that is based on war, and taking power by war. And I believe they have the capability to do this with he forager, a unit that can only die if your enemy wipes an entire army out.





Again: it is fine to disagree with me too, by the way. Before you get the wrong idea and start ignoring the points I am making again.



I believe the forager is one of the best in the infantry class, and that in conjunction with the necrodrone and possibly later with the poliforator (giant worm thing) will have the tools needed to overcome the more elite but limited and expensive forces of our enemy's.



If the necrodrone is better, the use it, but don't underestimate the last stand ability's to keep cannon fodder alive in your army for your necrodrones to change the tide.



Im an AI player, and so likely even by announcing this most people will just flat out ignore my opinion, but fighting with just foragers works for me, strength in numbers, and keeping heroes to buff up and super charge my army seems to work very, very well.



But foragers might not carry you to victory, but then again they weren't supposed to.

Igncom1 wrote:
Well I believe it is a bad comparison, archers have a different role on the battlefield to infantry, as to why I believe they are inherently incomparable.



Like comparing a AA unit and a tank in a RTS game, they are both units that kill, sure, but don't have the same role.

There is only one role for any military unit - winning. Each unit is only good if it helps you win and is only good to the degree it helps you to win. This is why you can compare Zergling/Mutalisk to Stalker/Colossus to Marine/Medivac/Tank in Starcraft. If a unit is only good in concert with another unit, then you compare those two units as a block to other things.

Flying units are faster and have different perks indicating their use and point.



But as I have stated before my point on this is not about the unit's on battlefield capability, but it's strategic value.



Be glad we have both if you disagree, which is more then fine.

Faster? Demons are flying and have speed 1. Necrodrones are speed 2, just like foragers. I don't think I've seen a flyer with a base speed of 3 yet.



A military unit's strategic value is equal to its on-battlefield capability divided by its cost to field unless it also has off-battlefield capability. Neither foragers, necrodrones, or Vaulter marines have any off-battlefield capability.

So here proving that you had no point or argument in this discussion, just you trying to force your opinion onto me when I didn't agree.

You are attempting to argue that you can't compare foragers to marines because one is infantry and one is ranged. This is a blatantly false premise. If the marines will shoot down the foragers before the foragers can close to combat range, the foragers lose to marines. If the foragers and the marines do the same damage at melee combat ranges and the marines can take more of hits, the foragers are the worse unit. Unless there is something the foragers can do that the marines can't, the forager is definitely the worse unit. Luckily, the forager can do something the marines can't - last stand. So, the question of if the two are balanced or not hinges on the production costs of both units and the likelihood that last stand can come into play.

Kyeudo wrote:
There is only one role for any military unit - winning. Each unit is only good if it helps you win and is only good to the degree it helps you to win. This is why you can compare Zergling/Mutalisk to Stalker/Colossus to Marine/Medivac/Tank in Starcraft. If a unit is only good in concert with another unit, then you compare those two units as a block to other things.

Your premise isn't wrong, but the reason we have different unit types is to counter different situations and different enemy unit types.



Otherwise we might as well have one unit for each side.



Comparing a SC marine to a siege tank is a bad comparison, because they are designed for different situations, if they were only designed for one purpose, then you wouldn't have a reason to actually have the two.



The necrodrone is a flying unit, a Calvary/archer counter If I remember correctly, the forager is a meat-shield, designed to die to more important units don't.



The necrodrone is a better unit on the battlefield, the forager enhanced the usefulness of the necrodrone, so it's battlefield usability can afford to suffer, as it isn't supposed to be straight up better.

Faster? Demons are flying and have speed 1. Necrodrones are speed 2, just like foragers. I don't think I've seen a flyer with a base speed of 3 yet.



A military unit's strategic value is equal to its on-battlefield capability divided by its cost to field unless it also has off-battlefield capability. Neither foragers, necrodrones, or Vaulter marines have any off-battlefield capability.

Ahh I was mistake on the speed then.



They can regenerate their HP, take citys and the foragers have the last stand ability ot come back with 1 HP.



They all have off battlefield capability's, hell they can even explore ruins.



So I don't agree on your assessment on the strategic value of a unit, as even that can change based on circumstance, such as a lost settler unit can dramatically change the way a entire game plays, making the intersection of such a unit a massive strategic objective, rather then the tactical side of actually killing the unit.



The strategic value of the last strand ability allows a unit to focus their industry elsewhere rather then replacing what would have been lost units.

You are attempting to argue that you can't compare foragers to marines because one is infantry and one is ranged. This is a blatantly false premise. If the marines will shoot down the foragers before the foragers can close to combat range, the foragers lose to marines. If the foragers and the marines do the same damage at melee combat ranges and the marines can take more of hits, the foragers are the worse unit. Unless there is something the foragers can do that the marines can't, the forager is definitely the worse unit. Luckily, the forager can do something the marines can't - last stand. So, the question of if the two are balanced or not hinges on the production costs of both units and the likelihood that last stand can come into play.

I would defiantly argue about the damage potential of a forager, as they are defiantly glass cannons, able to produce massive amounts of damage, especially for a meat shield unit.

Reasonably it comes down to a few issues:



1. Is the Necrophage early game bad enough to make up for their good burough system? Will they be behind enough that having 2x sized cities won't be too big an advantage for them? Would a buff to Foragers push them over the edge where they wouldn't have a weak enough early game and could snowball through act 3 when their borough advantage starts to kick in?

2. Is it worth having the Forager be such a terrible unit to keep them having a bad early game? Could we reduce the strength of their boroughs to beef up the forager?

3. Is their -1 food per tile disadvantage too much of a disadvantage? Is it making the Forager look bad by making them too weak?

4. Would a stronger forager allow them to get kills early game faster thereby earning them more food stockpiles to bypass their food disadvantage?

5. Will the proliferator make up for the Forager disadvantage and make it a good thing to chain die?



Personally I havn't had multiplayer games go past age 3 (Since that tends to be when the Necrophage either win or lose) to really give you a good guess on whether or not their Borough advantage could make up for everything. We ALSO don't have age 5 + 6 to tell you whether or not the borough advantage becomes too much at those ages. What I CAN tell you is that the Necrodrone is blatantly the stronger unit and the Forager being so weak means that nobody is going to build it. Using the necrodrone, sisters of mercy to keep them healed or Jotun to kill everything before they take too much damage, and then lastly the Necrophage healing bonus is a FAR superior tactic to using the Forager. ADDITIONALLY the first few battles for the Necrophage typically end in disaster as you realize how hilariously out matched the Foragers are against other factions spammy T1 units.



Now the prolifterater could very well be the key to making Foragers good, we won't know. Nobody knows except the developers. All I can tell you is that as is I would rather have Necrodrones especially since they heal 2x as much from the Necrophage passive and will stay on the offensive longer so you can clear out more territories and do more quests.



Two things though: 1. The borough advantage is HUGE. 2. The borough advantage gives Necrophage enough age 3 industry to pump out units, and I'd much rather be pumping out Necrodrones than Foragers which will likely get off maybe one hit against a ranged army if that.