The Assassin lord is really cool, and very killy, but is also a tad too easy to focus down and kill: which is a huge issue for the skaven with their low leadership, espessially early in a campaign when you cant really run a full Echin Clan army yet, and the -2 leadership to all is also in effect.
I'd recomend one of the following (in order of what I think would be best):

- Give the Lord 'Stalk' and 'Strider'.
This is both thematic for a Echin assassin (especially in what will most likely be an army of entirely assassins) and helps survivability against missiles, which currently pose a serious threat to the lord. I think it would help out the viability of the lord early on, as it can buff leadership from stealth behind the lines, rushing back and forth without being molested by skirmish cav or missiles. Also would just make it even better for singling out and chasing down lords and heros and slicing them up.

- Increase the Lord physical resist.
30% is decent, but not really good enough for a lord with such little hp and armour. I'd recommend increasing it to 50%, or even as high as 60%, so just mobbing the lord with chaf units wont immediately get them killed. I get they are an assassin meant to go after single targets, but surely a lord of Clan Eschin has earned that position because they are hard to kill-stab, no? So a couple of Empire Swordmen units should have serious trouble dealing with them. At the moment blobing can almost completely deny this lord from picking out key targets (unless you speck into Melee Defence quite heavily).

- Increase the hp by 800-1000 points.
An unimaginative fix, which is why it's at the bottom, but it would help a lot with the squishyness and general awkwardness early on.

Some combination of the above could be good as well, but that may just be too good.

I'll look into him having stalk and/or strider, I think he may already have one of those.
The other two suggestions would make him way too powerful.

That's fair, it's my first choice anyways, it should greatly improve the lord regardless.

So I don't see a 'suggestions' discussion and I don't know how fond you are of suggestions, but I've played for about 200 turns now and really wanted to share my woes regarding Skaven economics.

When I play, Queek's more of a raider than an occupier. I've been avoiding most minor settlements, only really taking landmark cities and dropping slave wheels inside them if they're capitals (slave wheel income bonuses stack with under-city buildings).

One thing I'm noticing however is that the AI can REALLY suck at defending against low public order brought on by corruption. Especially if they don't have any walled settlements to beat back skaven revolts. This often results in the razing of their city and, by extension, your under-city.

Something I find myself thinking more and more is that it would be INCREDIBLY useful to have the option to utilise an under-city building that increases public order in enemy settlements. This could reduce corruption slightly and maybe be tied to a -discovery effect as you suppress clues of your corruptive influences.

Additionally, a building placed in the capital city that can increase the amount of building slots in surrounding enemy settlements might also be very neat. In this way, you could deliberately build a stable economy around occupying capital cities, but expanding the under-empire to its surrounding settlements. If you tied this to the slave wheels (which I believe increased the rate of decay of that province's slaves), it could theoretically allow us to build up a powerful under-economy that constantly requires more and more slaves to fulfill its needs (which means it can all collapse if you stop finding replacement slaves)

Anyway - I saw that you were a little bit worried about the Skaven economy and these were just my thoughts on the topic. I do believe an over-empire that focuses on 'taxes' and an under-empire that focuses on slave labour could be a neat way to cater to (and balance) both playstyles but, ultimately, it's your call and I"m no coder. I'm still keen to see what the update looks like. :)

Hi,
Thanks for your suggestion, yes I welcome them!
Obviously the version you are playing isnt updated at all for the new update and there will be a ton of issues, most of whitch ive corrected already back here.
The mod was orginally built around fixing the broken skaven economy and its food issues both of which CA has resolved now so the update to this mod will shape things up quite differently.
Since ive been focused on getting everything working smoothly again and on balance related issues I havent had much time to look @ the under-empire code wise yet so am unsure what can be done or not.

The public order thing burning down the enemy cities is an intresting proble. I havent overly encoutered this on a 200 turn legendary playthrough, what difficulty are you on?

Im not too sure if it'd be possible to create a under-empire building that modified enemy public order up, but I do quite like that idea.

I also think it'd be cool to have an under building that improved your slave capture rate.

Anyway we'll have to see what can be done!

I'm playing vanilla, hard/hard, but I believe the enemy public order bonus is the same on every difficulty since the latest patch.

The revolt problem is usually tied to a province not having a capital, and the AI not building to compensate. ie: If a settlement has walls/armies or a bunch of +public order buildings, they can remain stable, but even forgiving bad AI, some factions are better at this than others. It does not help that I tend to keep a throw-away army around what few settlements I have for purposes of raiding or nipping at the heels of factions who are getting too strong. :P

As I said, the way I've had the most fun playing is as a raider who only takes select capitals. For example, on my 200 turn playthrough, I have Charnel Valley, karak eight peaks, iron rock, skavenblight and.... that karak city (name escapes me) to the east of skavenblight that reduces upkeep for ranged missile units.

