View Poll Results: Should BtSH end?

Voters
6. This poll is closed
  • Yes, lets cut our losses.

    3 50.00%
  • No, I want to keep playing.

    3 50.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 30 of 186

Thread: Should BtSH call it quits?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #26
    Involuntary Gaesatae Member The Celtic Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the heart of Hyperborea
    Posts
    2,962

    Default Re: Should BtSH call it quits?

    Quote Originally Posted by bean
    If no bonus', how do we decide who gets the initial spy and diplomat, without upsetting the other tribes who get nothing.
    Who says they must get nothing? We could raise new diplomats and spies so that each tribe we have gets one at no one's expense before we start. It's not really that hard to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by bean
    Surely that's what an ambush would be; where they seem to leave the area ill defended and you attack only to find there is an ambush...
    Sure, but that's not what would be happening. It wouldn't "seem" like they left the area ill defended - that's what they had done. We're not talking about the invaders simply not noticing them, we're talking about 'them' literally not existing two seconds before the ambush, and just materializing out of nothing. I don't want to start debating physics with you, but in reality that's not possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bean
    As I already said, I included some non-Germanic settlements in order to produce some space between players' tribes. That would make it more interesting, and give players some space to breathe at the beginning.
    I am aware why you did this, but I still must protest. We're supposed to be Germanic tribes, so it would be kind of wrong to start in a non-Germanic settlement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Azathoth
    Why is everyone finding it difficult to spell my name?

    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114926

    That's the thread. They didn't make a fix, but it appears the EB team made some sort of mistake with spear unit stats in 1.2 that is outlined there, and it could really change gameplay relative to 1.1.
    Sorry, that 'r' was unintentional.

    But anyway, I've been aware of this myself for some time now, and it's not limited to 1.2 - it's the same in 1.1.

    However, whatever fix you try, you're left with some drawbacks. If you just remove the -4 attack bonus, then the spearmen will be weaker than they're supposed to be, since they get a -4 defence against infantry that they shouldn't have. If you then try to balance that by giving the light_spear carriers +4 defence, then you'll have the ones with a light_spear and another melee weapon (like the Arjos) getting that bonus when they're not using their spear as well, making them stronger than they should be.

    Remove the light_spear and the pushing effect it gives (as well as the +8 defence vs cavalry) is lost.

    So it's a choice between different evils, AFAIK, and the +4 attack may make them kill easier, the -4 defence also lets them die easier. I don't know if it evens out in the end that way, but it's the easiest way to do it. They'll do a lot better against cavalry, but then again, cavalry should probably stay away from the pointy sticks in the first place.

    One could perhaps do so that the soldiers with two melee weapons retains the +4 attack bonus, while the rest get their +4 attack switched for +4 defensive skill.
    Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 07-10-2009 at 10:52.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO