King of the Hill: Round 3

[Roxas]

add me back on the list so i can beat cluny next time

[Xavier Dragnesi]

So just a quick bit of feedback, are the rules working well? Is everyone going in accordance with them? Are they making gameplay more fair and more fun?

[Selifator]

I think they are. The armies seem to be more competitive, and less power play.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Cluny (Macedon) defeated by Made (Pontus) in the Macedonian Ruins.

Please put me back on the list of challengers.

So just a quick bit of feedback, are the rules working well? Is everyone going in accordance with them? Are they making gameplay more fair and more fun?

Overall my response is favourable. However, I am not yet sure about the foot-archer restriction - it's the balance against 4 HA or CA that troubles me. If you had up to 4 horse-archers or chariot-archers on Cantabrian Circle it takes forever to make any impression on them - and foot-archers are basically your only defence. 8 foot-archers is more practical.

Or - and this is a little more radical - you make the limit on ALL forms of archers, foot, horse or chariot. That way if someone wants to take 4 HA or chariot-archers they can't have the same foot-archer component as you as well to drown your archers with when they're trying to fend off the Cantabrian-Circlers. It's more practicable.

[Made-in-the-uk]

i beat al merko (armenia) it was a close game, ended with me making a box but i squeezed the win, wp al

[Lozza12]

Hi chaps,

With all respect to the no-doubt fine players that frequent these tournamants, wouldn't it be simplest to remove any questions of game balance around the use of archers by banning them altogether? Archers were not an effective/popular unit in classical battles until the time of the Huns, who used heavy cavalry and composite bows.

Alternatively, you could switch to siege battles. I'd like to see Scythia win a siege while defending with 4 HA units

Best of luck for King of the Hill.

Lozza12

[Made-in-the-uk]

Hi chaps,

With all respect to the no-doubt fine players that frequent these tournamants, wouldn't it be simplest to remove any questions of game balance around the use of archers by banning them altogether? Archers were not an effective/popular unit in classical battles until the time of the Huns, who used heavy cavalry and composite bows.

Alternatively, you could switch to siege battles. I'd like to see Scythia win a siege while defending with 4 HA units

Best of luck for King of the Hill.

Lozza12

meh siege battles suck imo

and archers are fun to use anyway, just in moderation.

[General Nuisance esq]

[quote= Cluny the Scourge

Overall my response is favourable. However, I am not yet sure about the foot-archer restriction - it's the balance against 4 HA or CA that troubles me. If you had up to 4 horse-archers or chariot-archers on Cantabrian Circle it takes forever to make any impression on them - and foot-archers are basically your only defence. 8 foot-archers is more practical.

Or - and this is a little more radical - you make the limit on ALL forms of archers, foot, horse or chariot. That way if someone wants to take 4 HA or chariot-archers they can't have the same foot-archer component as you as well to drown your archers with when they're trying to fend off the Cantabrian-Circlers. It's more practicable.[/quote]

Nice to see it is all going well but speaking as an independant voice I think that cluny is 100% correct and I would probably add count horse/chariot archers as cavalry and archers that way you can use them but at a tactical cost to your army
Overall you need archers and cavalry other wise it just becomes an infrantry meat grinder which involves little skill at all
Archers are not a major problem as nearly all factions have them

But overall it is nice to see the battles and games being the main topic of conversation again

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Hi chaps,

With all respect to the no-doubt fine players that frequent these tournamants, wouldn't it be simplest to remove any questions of game balance around the use of archers by banning them altogether? Archers were not an effective/popular unit in classical battles until the time of the Huns, who used heavy cavalry and composite bows.

Alternatively, you could switch to siege battles. I'd like to see Scythia win a siege while defending with 4 HA units

Best of luck for King of the Hill.

Lozza12

Actually archers were quite popular in Classical times. Romans used archers, though not too much. The men of Crete specialised in wartime archery. The Persians used them extensively, and the riders of Scythia were definitely archer oriented. And they do make quite a bit of balance in RTW. So completely removing archers is out of the question.

Siege battles are not too fun as the can drag on for ages, and it gives the defender a distinct advantage, especially if they use hoplites to block up roads and stuff.

Front page updated.

[Al Merko]

Oh, put me back on list please

Good battle MadeinUK. I was my big mistake to miscalculate those chariots. But even without scythies you would still won because of superior Bronze shields. I am looking forward to new battles.

Upgraded cataphract arhers work against chariot archers, but the price is too big. I agree with Cluny restrictions.

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Well I don't really want to raise the limit of foot archers up to 8, cos that's getting close to archer spamming, and I might get complaints again. Personally, I only made the rule 4 ChAs/HAs cos I love symmetry () and 4 makes a far better symmetrical formation than 3, and two just isn't enough for factions that rely on HAs like Parthia. However, though Cluny's second idea is kinda "radical", I don't think it's too bad. So how about I change the rule to make the limit total of 6 archer units in an army, yet the out of those 6, only 4 can be HA/ChA?

[Al Merko]

5 max foot archers is OK (still big, you could limit them to 4 units), but I don't agree with putting HAs and chariot archers in same category.

How about max:
5 foot archers
4 horse archers
3 chariot archers

That would be fair I think, even thou you can just allow 2 chariot archers, cause of symmetry

[Selifator]

Allow 1.5, just to spark a debate.

[Cluny the Scourge]

5 max foot archers is OK (still big, you could limit them to 4 units), but I don't agree with putting HAs and chariot archers in same category.

How about max:
5 foot archers
4 horse archers
3 chariot archers

That would be fair I think, even thou you can just allow 2 chariot archers, cause of symmetry

That doesn't change much. That's a reduction 1 fewer CA. The awkwardness isn't just about CA - on Cantabrian Circle those HA or CA aren't going to be much affected by 5 foot-archers, especially when the HA/CA player has 5 foot-archers of his own thinning your archers down at the same time. Either way it will leave the other player with no way to resist the CA/HA player.

I stand by the idea of combining foot- and horse/chariot- archers as one capped category.

[Xavier Dragnesi]

So how about I change the rule to make the limit total of 6 archer units in an army, yet the out of those 6, only 4 can be HA/ChA?

No response to this proposal....

[zedestroyer]

What about dividing the factions in groups and each giving different rules to each group?

Factions like Parthia and Scythia rely heavily in archers and horse archers, so they could have 4 horse archers and 5 archers/slingers.
Factions like Egypt and Pontus, that are very powerful and have chariot archers and/or horse archers, could have 4 archers/slingers, 2 chariot archers and 4 chariots (chariot archers would count as chariots and chariot archers).
Factions like Rome and the Seleucids, that don't have horse archers could have 6 archers/slingers and 4 chariots.
Factions that lack archers, like Carthage and Spain could have any number of slingers.

[Cluny the Scourge]

No response to this proposal....

It is good. Do it and the blessings of the Heavens will shine upon you.

[Xavier Dragnesi]

If I get a few more approvals of that proposal, I shall implement it.

[Cluny the Scourge]

If I get a few more approvals of that proposal, I shall implement it.

You have General Nuisance's approval too already - that's two.

Also, you overlooked my request to be put back on the challenger list, in front of Al Merko.

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Sorry, you always seem to post large paragraphs of stuff, and I sometimes leave bits of it out of my reading