July 20, 2019, 07:04:36 AM


Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: hit&run and artillery solution - limited battletime  (Read 2246 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Giant Spider
Offline Offline

Posts: 14

View Profile
« on: May 09, 2009, 07:13:43 PM »

There are 2 problems that current rules can not solve:

    I. Imagine we have an archer regiment vs mummies regiment - who is the winner? On the one hand, mummies will definitely crumble the archers into dust in melee. On the other hand, mummies are slow and it is feasible for archers to hit n run and eventually shoot mummies down.

    II. Imagine we have 2 armies with artillery and without any hit n run capable regiments. No one is likely to attack since  the attacker wont be able to use his artillery.

I suggest defining the attacker and the defender sides before the battle. I think the best way to do this is to give the attacker a limited amount of time to defeat his opponent, and if he fails we consider him defeated. It would solve both cases. The only problem is that the defender would be in a better situation, however we could give the attacker some bonuses to make both sides equal.

I will appreciate any suggestions and ideas :Smiley
Orc Shaman
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2009, 08:54:14 PM »

have you ever faced with such situaions as you described? i just worried about is it only hypo or not.

and i understand that we should make good rules but subject is much harder than our "mage" discussion so i dont think it will be a hreat conlusion which fits all of players.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2009, 11:43:02 PM »

The "defender wins on draws" is a good notion, since that's basically one criterion on how military theorists practically define "victory" today.

Orc Boy
Offline Offline

Posts: 36

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2009, 04:02:03 AM »

This is my version 4.0 of this (some editions added):

"....AND AGAIN, i have been remarking this point since.... 

Solution is very simple,
A.- the host deploys first and ...  (so this one is the attacker)
B.- the invited deploys after host so that means he has the ability to see all hidden units (if they arent well hidden) just like when u play against the AI.    (so this person is the defender)

The order for attack should be:
1- both in charge at once (this would be always active no matter who hosts, deploys first or what kind of unit they have)
2- host should attack first (it suppose that host normally choose a good map for his troops so he may assume the risk)***
3- invited shoud attack in second place (only if he wants to do it just because he is the defender)

***Players should never knows what kind of troops does the other player has.
***This mode of playing should no be affected by artillery units.
***if host choose artillery armies knowing that he has the obligation to attack first (because he is the attacker) then he must assume the risk, he must be prepared for engage the enemy.

...obviously this is someted to erros, pls review it. "

This is my official solution for almost all problems, this way we can assume that "defender wins on draws" because now we knows who's the attaker and who's the defender.

It isn't so hard to understand, its not so complicated, resuming:

"the one who host is the one who may attack"

Offline Offline

Posts: 406

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2009, 01:50:04 AM »

Perhapes ban the wand of jet.  It makes it possible to do hit and run but it takes alot longer to charge up the 4 points needed to warp there and back (not including attack), and it's quite possible to chase down your mage.

Also disallow pistoliers from carring any items to give them some vunerability, if you've no calvary, ranged units, banner of wrath, mage, etc at the end, tough you lose.

Cry woe, destruction, ruin, and decay:
The worst is death, and death will have his day.

[23:04:33] <*Ghabry> The internal design of Darkmancer is just strange
Offline Offline

Posts: 713


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2009, 06:32:24 AM »

Hello. Im Jeronimo.

Well, well, well. Draw games ZzUu. Don't make limited battletime (counting rounds) or "list of rules".

It would seem that we still play under primary school concepts: A winner, a loser. An attacker, a defender.
Have you ever heard of Pyrrhic victories? Both sides have so many casualties that we can't talk of real winners.
"You attack, I defend" Are we playing Stronghold Crusader? Let the battle happen, dont make rules for such simply things, the only thing you will obtain is a disgusting expression from new members ("Oh...I am obliged to attack because I hosted?") I never played a battle considering a role, it's just stupid.

Here goes my suggestion: No winner. Both players lose (0 points) and NO attacker or defender assignment.
Many Advantages:
1) Faster Draw agreement: Because guest won't gain any point, so even hoster can offer Draw Game.
2) Suitable for Experience/Non experience Systems: If we think in something, lets make for everything. When both players decide to draw and quit game, Menu appears (not the Post-Battle window). Losing means that both armies are beaten.
So, in a Endurance Modality, next armies continue.
3) Do the best to assure the point: During Tournaments, 0 points can be a serious problem for both. Instead of giving point to guest, this way they stay with the same amount of points while others (which dont draw) continue increasing scores. I bet this will be the END of High Defensive Armies.

But of course... only if you people say YES to my answer.

Darkmancer: Never think again in banning items, armies or whatever. As I said, those rules will angry new players (and me)
Believe me, everything can be resolved in a simple way if I think. Dont be chaotic.

Crusoe: I'm gonna add this to my DOC file of FO tournament. At first, I also agreed of making Guest the winner, but now after thinking twice, I prefer this. Isn't it better and simpler?

Alavet: I have faced these situations. There are many of them. In my DOC are written 4 examples. I also resolved the Wizard subject. "Hit & Walk" remember? Works even with Vampire. and is fair for others Wizards with no Teleport Spell.

Is anyone reading this? How long will I have to wait until all this is approved?

ito maquiesves
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to: