Opponent's Gold

[ezras]

I personally hate pikemen. When I have to use them and when I find castles with them I curse myself for not pillaging, even though I never do. As far as the value of 2 vs 1 turn units I have found that in games where I buy 2 turn units early (in 2 or 3 castles by turn 10). I end up doing much much better than in games where I sit on 1 turn production given by luck. I expand quicker my victory rate against neutrals is way higher and defense is much easier. You can argue against 2 turn units but how many pikemen/hvy inf./dwarves would it take to capture a city from only 4 mina/giants/hvy calv/spiders? the city bonus given to mina./spiders is of tremendous value. oh well.

[Pillager]

Thanks Ezras, I intend to put your strategy to the test.

I gave up on 2 turners way back...partly because, in multiple games, my giants were being killed (in the hills) by 1 turn units (mostly beta 2 light cav)..the giants weren't even breaking even vs the one turners much less killing them 2 to 1. I know this was a (strangely long) run of bad luck...but I still find it hard to put any faith in the 2 turners, except perhaps spiders.

Also, I tend to buy unicorns..which are very effective against 2 turners, so that might give me a somewhat skewed perspective as well.

But Ezras, I actually don't find that dwarves and pikemen have a hard time taking cities from any of those units (except maybe spiders). But then, I don't attack well defended cities without support troops. Instead of buying the 2 turn units, I buy the 3+ turn units I need to make my 'free' one turners an effective fighting force.

[ezras]

Yeah, I stopped playing giants a long time ago. For some reason I find that they lose all the time to one turn units. I just lost 1 unit of giants vs 1 unit of elves in a city, which is pretty normal from what I have found. I don't buy dwarves or pikes because I am impatient and they move too slow for me. perhaps that is why i lose so many games ... but giants have failed me too many times. Which is weird. In Warlords I and II, back in the day I would buy giants and dominate maps. Giants constantly disappoint me now.

[strach]

warbarons is totally different - in my opinion the whole game is spoiled by the HvI which is way too powerful, in Warlords 2 giants were one of the best units (right after the spiders) - here for a one giant you have two units of HvI with a strength of 3 (4 in open), no wonder that all expeirienced playeres use almost only HvI which makes games a bit boring.

in W2 players were often specialized in producing different types of units, here - everyone is playing with the same HvI - that's a serious fault of Warbarons

[kenc80]

I do agree that in War2 Giants were awesome.

[KGB]

Funny but I never made Giants in War2 unless they were already in the city.

I played War2 (the original, not the Deluxe version which changed a lot of rules allowing floods of Gryffons/Pegasi) exactly as I play Warbarons. Gobs of Light Infantry (instead of Hv Infantry/Lt Cavalry in Warbarons) inflated with cheap bonus's (Pegasi/Elephant) / blessings. Supplement with a few super hero stacks for countering enemy heroes.

The massive difference that people don't realize is that the AI in War2 was brain dead and since 99% of players games consisted of battles with the AI (or maybe 1 friend in hotseat) they don't realize that what the AI did (and what they did) was limited by their own experience with the game rather than what was truly the best thing to do. That's the Warbarons difference. All the experience is against human players who can adapt their strategy and collectively find the best units/strategies etc to use.

KGB

[LPhillips]

KGB is right. It was always more efficient to use cheap units and boost them with cheap bonuses. Units' strength was more varied in W2, but that basic strategy is constant. It was even a great strategy to build the lowest-tier fliers and bless them if there were two temples close by.

The fact remains that in this game you generally need 2-turn units to counter 2-turn units, and that's as it should be. Building stronger units will become much more prominent when the game doesn't revolve around hero offers. You'll probably never take a city+2 with a stack of 8 Giants with 16 or even 24 Heavy Infantry, but you can smash it with a some Minotaurs/Spiders and a Catapult. It's likewise useless to attack an enemy hero stack whose units are boosted to 9-14 strength without some turn 2- or 3-turn units. Things are actually relatively well balanced, except for some absurd unit prices (which will be corrected in the next Beta unless I'm mistaken).

[kenc80]

KGB yeah youre probably right but pegasus and elephants take ages to produce in war2. who has time for that? better to just quest for dragons! was there a better moment than when a quest completed and it said "you have received 5 dragons!!" cha-ching!!!!

[KGB]

KenC,

3 turns for Pegasi and 4 for Elephants in War2. In Deluxe it was down to 2 turns for a Pegasi! So Pegasi at least don't take any more time to produce than they do now.

Also I only ever received Archons from my quests in War2. They did however give a +1 stack bonus (something they don't do in Warbarons). But you could not be sure of getting them as a reward as you might also get gold, the location of a hidden ruin or an item as a reward so questing for allies wasn't dependable in War2 at all (unlike DLR where you chose your reward).

KGB

[kenc80]

KGB, clearly your questing skills need some work if youre only pulling archons down!