Loyalists

[schedal]

hmmm so more spear men from what i gather... take the brunt at night [without archers to counter] and then pound more during the day?

My idea to use archers was to give some resistance to counters/defense.

As for which map, I'm referring to any match played on the standard random maps - or maps of that size [40x40]. I realize that these maps are often far from balanced, but the problem I am referring to [early domination of rebel cav vs. loyal cav.] occurs on the same map even if I switch sides; which would indicate a style/strategy problem of my play of loyalists more than a map issue [could be wrong though].

This issue really came up cause at the moment I'm doing a lot of play testing of a 40x40 1v1 map that is a-symetrical [a magmillian challenge, i know!], trying one side, then the other with different factions; and yeah; loyalists vs. rebels is a tough one for me as loyalists.


Interesting that there is a divide between hvy inf. or not.


wk,

Sebastian.

[anakayub]

First up: don't use random maps, you should use the standard maps, as they are balanced for all factions and matchups the best. Random maps will never be properly balanced.

Archers aren't bad, it's just the extra gold, they still have decent melee, and good retal against elf archers. But not too many. To hold villages at night I'd still prefer the HI or the spearman. Spearman coz they're cheaper, HI's because they're tougher

By the way, this might be an interesting read regarding HI's.

[schedal]

But i like random maps

They are bigger than the standard accepted 1v1 maps, and I like breathing space; makes for a far more interesting game IMHO - and I have gotten to the point where symmetrical maps are driving me loony. Just can't play on symmetrical maps at the moment! hehe...

And besides, I've been play balancing my favorite ones over the course of many games to bring them in-line [create random map then tweak over many games/hours in a map editor till balanced].

Of course it could be that the game is not balanced as well when the distance between two players is large ( ?), like it is on 40x40 maps - simply because it implies that the forward fast units must survive several turns longer before slower units can arrive in follow-up turns. BUT at the moment I am assuming this is not the case and that what is more likely is simply my play style.

If you flip sides and play as either player and one side is still winning on the same map; then surely the issue is more tactical? [and yes, the maps are not only forests! Ive made sure of that, as its really more of a general question I am asking]

[schedal]

Yup, replacing the archers and HI with way more spear-men has done the trick and balanced out my matches against rebels far better than it was before; also helps for supporting the early cavalry-dance since the spear men are such good counters to the elvish cavalry, so I'm content now.

thanks guys!

sebastian.

[Sir_Furious]

cavalry costs 17 gold
so start with a few, you should end up with enough to support at least 1 and a half Cavlerymen per turn.

they arnt really that expendable but when you cant use them right just use them as a wall to hold of the enamey for a couple turns.

This really depends on map, and you should never recruit JUST cavalrymen unless your opponent is recuiting something that they are the exact counter for. I simply like to recruit 1 or 2 in the opening recruit because they are so flexible as they move 8/9 and are only weak to pierce. This gives them a myriad of situations that they are good in as opposed to other, slower units, or units with worse resisstancies.

The only drawback of the cavalryman is its defenses, so try to use him where the enemy must also have bad defense to attack you.

me, spam cavalry? never!

[Federalist marshal]

My experience with those units:
Cavalry are for taking villages and holding the line until other units arrive.
Spearmen are for offensive pushes forward, and maybe cannon fodder.
Bowmen are for supporting spearmen.
HI are for attacking undead and absorbing enemy arrows.