Haven Creatures Statistics
Haven Creatures Statistics
Money isn't problem. I had gold mines and lot of peasants. I trained a whole bunch of them. Of course after that I had no money at all.
Haven Creatures Statistics
haven is for noobs the archangels upgrade is Seraphs
-
Tyber Zann
- Peasant
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 23 Aug 2013
- Location: vancouver, B.C. Canada
Haven Creatures Statistics
I remembered that the Champions area damage only happens after a certain charge distance, can't remember how long, but its still better than paladins most of the time
Edited on Wed, Sep 18 2013, 01:35 by Tyber Zann
Edited on Wed, Sep 18 2013, 01:35 by Tyber Zann
-
Tyber Zann
- Peasant
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 23 Aug 2013
- Location: vancouver, B.C. Canada
Haven Creatures Statistics
Since this list hasen't been updated with ToE units, ill give my 2 cents on which units are more effective (iv been posting on the other lists so I might as well do em all)
I like the Haven. Some say vanilla, some say noobs, some say "ah, please." Well, they're right, but its not a bad thing. Haven are what I'd call "user friendly". Balanced. They perform well regardless of circumstance. Good tactics will make any army better, but a haven army can perform admirably on its own. Auto combating Haven will work better than any other faction in repetitive numbers. I don't use auto combat, but the principal remains. Where some factions require constant vigilance in battle, the Haven will give you some breathing room when making descisions. A bad call will prove less problematic than with a different faction (mainly due to their retaliation bonus and solid defense. Even if they take the first hit, they will still fight well). So, with a new lineup of units, let's take a look at our options and see what combination would work best.
1) Peasant: A mediocre melee unit, but possessing the "taxpayer" ability. Since both upgrades have "taxpayer" now, we must descide which one to upgrade to. (The choice in HoF was obvious, taxpayer overcomes any other difference).
So youv got the Conscript and the Brute. Who will serve you better on the battlefield? Brutes can deal more damage, but Conscripts can take more abuse. On the surface, its a matter of preference. How you plan to use them. But their abilities tip the scales. Brutes have a chance to hit twice in one attack. Conscripts have a chance to "bash" during an attack, knocking the targets ATB (state of initiative) down to 0 (end of the bar on the bottom of the screen). Bashing also denies prevents retaliation.
The chances of these events occurring are improved with "soldiers luck" ability, and it seems like the Brutes double hit triggers more often. (Unlike "cleave", which triggers if the first attack killed at least 1 unit). It's hard to tell which ability is better, so let's break it down and see what each one really let's you do.
Double hitting let's you do more damage faster. That's about it. That's awesome, but that's it. Bash also allows you to do more damage before that unit can react, and if that unit does retaliate when hit again, that retaliation will have come later than in the double hitting scenario, where the retaliation would happen after the first attack, thus inflicting greater casualties. By bashing the target, you allow for a second attack with no retaliation, as well as preventing that unit from doing anything else for a full turn. Bash gives you everything 2 hitting does, better, and more. There's still a matter of odds (not sure on the exact chance), so if 2 hitting is actually a lot more frequent, it would be better, but for now, it seems close.enough to be chance. It looks like we have our winner.
Conscript wins. (Unless someone can prove that Brutes x2 hit "assault" has much better odds of triggering)
Archer. A normal archer, until upgraded. (Actually, the archers spread shot is pretty cool, I didn't know about it for a while). Marksmen or Crossbowmen?
These are 2 very different units. Both are awesome, at what they do. Marksmen excel at close range, while Crossbowman specialize at long range. Crossbowmen simply have "no range penalty", which is the ideal ability for any shooter (seems like most of the new shooters have it. At least half). This let's them do full damage at any range (castle walls still inflict a range penalty (50%)). Since most shooters are stuck doing half damage full range, this makes the Crossbowman a must have for the Haven, as its only full range shooter.
The Marksman is a normal shooter, until you get within 3 tiles. Any target between 1-3 tiles of the Marksman will suffer a complete defense penalty when shot by Marksmen (0 defense). This is most effective against high tier units. It can tip the scale in a long battle as enemy melee units close in, only to receive even more damage.
So Its a tough call. Crossbowman are better in most situations. Creeping, taking out enemy shooters. Defending castles. Or Short, descisive battles.
Marksman are basically only better in long battles involving large armies. If your Crossbowmen can only get a few shots off before the enemy is within spitting distance, they will fare poorly for the rest of the fight. They are only better when the enemy is far away. In a long battle, when large groups of melee units are knockin, Marksmen will surprise you. This only works within 3 tiles remember, so form a defensive line 1-2 squares in front of your marksmen (footmen work best).
And so, I find the Crossbowman is usually the better choice. They help out more often. I use them for everything, then, if there's a big epic battle coming, ill go swap em out for Marksmen.
Crossbowman wins (except in long battles).
3) Footman: The Haven tank. Who's better? Lets see. The old fasioned Squire is probably the best defensive unit in the game. A good tank, with the "large shield" and "shield other" ability, at a fair price. A few units have large shield, which provides 50% ranged damage resistance, but only a select few have shield other, which gives this bonus to all adjacent allied units. I can not over emphasise how useful "shield other" is. Squires can effectively cut the enemys ranged damage in half. This is a life saver in artillery battles, where heroes attempt to beat each other with shooters. Combined with crossbowmen. You can effectively deal 4x more damage to enemy shooters than they are to yours (relatively). The squire itself is a good fighter, also possessing the "bash" ability, and is limited only by speed/initiative.
The new Vindicator upgrade is good, but detracts from the Footmans primary role as a tank. Vindicators are basically heavy assault units. They are still capable tanks, but pale in comparison to Squires in that role. So better fighting is their only hope for winning this contest.
Vindicators give up Bash and Shield Other in exchange for "Cleave". A 2 hit attack with a much better chance of triggering than the Brutes "assault" ability. Cleave strikes twice any time the first attack achieves at least 1 kill. This makes Cleave better than Bash since it is much more reliable. As far as killing goes, Vindicators do it better.
So, who's better. Tank or assault unit? Well, the thing is, Haven are nothing but heavy assault units. Maybe not all heavy, but every other unit in their lineup (besides maybe peasants) is designed to inflict damage. The Footman is the only tank they have. Therefore, adding yet another assault unit to the 5-6 you already have seems pointless. They're so slow they'll always be last to reach the fight anyway. Making a better tank is the sensible choice. Use Squires to tank, and use everyone else to kill. (I keep my peasants at home paying taxes).
Squire wins.
4) Griffin: Haven air support. Royal Griffins or the new battle Griffins?
These 2 are close, they serve the same function as flyers. The notable difference is their abilities, which clearly goes to the battle griffin. The old Royal Griffin can "battle dive", flying up and out of the battlefield, then later landing on a single tile of your choice, inflicting physical damage on any enemy that happens to be standing there. The new battle griffin does the same thing, but damages an entire 2x row of tiles of your choice. They both have unlimited retaliation, so the differences in their battle dives makes the decision easy.
Battle griffin wins.
5) Priest: Heavy Shooter/Caster. Both upgrades are great, but the Zealot has one ability that the old Inquisitor doesn't, well, one that makes all the difference anyway. Zealots have the blind spell. For details look up the spell, but this makes the Zealot shine against other shooters. Combined with Crossbowmen, the Haven has Ranged support rivaling Irollan. Say that 3 times really fast. (Of coarse elves got a "no range penalty" shooter as well)
Zealot wins. (Though I prefer the armored look of the inquisitor).
6) Cavaliers: Heavy Cavalry. 2 awesome upgrades. The original Paladin has the ability to "Lay Hands" (that name always makes me laugh after hearing Zehirs comments to that knight in the final ToE campaign. "You knights and your hidden urges. Wouldn't want to be an altar boy in your church".) Anyway, "Lay Hands" is an activated ability that allows the Paladin to restore full HP to a friendly stack (no resurrection) as well as cure any negative spell effects. This has a 100% chance of cleansing all Dark Magic effects, which makes it very useful, as often a high level magic user will cast debuffs too powerful for a knight to dispel on their own. Paladins shine in these situations. The problem is they can only do it once. In a long battle it won't help. Even with split stacks. Therefore this is only useful for skirmishes earlier on, when battles don't last too long, or for creeping, using lay hands to heal.
The new Champions have an ability that adds to the Cavaliers natural strength. Charging. Champions give up laying hands in exchange for an area damage attack, that behaves much like a dragons fire breath, damaging units behind the target. Since this is a passive ability that is always active, it serves much better in long battles than a single healing charge does.
Champion wins.
7) Angel: Havens 7th tier unit. Fast, flying, powerful, naturally immune to weakness (no damage range (50-50)). Angels are an awesome unit. Which upgrade is better?
Archangel or the new Fallen Angel?
Higher tier units have smaller differences in combat stats (relative to number of units) so were just looking at abilities here.
Archangels have a single use "Resurrection" spell, which, unlike the normal resurrection spell, does not inflict a HP penalty. The normal spell penalizes the stacks HP 20% each time, so the ability to do this without penalty is huge.
