khamul wrote:Heh, if they're just sitting around guarding the walls of a city anyway, why not try it?
Maybe there's another unconventional strategy there.
I think the reason most of us have suggested about why not to try it is that training something that is already your specialty will make you better at what you're most likely to do faster. Infantry are most likely to guard walls or fight in a field. Improving their sword-work quickly would be better for that than improving your archery slowly, especially when you can pretty easily just pop archers.
Yep, conventional strategies are conventional because they're obviously a good idea. It's hard to argue against making your stabbers better at stabbing.
That's the point of an unconventional strategy - to make that hard argument against conventional wisdom.
Yes it might cost more and take longer to train stabbers to get the archery special than it would to just pop archers: but what you have at the end is not archers. It's units which are both stabbers and archers. So they can volley, and then set spears to receive a charge: and suddenly the rock-paper-scissors of spears vs archery vs mounted just played out very differently.
Or how about training the archery special onto your cavalry? Horse archers, historically, have not been a waste of time.
Of course, all these tactics are situational, whereas it's very hard to find a situation where stabbers that are really good at stabbing are not useful. But that's the hallmark of the unconventional general, isn't it? To create the one situation where your opponent's general advantages are nullified, and your situational advantages are most effective.
And that's why a conflict between two unconventional thinkers can be so interesting - it's not just about countering the obvious moves. As the situation starts to emerge, it's about who manages to hide the situational advantages they're relying on the longest. Who can convince the other that the move they've just revealed is the actual move, not just the blind for the real one. Parson vs Charlie GAME ON.
Alternatively, what if you had a small group of level 1 stabbers spend all their time trying to cast from scrolls? If that gave you a chance of training them into a caster - and specifically into the discipline of the scroll - that really would be transformative.
Godzfirefly wrote:As for why Warlords don't do so...maybe they do, but maybe they have a similar issue. Maybe they're better off training specials they already have or leadership or sword-work. Maybe one more arrow in a battle, even from a Warlord's skills, isn't that important to most sides.
Artemis reckoned she could off Sylvia with a single crit. One more arrow in a battle is pointless - but when it becomes the ability to take out high level leadership at range, it seems a bit more important to me. Just ask Harald Godwinson
But I agree, in general. Specific combination of specials seem like they could be quite powerful (flying + archery) and might be worth going for, but I completely agree that it's mostly going to be a question of taste, and that mostly it's probably not worth the effort.
Godzfirefly wrote:(I actually really like the idea that a side's natural signamancy affects the specials that pop on their warlords.)
I like this theory too.