• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

Armour and weapon Types: why is the system designed this way?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 4
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
22
I've come back to WarCraft III recently after not having played much for years, and one thing that's really struck me is how weird the system of armour and weapon types is. It seems to me to have some very strange features:
  • A unit's armour rarely bears any relation to the armour it actually appears to be wearing. The most extreme examples include Ghouls and Tauren (heavy armour, despite wearing no armour whatsoever), Huntresses (unarmoured even though they wear more armour than any other Night Elf - although less so with their sexed-up Reforged models), and Mountain Giants (medium armour even though they're made of stone).
  • Excluding fortified armour, there doesn't seem to be much (if any) rhyme or reason as to why certain weapon types have the bonuses or penalties they do against certain armour types.
  • Heavy armour is weak against magic attacks, but magic attacks are mostly so puny that they are not really relevant as a counter to heavy armoured units. Some heavy armoured units are immune to magic anyway and consequently have no weakness to any weapon type (e.g. Spellbreaker, Golems).
  • Some buildings have heavy armour rather than fortified armour, meaning they don't have a particular weakness to siege weapons. This seems to have at least two weird consequences: First, upgrading Reinforced Defenses actually makes Orc Towers and Burrows weaker against siege weapons. Second, Chimaeras deal substantially more damage to heavy-armoured towers before upgrading Corrosive Breath.

Can anyone give me any insight into why it's designed the way it is? Or, for that matter, why they changed it for The Frozen Throne? (Since Reign of Chaos had a different - and arguably more intuitive - system.)
 
So originally in RoC there was no magic damage, piercing did extra to heavy armour and medium had no bonuses or maluses so piercing damage and casters were kinda broken. To rebalance this they added magic damage and changed up the damage tables.

The damage and weapon types work better mechanically than being accurate thematically. For example, most base units like ghouls and grunts etc have heavy armour so they aren't too weak early game and aren't hard countered by say Archers or Riflemen for example.

Spellbreakers only have Heavy armour in the campaign, in multiplayer they have medium, if they had heavy they'd be OP and broken. Also whilst magic damage on most units is very low they deal 200% damage to Heavy or 2x damage, so 10-11 magic damage becomes 20-22 negating armour penalties which is pretty good considering.

Siege damage is pretty rare in multiplayer, so Fortified armour is pretty good, Orc burrows need the upgrade to provide a weakness in certain match-ups a common Human strat is to rush in a good amount of Footman and aim down the Orc burrows to supply block them.

I'd recommend watching people like Wtii and Grubby on Youtube who play multiplayer to see how the armour types play out in multiplayer match-ups and you begin to see why they're the way they are :)
 
Level 4
Joined
Sep 16, 2017
Messages
56
system is fine as it is.
as for the units not wearing their appropriate armor points. It just doesn't matter, gameplay should always come first when comparing it to lore and visuals
 

Rui

Rui

Level 41
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,550
A unit's armour rarely bears any relation to the armour it actually appears to be wearing
As is often the case in computer games, realism is sacrificed for the sake of gameplay. Balance and diversity of strategies explains all the examples you listed: ghouls and tauren both need heavy armor to be durable melee in their respective tiers; spell breakers I remember the patch notes in which their armor type was changed to medium, and the pointed reason was they were too tanky because of heavy armor and excellent synergy with other arcane sanctum units; mountain giants are supposed to be very durable but not invencible, therefore they have medium armor so melee works against them.

To me, the only intriguing case is the huntress, as unarmored does make her very squishy, but they all have a logic to it. :)
 
Level 4
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
22
Thanks for the responses! I should point out I'm not saying I think there's anything wrong with the system - just that I don't really understand it.

So originally in RoC there was no magic damage, piercing did extra to heavy armour and medium had no bonuses or maluses so piercing damage and casters were kinda broken. To rebalance this they added magic damage and changed up the damage tables.

I think I was too young and foolish to really engage with it on an intellectual level at the time, but I do vaguely remember it. If I recall correctly, the armour types were distributed between units differently as well. Maybe a lot of the units that have heavy armour now used to have medium or something? I'm not sure.

The damage and weapon types work better mechanically than being accurate thematically. For example, most base units like ghouls and grunts etc have heavy armour so they aren't too weak early game and aren't hard countered by say Archers or Riflemen for example.

Yeah, I've realised in a lot of cases it seems more like a unit classification than anything to do with their actual armour - something like: heavy corresponds to melee unit, medium to ranged ground units, light to flying units and unarmoured to spellcasters. And thinking about it that way it seems to make more sense, but then there are quite a few exceptions.

Spellbreakers only have Heavy armour in the campaign, in multiplayer they have medium, if they had heavy they'd be OP and broken. Also whilst magic damage on most units is very low they deal 200% damage to Heavy or 2x damage, so 10-11 magic damage becomes 20-22 negating armour penalties which is pretty good considering.

Interesting. I've mostly played the campaigns and only a bit of multiplayer, not enough to notice that there was anything different. I guess that also means the World Editor uses the campaign balance, since that says Spellbreakers have heavy armour.

Siege damage is pretty rare in multiplayer, so Fortified armour is pretty good, Orc burrows need the upgrade to provide a weakness in certain match-ups a common Human strat is to rush in a good amount of Footman and aim down the Orc burrows to supply block them.

Yeah, I understand that Fortified armour is usually better (i.e. against anything that isn't siege damage) so it is generally an upgrade. I just find it strange that some upgrades can actually end up being worse in some situations. Also, it sounds like you're saying Burrows have heavy armour to enable humans to use a silly cheese strategy.

As is often the case in computer games, realism is sacrificed for the sake of gameplay. Balance and diversity of strategies explains all the examples you listed: ghouls and tauren both need heavy armor to be durable melee in their respective tiers; spell breakers I remember the patch notes in which their armor type was changed to medium, and the pointed reason was they were too tanky because of heavy armor and excellent synergy with other arcane sanctum units; mountain giants are supposed to be very durable but not invencible, therefore they have medium armor so melee works against them.

I understand what you're saying, but this sort of feels backwards to me. Heavy armour only makes units durable in melee because the designers made it that way. They could easily have picked a different armour type for that (and indeed, it was medium that was like that originally).

But I suppose once they'd decided that (say) Tauren and Knights would interact with damage in the same way, and that damage interactions were determined by something called "armour type", the mechanics were never going to match the visuals.

Other RTS games I'm familiar with don't seem to have this issue somehow. (Although that said, in Age of Empires II, camels were classified as ships for 20 years...)

To me, the only intriguing case is the huntress, as unarmored does make her very squishy, but they all have a logic to it. :)

Yes, somehow this is the weirdest one to me (except maybe the thing with Corrosive Breath). I have a vague recollection that they had a different armour type when The Frozen Throne was new, and it got changed shortly after release - but I could be misremembering.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 45
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
9,504
Sorry for the necro-post, but it felt relevant & useful to future Google Searchers to point out that the original Mojo Stormstout guide that Blizzard used to run featured a really enlightening section on exactly this topic, answering some of OP's questions (which I myself wondered for years & only after reading this realized there was rhyme/reason to it):


Specifically the bits here:

Attack Types

Normal (most melee units)
Normal attacks do extra damage against Medium armor, and reduced damage to Fortified armor.

Piercing (most ranged attackers)
Piercing attacks do extra damage to Unarmored units and Light armor, and reduced damage to Fortified, Medium armor, and Heroes.

Siege (artillery)
Siege attacks do extra damage to Fortified armor and Unarmored units, and reduced damage to Medium armor and Heroes.

Chaos (A few Creeps, Powerful Summoned Units)
Chaos attacks do full damage to all armor types.

Magic Damage (most spellcasters, air units)
Magic attacks do extra damage against Light and Heavy armor, and reduced damage to Medium, Fortified armor, and Heroes. Magic attacks do 66% extra damage to ethereal units, and zero damage to magic-immune units.
Hero
Hero attacks do reduced damage to Fortified armor.
Armor Types

Unarmored (most spellcasters)
Unarmored takes extra damage from Piercing, and Siege attacks. Some unarmored units such as Huntress, Gargoyle, Hippogryph, and Druid of the Talon in Storm Crow form have armor for balance reasons. Most unarmored units do not have armor.
Light (most flying units)
Light armor takes extra damage from Piercing and Magic attacks.

Medium (most ranged attackers and workers)
Medium armor takes extra damage from Normal attacks, reduces damage from Piercing, Magic, and Siege attacks.

Heavy (most low and high tech melee units)
Heavy armor takes extra damage from Magic attacks.

Hero
Heroes take reduced damage from Piercing, Magic, Spell, and Siege attacks.

Fortified (buildings)
Fortified armor greatly reduces Piercing, Magic, Hero, and Normal attacks, but takes extra damage from Siege attacks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top