Poll about Strat battles

[arowaine]

all make alt to defend a castle, let make them 36-3 mauler or 18-21 archer or 21-18 archer build and pewpew make half roster archer rest mauler gg. worst idea ever

[GRANDMOM]

I dont know but I think that engurrand talks about teamstrategy more than being able to get your character to use multiple weaponclasses.

If you choose to build an army of your liking with gear fur a purpose, anyone should be able to build a counter army with the appropriate gear. Also, having a flexible army would cost alot more - since you would need more of every gear. What I mean here is that if u would like the oppurtunity to have an all cav army u would need to buy cav gear for all your troops, but if your army then needs to adapt to be able to counter an incoming army of pikers, u would also need a shitload of inf/arch gear with you. This would make it rather easy and cheap to buy for instance a pikerarmy - but if caught by a a arch/inf army it would be fucked. So, risks would be taken, gains could be made and making the ultimate flexible army able to handle all situations would cost about 4-5 times as much as now. This perhaps would mean that there would be more diversity of quality in the armies, low tier gear for some classes since u cant really have the best army every time because of the cost.

An all cavalry army wouldnt be that efficient against a piker army or on a mountain map against archers. This would, at least as I see it, apply to any overland battles or sieges in villages. So you buy the gear for the army you want or need rather than buying the gear that would fit the type of characters that usually applies to the battles.

When it comes to sieges, well Im not sure an archer/mauler defence army wouldnt have weaknesses u can exploit as an attacker also depending on the terrain and location of the siege. Im not sure though - havent experienced it myself first hand.

To use the element of surprise and to have the option to do diverse strategies seems to be close to none as it is now- that is if compared to what it could be if this would be implemented.

[GRANDMOM]

Well, I think (and hope)I can speak for the wolves in this and say that yes, the wolves members wants to win stratbattles as a team - even if it means doing some wicked, evil strategy that included using rondel daggers dressed in a monks robe when defending a castle I think almost all of them would agree on this.

And if the clan Im applying for in a battle wants their soldiers to charge a cavalry army with short swords, well they made the army, the trade to get the gold, ran around and bought the gear, spent many hours planning, spending alot of time.  So, yes I think that they should be entitled to do that, I my mind it would be strange to say the other way around really. They make the battle possible, us mercing in it didnt do anything but apply.

[GRANDMOM]

Why not have the possibility to make one character for every class, and when u sign up for a battle the Clan that chooses mercs can see all your characters (lvl, build perhaps even hours played) and just choose one of them to join the fight.

[Le_Mikz]

Poll...

With the intent to change up the monotony of start battle tactics and allow more room to test out different strategies, i ask this question.

Should Alternate characters be allowed to join in start battles?

NO STF characters, alternates only.

THis will allow more ability to customize class types for battles... Get it?

 This would give edge for bigger clans = they would have more players with more alts (which is meant to use only in certain type of strategus battles)

[GRANDMOM]

If every crpg-player has one character for each class, the amount of people applying would be the same as it is now - why would that change? Only the possibilities to have different strategies would change, for every applicant the clan can choose from the different characters...Lemikz Archer, Lemikz cav, Lemikz polarm and so on. These would be your builds, your characters and people would still want to be more in the big battles/sieges and less in the 100 unarmed battles

[Le_Mikz]

If every crpg-player has one character for each class, the amount of people applying would be the same as it is now - why would that change? Only the possibilities to have different strategies would change, for every applicant the clan can choose from the different characters...Lemikz Archer, Lemikz cav, Lemikz polarm and so on. These would be your builds, your characters and people would still want to be more in the big battles/sieges and less in the 100 unarmed battles

 Thats what I meant.

 Big clans has more those specified alts. They would have more cav alts, more strenght whores in sieges etc. Small clans would be automatically less flexible and effective than bigger ones

[GRANDMOM]

But there are of course others that will apply for the battles aswell, outside the clan - like it allways is. Those guys would also have different characters that you can choose from. So the amount of guys applying wouldnt change, u would still have the same number of guys in battle - just that u can choose which of their characters u want in the battle.

Also, if u hate playing an archer - you dont have to level up that character if u dont want to - then that character would never get chosen. And Bagge on the other hand would never need to lvl up any other character than his archer, since anyone denying him in his roster, whatever battle would be, would seriously need a brainscan

This way, u can in some way decide which character u want to play, but you perhaps will have a bigger chance of getting in the battle if u have more charactertypes than one.

[bagge]

Fu, you are in byzantiums! You'd slice and dice a cavarmy into pigfood with your pikers 

I guess that's true

[KaMiKaZe_JoE]

I get a tear by Just by imaginating that scenario.

Its happened before, on NA. I think frank_the_tank hired only cav and throwers for a big fight against Kutt. We had all Champion Mamluk horses and full plate armor. That first charge was...glorious.