Re: New unit brainstorm
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2013, 16:25
Ah, now we're talking.
First of all I'd like to see a reply on this question:And with this, I really mean 'a little', so that they will still be useful but don't dominate the battlefield as badly as they do now?
I agree with Krom that adding a new unit will only make things more complicated.
Isn't it fair that the most expensive unit is the strongest? Do you want to add a cheap unit to counter the strongest? And if people mass sword fighters, have you ever tried to 'mass' knights? Obviously you won't need as many knights as the enemy has sword fighters. Of course it is much harder to make a lot of knights, but a total of 5 knights in a whole game? Then you mustn't even be trying to counter a mass sword fighter strategy. Knights eat militia, so combined with archers/crossbowmen and some militia of your own it should be easy (in combination with some watchtowers maybe, if you do not want to rush yourself).
This is what sado wrote on the first page:
So how does this help to balance things? It's like a supermilitia that dies too quickly (practically what the sword fighter used to be, but then with higher attack). People will find new army combinations that are imbalanced and we will have to add another unit. Or maybe even three, or wait, ten. This unit will make archers and crossbowmen even more popular if you ask me.
There's always something wrong, people are always looking for 'new dimensions'... Maybe you just play too much and maybe that's the reason it gets boring for you which results in a wish for something new. And it has a 'I restore balance'-cloak as disguise.
First of all I'd like to see a reply on this question:
Now, if they are indeed too strong, wouldn't it be enough to make their attack strength a little lower, something like George_Stain suggested?
I agree with Krom that adding a new unit will only make things more complicated.
Isn't it fair that the most expensive unit is the strongest? Do you want to add a cheap unit to counter the strongest? And if people mass sword fighters, have you ever tried to 'mass' knights? Obviously you won't need as many knights as the enemy has sword fighters. Of course it is much harder to make a lot of knights, but a total of 5 knights in a whole game? Then you mustn't even be trying to counter a mass sword fighter strategy. Knights eat militia, so combined with archers/crossbowmen and some militia of your own it should be easy (in combination with some watchtowers maybe, if you do not want to rush yourself).
This is what sado wrote on the first page:
The barbarian would be a really interesting unit, because it has a better attack then axemen or swordsmen, but on the other hand it doesn't have the defence boost against ranged units (which only shielded units have). So, it might become good for a countering melee-only army, but will not that overpowered because ranged units kill them more easily. Rock, paper, scissors.
There's always something wrong, people are always looking for 'new dimensions'... Maybe you just play too much and maybe that's the reason it gets boring for you which results in a wish for something new. And it has a 'I restore balance'-cloak as disguise.