Fallen Angels are spellcasters and can cast "divine vengeance". A powerful light magic spell that causes damage to an enemy stack relative to the number of kills that stack has. The more its killed, the more damae divine vengeance does. This is awesome, but, knights can cast divine vengeance anyway, and its only useful later in a long fight. Knights can also cast "resurrection", but not without the harsh HP penalty that Archangels avoid. The archangel has a unique ability that is better most of the time. It helps keep your army alive much longer than waiting for units to die you can use divine vengeance.
Archangel wins.
That's it. If anyone found anything I missed, let me know.
I like the Haven. Some say vanilla, some say noobs, some say "ah, please." Well, they're right, but its not a bad thing. Haven are what I'd call "user friendly". Balanced. They perform well regardless of circumstance. Good tactics will make any army better, but a haven army can perform admirably on its own. Auto combating Haven will work better than any other faction in repetitive numbers. I don't use auto combat, but the principal remains. Where some factions require constant vigilance in battle, the Haven will give you some breathing room when making descisions. A bad call will prove less problematic than with a different faction (mainly due to their retaliation bonus and solid defense. Even if they take the first hit, they will still fight well). So, with a new lineup of units, let's take a look at our options and see what combination would work best.
1) Peasant: A mediocre melee unit, but possessing the "taxpayer" ability. Since both upgrades have "taxpayer" now, we must descide which one to upgrade to. (The choice in HoF was obvious, taxpayer overcomes any other difference).
So youv got the Conscript and the Brute. Who will serve you better on the battlefield? Brutes can deal more damage, but Conscripts can take more abuse. On the surface, its a matter of preference. How you plan to use them. But their abilities tip the scales. Brutes have a chance to hit twice in one attack. Conscripts have a chance to "bash" during an attack, knocking the targets ATB (state of initiative) down to 0 (end of the bar on the bottom of the screen). Bashing also denies prevents retaliation.
The chances of these events occurring are improved with "soldiers luck" ability, and it seems like the Brutes double hit triggers more often. (Unlike "cleave", which triggers if the first attack killed at least 1 unit). It's hard to tell which ability is better, so let's break it down and see what each one really let's you do.
Double hitting let's you do more damage faster. That's about it. That's awesome, but that's it. Bash also allows you to do more damage before that unit can react, and if that unit does retaliate when hit again, that retaliation will have come later than in the double hitting scenario, where the retaliation would happen after the first attack, thus inflicting greater casualties. By bashing the target, you allow for a second attack with no retaliation, as well as preventing that unit from doing anything else for a full turn. Bash gives you everything 2 hitting does, better, and more. There's still a matter of odds (not sure on the exact chance), so if 2 hitting is actually a lot more frequent, it would be better, but for now, it seems close.enough to be chance. It looks like we have our winner.
Conscript wins. (Unless someone can prove that Brutes x2 hit "assault" has much better odds of triggering)
Archer. A normal archer, until upgraded. (Actually, the archers spread shot is pretty cool, I didn't know about it for a while). Marksmen or Crossbowmen?
These are 2 very different units. Both are awesome, at what they do. Marksmen excel at close range, while Crossbowman specialize at long range. Crossbowmen simply have "no range penalty", which is the ideal ability for any shooter (seems like most of the new shooters have it. At least half). This let's them do full damage at any range (castle walls still inflict a range penalty (50%)). Since most shooters are stuck doing half damage full range, this makes the Crossbowman a must have for the Haven, as its only full range shooter.
The Marksman is a normal shooter, until you get within 3 tiles. Any target between 1-3 tiles of the Marksman will suffer a complete defense penalty when shot by Marksmen (0 defense). This is most effective against high tier units. It can tip the scale in a long battle as enemy melee units close in, only to receive even more damage.
So Its a tough call. Crossbowman are better in most situations. Creeping, taking out enemy shooters. Defending castles. Or Short, descisive battles.
Marksman are basically only better in long battles involving large armies. If your Crossbowmen can only get a few shots off before the enemy is within spitting distance, they will fare poorly for the rest of the fight. They are only better when the enemy is far away. In a long battle, when large groups of melee units are knockin, Marksmen will surprise you. This only works within 3 tiles remember, so form a defensive line 1-2 squares in front of your marksmen (footmen work best).
And so, I find the Crossbowman is usually the better choice. They help out more often. I use them for everything, then, if there's a big epic battle coming, ill go swap em out for Marksmen.
Crossbowman wins (except in long battles).
