Tweet
Does it exist? They are obviously two different types of units, as different as sea and air in a sense.
I remember the unmodded game simply had rather similar units that either had higher attack or defense values. It really didnt make the player or the AI have to decide how to use them, as little would be determined between attackers or defenders.
In AoM, i usually end up fielding flanking infantry along with any generals or heroes i have, and if I did have attackers or defenders, it would just be which ever one was more powerful at my current tech level. They have mostly the same stats for most of what I remember.
So should there be a larger difference between them? Afterall, the are different types of units.
I was thinking, as attackers stand in the very front middle and always the most of the attack, they should have little HP and defense, but high attack and firepower. This would be like, the light infantry who charged into melee combat first, or the doughboys crossing the trenches. They would cheaper and most always die before the end of a stack battle, but a stack without them would most likely lose, due to the lack of extra early offense.
Defense units would have large HP, as in heavy infantry: antiflankers or machinegunners/anti-tank. They would either be garunteed to win or lose against attackers in single combat of equal health and terrain. (not sure which is better balance)
This way lets flanker infantry fit between the two, providing offense that lasts the battle, without overpowering strength of their own.
Also, if these three types of infantry balance out (the whole point of the thread), calvary can be taken in another direction altogether, instead of the knight-pikeman-samurai of the default game (which i thought was bad).
Finally, artillery and light ranged units would be considered seperately, but their enevitable presence in the stack would need to be considered in balancing.
O yea, I hope that was new stuff
.
I remember the unmodded game simply had rather similar units that either had higher attack or defense values. It really didnt make the player or the AI have to decide how to use them, as little would be determined between attackers or defenders.
In AoM, i usually end up fielding flanking infantry along with any generals or heroes i have, and if I did have attackers or defenders, it would just be which ever one was more powerful at my current tech level. They have mostly the same stats for most of what I remember.
So should there be a larger difference between them? Afterall, the are different types of units.
I was thinking, as attackers stand in the very front middle and always the most of the attack, they should have little HP and defense, but high attack and firepower. This would be like, the light infantry who charged into melee combat first, or the doughboys crossing the trenches. They would cheaper and most always die before the end of a stack battle, but a stack without them would most likely lose, due to the lack of extra early offense.
Defense units would have large HP, as in heavy infantry: antiflankers or machinegunners/anti-tank. They would either be garunteed to win or lose against attackers in single combat of equal health and terrain. (not sure which is better balance)
This way lets flanker infantry fit between the two, providing offense that lasts the battle, without overpowering strength of their own.
Also, if these three types of infantry balance out (the whole point of the thread), calvary can be taken in another direction altogether, instead of the knight-pikeman-samurai of the default game (which i thought was bad).
Finally, artillery and light ranged units would be considered seperately, but their enevitable presence in the stack would need to be considered in balancing.
O yea, I hope that was new stuff
.
Comment