1hp or 2hp?

**Bearhugger** · May 29, 2009, 11:03 AM

What do you prefer?
The old 1hp-system or the new 2hp-system?

I didn't try the 2hp system yet...

**Fouch** · May 29, 2009, 01:56 PM

The real question is how long do you want your battles to last? The 2hp units allow you more time to strategically maneuver your guys. If you don't feel you need/want that stick with the 1hp.

**TM Is Back** · May 29, 2009, 03:02 PM

1 HP for sure. It is, in my opinions, perfectly balanced, does not take to much time and is fun to play.

**stormer** · May 29, 2009, 03:18 PM

plus you can use your arrows.

**Dog Fart** · May 29, 2009, 03:20 PM

I'm a 2hp guy myself. I like longer lasting battle lines that provide realistic maneuvering. And you often see battle pulses break out in certain hot spots. More historicaly accrate rather than a straight up charge and instant route. I'll always stick with 2hp, even if it's changed one day.

**cnaeus** · May 30, 2009, 04:15 AM

2hp FTW...nice to have more of a battle then just a clash followed up by an instand mass rout.

cnaeus,

**Barend** · May 30, 2009, 04:42 AM

I prefer the 1hp system; I was a bit disapointed by the lack of impact missile units and cavalry charges made in de 2hp-system, so I stick with the good old 1hp-system.

**Publius Quirinus** · May 30, 2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Barend

I prefer the 1hp system; I was a bit disapointed by the lack of impact missile units and cavalry charges made in de 2hp-system, so I stick with the good old 1hp-system.

This is the main reason I stick with 1HP system. Sure I would love to have longer battles and be able to maneuver, but my playing style regardless of faction tend to rely rather heavily on missiles, so...

**Roman Warlord** · May 30, 2009, 01:25 PM

The thing most people don't understand is that missiles in 2HP still work, sure they don't get many causlties in there fire but they take off a lot of those 2nd Hp before a clash.

Think of Agincourt one of the most famous battles with the longbow, but few people were killed by the arrows. The arrows tired out the enemy as they were advancing (holding up shields, suffering undr impacts) and were then easy meat for the english men at arms.

Cavaly charges true are a little off but how often would one charge break a fresh unit on a battle field? Would it not work better when the unit has allready been in a fight?

**Barend** · May 31, 2009, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Roman Warlord

The thing most people don't understand is that missiles in 2HP still work, sure they don't get many causlties in there fire but they take off a lot of those 2nd Hp before a clash.

Think of Agincourt one of the most famous battles with the longbow, but few people were killed by the arrows. The arrows tired out the enemy as they were advancing (holding up shields, suffering undr impacts) and were then easy meat for the english men at arms.

Cavaly charges true are a little off but how often would one charge break a fresh unit on a battle field? Would it not work better when the unit has allready been in a fight?

I see what you mean, but when missile units almost fail to kill, that's where the balance is off. As for cavalry, aren't they supposed to break units that where already in a fight? I never charge non-engaged units head on.

**Roman Warlord** · June 02, 2009, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Barend

I see what you mean, but when missile units almost fail to kill, that's where the balance is off. As for cavalry, aren't they supposed to break units that where already in a fight? I never charge non-engaged units head on.

Missile units don't seem to do much damage but they do as when you engage the unit afterwards in melee it will be much easier to kill.

Infantry should be strong enough to hold off at least a charge but then fail rapidly on subsecuent charges. Battle of Hastings took many charges to weakon the infantry enough to break.

Also I find 2HP a greater tactical challenge where units fight for much longer forcing you to outnumber the enemy units for longer.

**gaius_caesar** · May 30, 2009, 08:00 AM

i always did like the 1hp system. Well the vanilla military adviser Marcus did say that even a skilled warrior is no match for a missile unit and it wouldn't make sense that a unit gets hit by a flaming rock and live to tell the tale. Well it did take only one arrow shot to kill Achilles right? And can you believe that an unarmoured horse can survive an entire volley fire of arrow? However the 2hp system can show longer and more realistic battles and you have to admit that a battle isn't won by a single cavalry charge. And Leonidas did take a few hits before he died. Still, the 1hp system makes the missile units the guys who can turn the tides of the battle

**Suppanut** · May 30, 2009, 08:26 AM

Longer battle could be done by other measures such as huge augment of defense skill(for melee) and lower missile accuracy(for ranged). I think 2 hp is too much beyond reality for most of non drug-high(like Berserkers), non thick-skin beast(like elephants) or non superhuman(like Spartan royal guards) units.

**Bearhugger** · May 30, 2009, 02:19 PM

All good answers. I, personally, don't care too much about reality in a game. Fun is king. How else could I explain my obsession with "Planescape Torment" (reality? where?)?

**Garlic Jr.** · May 30, 2009, 08:13 PM

Actually go 2 hp ill do what 300 would do in front of volley of arrows fire. and laugh. On other hand 1 hp my general would accedentaly fallin in volley fire and one arrow would Fak him and die.