borg- vs Feldfeld 1v1 series

[Feldfeld]

Games of this series were all unrated and played since 2 days ago.
You can find here comeback, nice raids and excellent defense, traps, and some unique strategies, but also some balance abusing and map advantage dictating 1 or 2 games win (i suggest to skip game 1, the least interesting one).
Overall, it might show that the balance is not as broken as some people say.

Feldfeld vs borg- series.7z

[Grugnas]

game 1: skirmish cavalry won the game because, despite spear cav moves faster, they can't trade skirmishers.

game2: romans vs romans more interesting than first game because both had spear cavalry. BIG MISTAKE:  you kept harrassing opponent wood workers instead of forcing his women on fields to garrison and being unable to produce food ( like he did in the first game ).

briton games: the most equilibrate one since slingers seems to be nice to protect workers from skirmish raids, plus they can be trained so easy that it would be even a bad decision not training them. borg- was able to attack with infantry in both games because of their cost. Indeed the slingers advantage is even more relevant when the opponent has another civ than britons with higher houses cost.

cartha vs sele:  despite borg had MANY soldiers on wood and 2 towers, they couldn't trade skirmish cavalry. Borg made a big mistake  not training skirmish cavalry tho since he even had hunt advantage.

conclusion: Towers have no effect on the game flow thus their weakness and players have to rely on soldiers only which can be uncounterable whenver the player picks the right decisions. The balance is broken ( one could even argue that accuracy rework wasn't intended to affect the gameplay but a way to make code more clear to read since there were no discussions nor complains on balance in the previous alpha. at least in public topics. )

Edited December 31, 2017 by Grugnas

[Stan`]

2 hours ago, Grugnas said:

game 1: skirmish cavalry won the game because, despite spear cav moves faster, they can't trade skirmishers.

game2: romans vs romans more interesting than first game because both had spear cavalry. BIG MISTAKE:  you kept harrassing opponent wood workers instead of forcing his women on fields to garrison and being unable to produce food ( like he did in the first game ).

briton games: the most equilibrate one since slingers seems to be nice to protect workers from skirmish raids, plus they can be trained so easy that it would be even a bad decision not training them. borg- was able to attack with infantry in both games because of their cost. Indeed the slingers advantage is even more relevant when the opponent has another civ than britons with higher houses cost.

cartha vs sele:  despite borg had MANY soldiers on wood and 2 towers, they couldn't trade skirmish cavalry. Borg made a big mistake  not training skirmish cavalry tho since he even had hunt advantage.

conclusion: Towers have no effect on the game flow thus their weakness and players have to rely on soldiers only which can be uncounterable whenver the player picks the right decisions. The balance is broken ( one could even argue that accuracy rework wasn't intended to affect the gameplay but a way to make code more clear to read since there were no discussions nor complains on balance in the previous alpha. at least in public topics. )

Interesting.

Do you often do such commentaries ?

I barely read those threads cause balance is not in my attributions.

 

[Grugnas]

7 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

Interesting.

Do you often do such commentaries ?

I barely read those threads cause balance is not in my attributions.

 

Just tried to figure out why and how a strategy is the most effective among anothers.