3) Footman: The Haven tank. Who's better? Lets see. The old fasioned Squire is probably the best defensive unit in the game. A good tank, with the "large shield" and "shield other" ability, at a fair price. A few units have large shield, which provides 50% ranged damage resistance, but only a select few have shield other, which gives this bonus to all adjacent allied units. I can not over emphasise how useful "shield other" is. Squires can effectively cut the enemys ranged damage in half. This is a life saver in artillery battles, where heroes attempt to beat each other with shooters. Combined with crossbowmen. You can effectively deal 4x more damage to enemy shooters than they are to yours (relatively). The squire itself is a good fighter, also possessing the "bash" ability, and is limited only by speed/initiative.
The new Vindicator upgrade is good, but detracts from the Footmans primary role as a tank. Vindicators are basically heavy assault units. They are still capable tanks, but pale in comparison to Squires in that role. So better fighting is their only hope for winning this contest.
Vindicators give up Bash and Shield Other in exchange for "Cleave". A 2 hit attack with a much better chance of triggering than the Brutes "assault" ability. Cleave strikes twice any time the first attack achieves at least 1 kill. This makes Cleave better than Bash since it is much more reliable. As far as killing goes, Vindicators do it better.
So, who's better. Tank or assault unit? Well, the thing is, Haven are nothing but heavy assault units. Maybe not all heavy, but every other unit in their lineup (besides maybe peasants) is designed to inflict damage. The Footman is the only tank they have. Therefore, adding yet another assault unit to the 5-6 you already have seems pointless. They're so slow they'll always be last to reach the fight anyway. Making a better tank is the sensible choice. Use Squires to tank, and use everyone else to kill. (I keep my peasants at home paying taxes).
Squire wins.
4) Griffin: Haven air support. Royal Griffins or the new battle Griffins?
These 2 are close, they serve the same function as flyers. The notable difference is their abilities, which clearly goes to the battle griffin. The old Royal Griffin can "battle dive", flying up and out of the battlefield, then later landing on a single tile of your choice, inflicting physical damage on any enemy that happens to be standing there. The new battle griffin does the same thing, but damages an entire 2x row of tiles of your choice. They both have unlimited retaliation, so the differences in their battle dives makes the decision easy.
Battle griffin wins.
5) Priest: Heavy Shooter/Caster. Both upgrades are great, but the Zealot has one ability that the old Inquisitor doesn't, well, one that makes all the difference anyway. Zealots have the blind spell. For details look up the spell, but this makes the Zealot shine against other shooters. Combined with Crossbowmen, the Haven has Ranged support rivaling Irollan. Say that 3 times really fast. (Of coarse elves got a "no range penalty" shooter as well)
Zealot wins. (Though I prefer the armored look of the inquisitor).
6) Cavaliers: Heavy Cavalry. 2 awesome upgrades. The original Paladin has the ability to "Lay Hands" (that name always makes me laugh after hearing Zehirs comments to that knight in the final ToE campaign. "You knights and your hidden urges. Wouldn't want to be an altar boy in your church".) Anyway, "Lay Hands" is an activated ability that allows the Paladin to restore full HP to a friendly stack (no resurrection) as well as cure any negative spell effects. This has a 100% chance of cleansing all Dark Magic effects, which makes it very useful, as often a high level magic user will cast debuffs too powerful for a knight to dispel on their own. Paladins shine in these situations. The problem is they can only do it once. In a long battle it won't help. Even with split stacks. Therefore this is only useful for skirmishes earlier on, when battles don't last too long, or for creeping, using lay hands to heal.
The new Champions have an ability that adds to the Cavaliers natural strength. Charging. Champions give up laying hands in exchange for an area damage attack, that behaves much like a dragons fire breath, damaging units behind the target. Since this is a passive ability that is always active, it serves much better in long battles than a single healing charge does.
Champion wins.
7) Angel: Havens 7th tier unit. Fast, flying, powerful, naturally immune to weakness (no damage range (50-50)). Angels are an awesome unit. Which upgrade is better?
Archangel or the new Fallen Angel?
Higher tier units have smaller differences in combat stats (relative to number of units) so were just looking at abilities here.
Archangels have a single use "Resurrection" spell, which, unlike the normal resurrection spell, does not inflict a HP penalty. The normal spell penalizes the stacks HP 20% each time, so the ability to do this without penalty is huge.
Fallen Angels are spellcasters and can cast "divine vengeance". A powerful light magic spell that causes damage to an enemy stack relative to the number of kills that stack has. The more its killed, the more damae divine vengeance does. This is awesome, but, knights can cast divine vengeance anyway, and its only useful later in a long fight. Knights can also cast "resurrection", but not without the harsh HP penalty that Archangels avoid. The archangel has a unique ability that is better most of the time. It helps keep your army alive much longer than waiting for units to die you can use divine vengeance.
Archangel wins.
That's it. If anyone found anything I missed, let me know.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests