The Onager and the Elephant: Psychological Warfare

[tootee]

The idea is to enhance the tactical depth of the game, and an artillery piece here and there can do that. But if they are the major focus of every battle then you are losing tactical depth--thus the desire to set some restrictions on some battles.

which is why elephant at 10k is totally fine.. it doesnt sacrifice any tactical depth because one has to balance the various tactical parameters.

in high denarii game (> 20K), where typically on average (esp for factions with cheap units) there will be valor upgrade for most units (except the most expensive, with elephants topping the list), such an exercise reduces the efficiency of the upgraded unit compared to the more expensive but not-upgraded unit. This loop-sided effect compromise the tactical depth of high denarii games.

I find the main reason why some go for 20K game instead of 10K is to buy elephants.. otherwise at 10K, where already more than half of the army can be at morale > 8, in which most of them will fight to the last man, is not much different to 20K.. except it benefits more the factions with expensive units.

Yuuki,

the battlefield upgrade occurs with more kills? or more killed? i usually see my unit get upgraded the more men it lost. If by # of kills, yea elephants stand to gain the most.. getting even tougher to kill it the more it kills..

[Aelwyn]

I agree with Steeleye. Its not so much that these units can't be countered, as they can be. But, the whole purpose of playing the game for me is, I want to out-think my opponent. I like to be able to approach the battle with some caution, pick apart my enemies' army, and beat him piece by piece.

Elephants don't bother me as much as artillery. When a 40 man unit is reduced to 5-8 men because of a 'lucky shot', it doesn't seem like all too much skill and planning was necessary on their part. It's not that I can't handle the artillery, or that I can't handle a rush, or any other tactic. But when someone has artillery, the game is already a foregone conclusion to me. If its 2v2 or 3v3, we move away from the artillery and double or triple someone. If its a 1v1, then I rush at least until I get rid of that artillery. And what fun is that? I already know whats going to happen.

The real fun of this game to me is, being able to bring the exact same armies to the exact same map, and having completely different tactical games. Having different factions with different strengths/weaknesses only enhances that for me. So to me, artillery just limits the tactics, and thats the opposite of what I play for.

[The_Emperor]

Artillery users pretty much spoil the MP game for me.

There is no skill in sitting back and unleashing a volley of fireballs at the enemy. thinning out his units with "lucky shots", especially given the vast number of shots that ornagers get!

I played a game with someone earlier who refused to attack me when I chose not to wander into his position (which had a couple of ornager units, backed up by 4 units of Aux archer and urban cohorts).

His entire setup was entirely defensive and he moaned like hell when I decided not to attack. "I'm the defender, your meant to be the attacker"

Still it really annoyed me so I decided to attack from the side, I still got holes blown in my formations and it wasn't a pretty sight...

Artillery sucks.