Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Pretentious ponderings pertaining to positioning and placement

  1. #21
    Member Yth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    70
    I'm still around, mostly lurking. As I wrote in the Suggestions from Steam thread, I wish that the devs would be able to devote more time to expanding the multiplayer. Until such time occurs, I will likely continue to lurk.

    This is an old thread, but it wasn't made in complete ignorance of other playstyles. Siege Archers had just recently been nerfed after their spot in the limelight (coals EVERYWHERE), Skystrikers were quite common but more used in control/combo builds, and offencive all-strength teams were just starting to show up in tournaments. I wrote the guide because I both had a bit of extra time on my hands and because the particular build I was running was extremely demanding on positioning, specializing in using archers and protecting archers.

    You can see examples of my 3 archer team against high strength agressive teams here and here.

  2. #22
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Yth View Post
    You can see examples of my 3 archer team against high strength aggressive teams here and here.
    Aye. Your success against such builds highlights two aspects of the game: (1) SBs having the highest ARM+STR, combined with generally high AB, RtF adding to that and a 2x2 size that is good for meat-shielding! (2) Archers having the strongest passive/offensive ability, Puncture. Those two combined make for very strong builds, extremely difficult to overcome, when correctly played. It's no wonder that you beat the Dwarf's full-STR crew with him having a streak of lucky BFs in his favour. The only thing that you gotta take care of is blocking enemy paths to your back lines. Note, also, that both of the battles linked were fought in maps that greatly favored this approach/strategy to the battle (turting, blocking, waiting).

  3. #23
    Member Yth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    70
    On the other hand, archers have the lowest total amount of stats, and even worse directly combat relevant stats (STR and ARM) by far. A 3 archer team starts 6 (?) points of stats down, although I think the totals went up bit because SBs have higher stats than other Varl (although I think these games were played before the 1 stat buff to SBs?).

    I think both builds work and both can beat the other, having to do more with the skill of the user than the relative strengths of the build. In other words, if I was playing against myself with one of each build, I think the chances would be 50/50 for each side.

  4. #24
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Yth View Post
    I think both builds work and both can beat the other, having to do more with the skill of the user than the relative strengths of the build. In other words, if I was playing against myself with one of each build, I think the chances would be 50/50 for each side.
    Interesting, this "bipolar clone battle" you got there in the end So, returning on the main track, and assuming that there is a perfect play for any given build and opposition, don't you believe that ultimately (as in statistically) the [2SB 3BM] always beats the [3TH 2WM]?

  5. #25
    Member Yth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    70
    I've only played that matchup 4 or 5 times against someone who knew what they were doing. Based on my analasys of some of these battles, plus my own bipolar thought experiments, I don't see a clear resolution because of several factors, mostly having to do with map chosen, unit deployment and turn order, and the damage/armor hits from the thrasher ability.

    Since my analasys didn't come up with a clear winner, I lazily declare it to be a 50/50 split.

  6. #26
    Junior Member Slimpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15
    Old post now I guess - but it's also possible to block 3 raiders with 2 of your own given a favourable turn order (and other blocks). Imagine the situation 2 v 3 raiders. (Lets call them X1, X2 and Y1, Y2, Y3; 00 is an empty, moveable tile) They line up as such with Y1 next to take an action. He cannot move past X1 so breaks and stays stationary (or uses stonewall). X1 moves next and moves to the empty space blocking Y3. Assuming X2 moves to cover Y1 and X1 moves back to block Y2 (on the next turn) you can block all three raiders for two whole turns (assuming none run away!)

    X1 X2 00 X2 00 X1 00 X1 X2
    Y1 Y2 Y3 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y1 Y2 Y3

    This may be unlikely - but did happen to me in one game against some raidmasters on the snow map with the 4 poles, and highlights the possibilities with the turn order.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •