Easy Antispam Rules

[Seagurt]

Hi, everybody. I had tested this ruleset for a long time. And I think that it is very good and concise rules. I would be grateful if you express your opinion on this subject. Thank you.

The rules are:
0 Art
1 max Ele
2 max same Cav
3 max same Foot Archers
4 max same other Inf

Note 1: Chariots are Cav
Note 2: Slingers, Javelin throwers etc are NOT Archers

[DeerHunter]

I will try not be to obnoxiouse but this game as now been out far nearly 7 years, Do you honestly think your rules would be any better than the current rules which are well tested both in the lobbys and tournements ?

[Seagurt]

I will try not be to obnoxiouse but this game as now been out far nearly 7 years, Do you honestly think your rules would be any better than the current rules which are well tested both in the lobbys and tournements ?

Well. Probably I expressed my thoughts not accurately. I don't want to compare this ruleset with CWB etc.. I always play now according to my ruleset. And it is enough for me. I don't want to destroy CWB And I do not want to force you to play according to my rules. I just want to talk with experienced players about pros and cons of my idea.

[caesar_37th]

im pretty sure this just made egy even more op than it already is. for instance egy can take 4 slingers, 3 archer, 3 elite archer 2 CA and 4 chaz as well as 4 inf.

[Seagurt]

im pretty sure this just made egy even more op than it already is. for instance egy can take 4 slingers, 3 archer, 3 elite archer 2 CA and 4 chaz as well as 4 inf.

Do you mean "even more op than it already is" in CWB? = 8 archers (6 of them theoretically can be elite) + 8 chaz (including 2CA)

But if you talking about TWPL then yes, you are right.

[War lord]

Specaly since unlike Max or someone simler you have no credencals.

[|Sith| Max]

cwb and twpl are pretty much ok. plus those new RCC rules are going to be tested soon.

[Seagurt]

cwb and twpl are pretty much ok. plus those new RCC rules are going to be tested soon.

Agree with you. The only reason why I play according to my ruleset is spam preventing. My rules are shorter than CWB/TWPL and they give me almost the same result. And finaly they are "beautiful" I mean the "0,1,2,3,4" formula )))

[|Sith| Max]

tbh twpl and cwb prevent spam because theyre more complicated Also with your rules Parthia and other factions with many different cavalry types will gain supremacy Not to mention the fact that any faction with slingers will gain an advantage. Also you fail to describe the unit type that HA and HH fall under.

[Seagurt]

tbh twpl and cwb prevent spam because theyre more complicated Also with your rules Parthia and other factions with many different cavalry types will gain supremacy Not to mention the fact that any faction with slingers will gain an advantage. Also you fail to describe the unit type that HA and HH fall under.

Well. I realy think that Parthia and other "Cav-oriented" faction must have possibility to play with a lot of Cav units (at least more than 6 or 8 limit). IMHO These factions were created for that style of playing.

I think that slingers are much weaker than archers in RTW. So they must be artificially strengthened.

HA are cavalry in that game so they count as Cav HH are "other Inf". I think that this is obviously. Even in "complicated" rules HA are count as cavalry.. In my rules all "ingame terms" are equal to "ruleset terms". All Cavalry are Cavalry. Ele are Ele. Foot Archers are Foot Archers. Other Inf are Other Inf (not archers).

[|Sith| Max]

then add that to your rules. its not as obvious as you might think.

[Seagurt]

then add that to your rules. its not as obvious as you might think.

KK. I understand you, Max ))

Btw, could you explain me why in CWB/TWPL Slingers count as Archers? And why HA count as Cav only (not Archer) in CWB? Unfortunately I am not familiar with the history of these rulesets.

[caesar_37th]

they are missiles so egy cant take 14 missile units in a single battle.

[Seagurt]

they are missiles so egy cant take 14 missile units in a single battle.

The question was "Why they count as Archers?". I do understand that they are "missiles" But I don't understand why the word "Archers" is used in these rules.

[RTW Fan]

The question was "Why they count as Archers?". I do understand that they are "missiles" But I don't understand why the word "Archers" is used in these rules.

Because Slingers are very similar to archers and can do similar damage(Though not as great) to heavy infantry.

[Toern]

Why not add a max 2 horse archers rule, also factions with only an archer choice, thrace, armenia, pontus, for example, should be able to have max 6 same missile

[Seagurt]

Why not add a max 2 horse archers rule, also factions with only an archer choice, thrace, armenia, pontus, for example, should be able to have max 6 same missile

And it will be the same ruleset as TWPL? Let me explain my position. IMHO all factions in that game have their own specific. Thus if scythians are good archers then they have 2 FA units and 3 HA units in their army roster. But CWB/TWPL tend to equalise all factions (for balancing of course). I think that this is wrong way. I don't know why I should give ability to have 6 (or 8) archers in the army to ALL factions, realy. Could you explain me why should I? Yes, I know that HA are op due to cantabrian circle, but 6 HA (2 same) isnt a HA spam IMHO. BTW, I forgot to tell that I always prefer maps with forests and scrub.

[caesar_37th]

well to counter that id like to say that egy gets 4 slingers, 6 archers 2 ca which= 12 missiles for egy which leaves it in the EXACT same position that you tried to nerf. Also i would hate having to play 6 HA or something in a battle which the opposing factions cannot counter unless they pick a certain one.

The reason all factions have the ability to use that many archers is so they can go toe to toe with egy for a certain ammount of time.

[Seagurt]

well to counter that id like to say that egy gets 4 slingers, 6 archers 2 ca which= 12 missiles for egy which leaves it in the EXACT same position that you tried to nerf. Also i would hate having to play 6 HA or something in a battle which the opposing factions cannot counter unless they pick a certain one.

The reason all factions have the ability to use that many archers is so they can go toe to toe with egy for a certain ammount of time.

Of course you are right. But to counter that id like to quote:

52. You think Egypt is a respectable choice in a game on Rome, and wonder why people call you an egyptwhore.

Just joking))

Btw, why dont give all these advantages to a weak player? 4 slingers, 3 basic arch, 3 elite arch, 2 CA - it isnt a SPAM )))) Yes it is probably hard to deal with this, but it is not a spam.

[Toern]

And it will be the same ruleset as TWPL? Let me explain my position. IMHO all factions in that game have their own specific. Thus if scythians are good archers then they have 2 FA units and 3 HA units in their army roster. But CWB/TWPL tend to equalise all factions (for balancing of course). I think that this is wrong way. I don't know why I should give ability to have 6 (or 8) archers in the army to ALL factions, realy. Could you explain me why should I? Yes, I know that HA are op due to cantabrian circle, but 6 HA (2 same) isnt a HA spam IMHO. BTW, I forgot to tell that I always prefer maps with forests and scrub.

i wasn't thinking in twpl, i was suggesting only that due to my online experience, that 6 horse archers with cantabrian circle are especially hard to kill and will most likely ruin your games.
"I forgot to tell that I always prefer maps with forests and scrub" Yes you forgot to tell, since it is essencial for the discussion.