now i am locked out of Campaign_7874 and keep getting a stupid button marked "start your game now.cant be a coincedent

I think I like it, but why mess with having ten pop stacks , why not have just single soldiers with the same amount of `life `as a ten pop

That makes sense in a way. It'll get rid of the whole fear of only using 10 pops in games and plus it wouldn't be that hard to transfer to existing games. The current pop and health levels would just be transfered straight to the health of the single stack units.

Two ½dead 10 pops (5 pops), can be merged into a new 10 pop

PS. you can see the POINTS of each troop in the Online Manual. Go to any class, and check their EXP value.
EXP = Points / 10.

Just started a camp, and so far, i like this new system a lot

You need a lot of academies to keep up with armyproduction thou

did you make the tech for producing a 1/2 stack yet Req? would be helpful. dont need a 10 stack of comms for wall building

Decisions...decisions...

In my opinion, the problem is the people will jump several of basic armies and will use only high level ones. That's why logical progress step by step in all strategy games.

I think this can be a system option because is excelent to massive destruction games, bleeding campaigns, and fast games.

The other one give us more options to play strategies using explorer scouts with 1 or 2 horses, building long walls with small commander armies, block paths with kamikasies swordmans, put little commander armies instead of outposts (commanders can run), etc, etc, etc ...

Last Edited : Wednesday, 8 October 2008 - 21:51

Have you tried deploying a 10 pop HC? There will not be massive amounts of high level troops. You can't generate enough income to deploy massive amounts of high level troops.

Looks good Req! It seems the battlefield will be better balanced now with more low end troops supporting the valuable advanced troops. The way that it should be. Looking forward to playing from the start with this new system.

Indeed i see a few problems, you cant take away the counter attack with a low pop unit, which i feel is a bad thing.

Next to this an even bigger problem for me is that the game is unbalanced. deploying a 10 pop HC cost 700 points, with this 700 points you can also build 700/7.8=89,7 scouts, lets round that of to 90.
Building 90 scout will give you a total minumin/maximum damage of 90*5=450/90*8=720 damage, for a 10 pop HC this is 360/570, so it is imo more efficient to go for scouts and let the troop upgrades for what it is, at least for a beginning period in the game.

Higher level troops have much better Attack and Defense values which makes a big difference in damage done and received.

Also, they have much more health which means they stick around longer, so even if you take 200 damage, you still have more full units to attack with next turn, unlike scouts which could lose almost the whole army.

Is 9 full stacks of Scouts better than 1 stack of HC?
Perhaps someone can test it out in a battle... But I would imagine it has alot to do with strategy, since all 9 Scouts cant always attack each turn.

But that is different for campaigns, in campaigns you can usually you many more units to attack, next to this using many scouts would be very benificial when you have to protect your ranged troops. Also 9 troops of scouts are more usefull when destroying building from other players then 1 troop of hc because then you do 9*250 damage to building instead of one time.

yes, there are definitely good reasons to use the lower troops now. which is a good thing.

there are also still uses for the big guns. but you wouldnt devote your whole army to them.

if it turns out that they are not quite worth it, we can just tweak the numbers. make them stronger, cheaper, etc...

Ofcourse 9 scouts are better than one HC. 9 attacks instead of one and the same defence. A HC also overkills most other troops , a waste of money.

Last Edited : Thursday, 9 October 2008 - 04:38

I agree with LOD & Hanky here....
with the old system you can build an army of (n x 3-4) HC....cause we really didn't need more then that against basic/advanced troops.

under current system, an army consisting of basic/advance troops will just vanish an army of High level troops.

in the past the rate of HC/Scouts was 1/6, why is now 1/9?

Last Edited : Thursday, 9 October 2008 - 05:10

Troops are based on their EXP and Battle points.
This was different to their old production values, as Knights & HC were so powerful in battles, their EXP/Points were raised.

Simple solution; we lower the Points for higher level troops so they match the difference in damage exactly.

eg, scouts = 5-8dmg, hc = 36-57dmg = 1:7.15 ratio.
since scouts = 78 points, HC = approx 560 points (using x7.15)

is 560 too little for HC? Probably. So we could bump it up to 600 Points (x7.7 scouts)

yes that might be agood solution, i guess you will do the same for Knights, mace etc.?

I don't know if it is the best ratio, but you could adapt it if it doesn't work out

Last Edited : Thursday, 9 October 2008 - 05:17