That's it.

Despite this, I've been strength rank 1 or 2 since about turn 15. I'm currently rocking 10 or 20k passive excess income per turn (before raiding). I should stress that I've gone to extra lengths to make this cash, going so far as to destroy strong (but seemingly less-productive) factions like tomb kings & green skins and replace them with dwarves. I also sack low-income settlements until they build more profitable buildings. lol.

(I'm just sharing this with you to demonstrate a playstyle that focuses around not taking land that doesn't provide some faction-wide benefit or something. :P).

------

I like your idea of a slave-capture building. Increasing slaves while raiding or battling in a specific territory sounds useful.

At the same time, I also enjoy buffing the productivity of enemy settlements surrounding my capital through the the slave wheel. It's like some nightmare dystopian society where the rats own the capital and harvest surrounding settlements as though the people and what they produce were nothing more than farmed goods.

There IS another problem with this playstyle however - and that problem is trade. If you don't occupy cities, you can't increase your potential trading partners. Additionally, if you don't take a city with a specific resource, you can't trade it.
If there was a building for siphoning a tiny amount of trade resources from a settlement, that would be handy. But if there was another additional building optionthat allowed to TRADE WITH FACTIONS NEIGHBOURING THAT UNDERCITY, it would be a game-changer. But maybe that's a pipe-dream, haha.

Anyways - I didn't mean to go straight into 'make your mod to cater to ME' territory, but I can really only speak from my own experience, and the observations of the economic strats I'm using.

I'm sorry for the long post, but I think I've covered pretty much everything. Sidenote: All-ranged skaven armies are just SO much fun. I'm going to go ratling gun down some stumpy, slow, Dwarves. Thanks for the incredible mod, Steelblade. I promise not to harass you anymore unless you ask me a direct question or something. :P

This is not harressment. This is productive. In fact I liked the idea so much that I got to work on it right away and am going to be adding an under empire building that prevents AI revolts due to corruption and helps slow it down.

Something that allows you to trade through the under empire would rock, but I don't think is actually possible the way trade works in the game.
Also slave wheels boosting the AI could be problematic in the extreme because if your not doing an UE build you could end up giving your nieghbours silly amounts of cash unintenbtlally.
(100% boost on an enemy gold mine?)
As for trade siphoning, great idea but am unsure how to implement it.

Oh no, what I meant in regards to slave wheels is that they increase YOUR income from province buildings. This already applies to undercity buildings in vanilla (you can essentially double their income in that province).
I like that function, so retaining a building that can focus on improving under-empire economy from a province capital in the over-empire is something I'm always gonna be an advocate for.

As an alternative to trade siphoning, maybe an undercity building that can just pilfer resources relevant to the city it's built under? Ie: Maybe 10 of whatever resource is relevant to that city. It's easier to just build undercities than to occupy them, after all, so only stealing a pittance of resources seems fair.

Some tech in the tree for Clan pestilens bribes.

Some feedback: Please consider removing/reworking artillery batteries. While more models and more explosions sounds cool on paper, imo artillery with more models and no drawbacks is just a straight up upgrade to normal artillery units, making low model counts obsolete. In addition, this further makes artillery units even more OP by adding more AOE and single target damage (like on direct cannon shots to big units).

The only way I can see batteries working is if you added an ability akin to CTT's artillery mishaps, where artillery guns have a chance to blow up. This would make artillery more unreliable across the board, but it would make having batteries slightly more reliable. If you want to make normal artillery competitive with batteries, you could make batteries have a larger chance of blowing up than the lower count artillery.

Another way could be to give batteries less ammo, so that having a battery unit is still useful (more guns firing at once=more burst damage and higher chance of hitting) but still having the same number of missiles as the normal artillery units.

@Jolc3r, Hi, If you actually looked into it at all, including the you tube video on arty batteries you'd find out there is a very quick and easy method of disabling them for the people that dont like them.

Thanks, I only now just saw them. Not trying to be mean or anything, just giving my own two cents on them. Maybe removing them is too harsh, but I do think they don't really fit with the rest of the game. Maybe if other units were rebalanced with large artillery sizes in mind or if the artillery had less of an impact they would make more sense. At that point though, why even have more of them in first place? I think they could work, just not as they are now. They need to have their own niche.

is there any plan to make is so certain clans dont have to bribe themselves in the tech tree to get access to there own units? not a super big deal just something i noticed and thought felt a bit odd, no idea how difficult making the tech tree unique would be tho.

that being said would you consider moving the death bomb globadiers down a building to the tier 4 slot, i feel like while its a really strong unit having it locked behind a special tech and being all the way up in tier 5 makes it feel like il never actually get to use them until ultra late game

Yeah I considered that but actually it would just cause a ton of problems.
Moving the bombadiers? well Dunno maybe.