Uh, yeah, you're absolutely right. I think that WaterMonkey and I had a collective blank on that score... We should let WaterMonkey decide what he should do now.HerbieRai wrote:Hey watermonkey, there's another 4 stacks at the basecamp. Don't you have to kill all stacks to "take" it? Otherwise whats the use in putting more than one stack in a spot, especially if only 8 units are going to defend.
WaterMonkey314 wrote:The problem is two-fold here: mounting flyers on flyers allows ridiculous mobility on my part (sending 11 orlies instantly to the front), and you guys relied solely on your wall of swaves, forgetting that an orly was superior in combat.
WaterMonkey314 wrote:If I swapped out my dwigibles for their pop point equivalent in dwagons, heavy archers, and warlords, the situation would be even worse. I'd have that much more firepower with much higher survivability (reminder - diwigibles are def-0).
As I'm sure Twoy will tell you a thousand times, the bigger the map is, the worse things get for you. In fact, I've been forced to complicate my next campaign plan to reduce the effectiveness of my strategies. And, terrain features would make it even worse. Imagine if there were mountains, and WaterMonkey used those as a base for his fliers. With no fliers in the MCC:S except the scouts, you'd be booped. If he had 4 mountains scattered around the map, he could feasibly hit anything from them with impunity.Sihoiba wrote:The fact you can move flyers from base camp to base camp in one turn, just shows the map is too small/lacks terrain features. Clearly we need a bigger map if we want to go with all plains scenarios.
Nihila wrote:As I'm sure Twoy will tell you a thousand times, the bigger the map is, the worse things get for you.
Nihila wrote:And, terrain features would make it even worse. Imagine if there were mountains, and WaterMonkey used those as a base for his fliers. With no fliers in the MCC:S except the scouts, you'd be booped. If he had 4 mountains scattered around the map, he could feasibly hit anything from them with impunity.
Nihila wrote:And, well, if you really want your 200 or 250 points of units to auto-engage a Diwigible, that's your prerogative. I will point out that the Diwigible has far less attack than 422 points worth of, say, Sniper Cats, so you might be able to slowly take it down, even though it will have massive retaliation.
Nihila wrote:I remain convinced that the Diwigible is a flaw in BLAND's cost formula, but whatever.
Nihila wrote:He would have waited for a ranged stack to get a bit too close, then fielded some Heavy Archers to take down the special bonus, then hit it with a pair of Diwigibles. Ranged stack vanishes. Rinse and repeat.
Or just made a melee stack disappear suddenly.
BLANDCorporatio wrote:Hi all.
I'm not going to read all rants so far right now, will do that later.
1) it IS a bit suspicious that 11+ Orlies popped up out of nowhere. Yes, I know that they had many unscouted hexes to come out of, but still it seems a tad too convenient. Well, either that or it was a very good play, so congrats! Good plays are those that seem unseemly
Face it, we lost because many Orlies were placed conveniently out of sight but in range of the swave wall. That's simply something that I would NOT fix in costs. I kinda like it, actually. Good play, WaterMonkey314!
4) I don't think the Diwigible is that imba. It's very hard to kill, can carry loads of units, but on the other hand it's not the best when it comes to either defense or attack. Now, since in Erfworld there's a full auto-heal at the start of a turn, some HP cap may make sense, but I'm not seeing as how this was a case of the Diwigibles stomping us.
Sihoiba wrote:There was no way we could defend the base camp, and advance and avoid death from diwigible.
Sihoiba wrote:High HP heal at start of turn is awkward, but it's the ability to carry other high hit units on mass which is the real problem I think, as it leaves you with an unassailable high HP unit.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests