archers

by **barocca** Tue 23 Sep 2008, 17:42

seems we have a "glitch" crept into archer stats

Yuan archers are supposed to be somewhat better mellee than sam archers ??? (yes?/no?)

that is not the case - yuan(500k)/sams(400k) are same combat efficiency (except for armour / shield)

IF we think Yuan should be better mellee than sams THEN I Propose giving Yuan +1 mellee, +1 defence +2 moral
(IIRC they are supposed to be better) and see how they fare at those stats

ashi-archer vs korean,
while i agree same stats i think Korean need to come down in cost to 350k (from 400k)
and ashi-archer be 300k (SO i'd like to lower ashi-archer morale by 2 points to Zero - same as xbows)

most people are likely to take 2 k-arch for 700koku total
and if we make ashi-archer 350k people are going to ignore them (plus they'll be lower morale yes?/no?)

BESIDES i'd like to see people not designing armies to spend all the cash, but designing armies for a purpose,
(maybe deserving it's own topic > a "designing armies" thread??)

ht_bow

by **^Glyndwr^** Tue 23 Sep 2008, 19:48

barocca wrote:Yuan archers.. ashi-archer,

OK, lets try them at these stats and costs.

barocca wrote:BESIDES i'd like to see people not designing armies to spend all the cash, but designing armies for a purpose,

It is the norm for people to try to spend all the money. For as long as I have been playing MP. But at the same time selecting an army for what type of gameplay you will be using.

barocca wrote:(maybe deserving it's own topic > a "designing armies" thread??)

This could be a good idea. An 'Army Selection' topic.
We have, in the past, used a similar idea with RTW and M2TW where we have each exchanged tried armies and deployments. We being ^Glyndwr^ ^Marcus^ and ^HUN^.

by **^HUN^** Tue 23 Sep 2008, 21:32

I've not used YIA for some time, I hadn't noticed melee capabilities but they were better in melee to reflect the extra 100 koku.
I'd rather stay away from pricing units at *50 koku, I just think things are less complicated with straight 100 koku increments. that being said, I am inclined to agree with this change because I am not entirely happy with the Mongol army selection variety at the moment. I've already touched on this subject but it can wait until after these changes.
Above all else we want every unit available to be a realistic choice.

Army design and team battles are things that me and Marcus have discussed, the emphasis being each team forming a single army as opposed to 2, 3, or 4 separate ones.

by **^Glyndwr^** Wed 24 Sep 2008, 00:13

^HUN^ wrote:Army design and team battles are things that me and Marcus have discussed, the emphasis being each team forming a single army as opposed to 2, 3, or 4 separate ones.

I recall we tried things like this during RTW period. I have/did have some screenshots somewhere of Marcus and I formed up as one army in a 2v2. If I find them I'll post them.

by **^Tomisama^** Wed 24 Sep 2008, 12:44

This thread has brought to mind my list of fundamental game and player concept flaws in TW games. Some may be fixable, but some will not. And this writing is only an attempt to explore the list, not expecting any solutions, just thumbing through the problems.

Spend every penny:
As touched on above. If designed so that all units had the same price (to get rid of pricing), then the best mix (four max) chosen for a particular battle (battlefield, allies , and opponents) could be employed. The price thing is carried over from single player, and not necessary for multiplayer. Think about it?

I have three more (maybe should create that designing thread), but am out of time this morning (to be continued)
The concept of attacker/defender:
Fighting to the last man:
One big army with multiple generals:

by **^Glyndwr^** Wed 24 Sep 2008, 13:38

A separate topic is now set up for the continuation of these discussions.

by Sponsored content

archers

archers

Re: archers

Re: archers

Re: archers

Re: archers

Re: archers

Re: archers