RS 2.5 Zero turn campaigns -

[tone]

OK, time to vote on how we feel about numbers of armies that you face in RS2.5 Zero turn campaigns

1) Too few

2) Just right

3) Too many

[Primo]

You might want to consider adding a poll.

My personal opinion ranges from just right to too few.
Edit: Oh, it appeared. Voted "too few", because I had to decide between just right and too few, and figured the latter wouldn't be voted for that often.

[tone]

It's there now

[foster34]

couldnt vote but if i could i would say way too many. i dont play 0 turn and havent since 2.1 so my opinion may be invalid

[Spike]

it's just right IMHO

[kanzy]

Just right as I think it makes since that the AI can recruit as much units as I can.

[Dean Martin]

There are to many Ai armies in the beginning but when you expand a little and boost your economy it's just fine.
Voted too many

[Diocle]

IMHO too many,.....but I'm a 1 turn player so.....

[ur-Lord Tedric]

I've answered 'too many', but again am thinking from a 1turn perspective.

0turn is for those that want lots of battles - so I'm surprised at the votes.

More strategy & less battles - choose 1turn.

To me the question is simple - in either campaign-style - does a good measured campaign on H/H last ~200years? That should be the decider.

[Spike]

I've answered 'too many', but again am thinking from a 1turn perspective.

0turn is for those that want lots of battles - so I'm surprised at the votes.

More strategy & less battles - choose 1turn.

To me the question is simple - in either campaign-style - does a good measured campaign on H/H last ~200years? That should be the decider.

sometimes I wonder if this pool is for 0 turn players or for all players
opinions about what too many and what too few are very different for 1 turn fans and 0 turn fans

[tone]

My question was (for those that read it) are there too many armies in zero turn in RS2.5, so please don't answer if you've not played zero turn since RS2.1......the experiences are very different

[Ferdiad]

Just Right, but maybe SPQR has ruined me in that regard.

[Julio-Claudian]

I think that with the garrison script there are too many. The 2.5 garrison script makes battles feel really indecisive and tedious as the AI just gets stack after stack, it forces me to blitz and I don't like that, 2.6 will be better no doubt. It's fine without it though I think, more room for strategy. I'll vote too many but I'm on the fence.

[DeWitt8]

I think that with the garrison script there are too many. The 2.5 garrison script makes battles feel really indecisive and tedious as the AI just gets stack after stack, it forces me to blitz and I don't like that, 2.6 will be better no doubt. It's fine without it though I think, more room for strategy. I'll vote too many but I'm on the fence.

Just 4 info. The garrison script does what it says - it spawns garrisons. But only if you besiege a city. If you take it, that garrison does not spawn again. Only if you lose you might face a new garrison next try. So I really don't know how this can lead to AI "stack spam".

[Julio-Claudian]

Just 4 info. The garrison script does what it says - it spawns garrisons. But only if you besiege a city. If you take it, that garrison does not spawn again. Only if you lose you might face a new garrison next try. So I really don't know how this can lead to AI "stack spam".

I am aware of what the garrison script does. But to me it makes battles feel indecisive. You fight a tough battle, lose quite a few men but destroy a couple stacks and then go for the city which then spawns an army which your battered army can't handle and then another stack comes in to relieve the city. I just found it tedious. I guess it's also because I don't have a huge amount of time to play but yeah.

[steelwarrior7]

Just right for me...

[Ferdiad]

It may feel indecisive but without it the AI would get steamrolled.

[Smerka]

0 turn isn't getting a break. My input would be it's good at the ealier years( These years are usually boring in 1 turn) but after that the game just becames too, as some call it, spammy. Maybe the devs should consider tonning it down or providing options for a tonned down version. As I have said before options are good, don't restrict the users.

[5th Lieutenant]

A vague idea, but would there be some solution in changing the relative effect of experience on troop performance? In 0-turn you tend to end up with a pretty hard-core armies owing to the sheer number of battles you fight, with most units being silver or gold chevron. If the benefits of these chevron were more pronounced, would that not mean that a 'spam army' fielded by the AI as part of a script would be far easier to defeat (though would still require you to fight another battle, obviously).

Thus the garrisons / reinforcement stacks are there but reflect the dregs-of-the-barrel approach and are rarely any kind of opposition, tending not to inflict many casualties and routing fairly easily.

[Julio-Claudian]

Only if I want to steamroll them.
But like I said. The 'toned down' version in 2.6 will be better.