Guard Limitation

[flippyxtrem]

I think the max on cav should be four....there is way to many types of cav to buy from and to restrict buying cav to three units is a bit silly...because you got your Hussars, Uhlans, Lancers, Dragoons, Chasseurs, Chevaliers, and Curissaiers and a bunch more that I probably forgot...

I agree on the highlanders...there just like Grenadiers...there no Line Infantry...

I think games should have 11,000-12,000 bucks for the attackers and just 10,000-10,500 for the defenders...last night I played a game were the money ratio's were equal...and I was on attack

yes we lost...

Cheers

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

I tend to agree that cav should be much more wide open. After all, there are SO many types, and each type serves a very different function. Also, if someone wants to take 10 cav units, let them! It will be tough for them to win against any amount of infantry.

BTW yes, that was tough:) However, I have to say, does the attacker/defender role actually mean anything in multiplayer if there is no timer? I mean, I know it does psychologically, but does it actually have an in-game effect? As far as I can tell, the only reason attacker/defender matters is in a time limit battle when the time limit expires.

Okay, that is off topic. Back to army lists. Personally I wouldn't limit cav; I haven't really seen cav get abused the way guard infantry is.

Ash

[[GG]Lord von Döbeln]

[quote author=[GG]Ashram link=board=Napoleonic&thread=1104478157&start=16#1 date=1104939514]However, I have to say, does the attacker/defender role actually mean anything in multiplayer if there is no timer? I mean, I know it does psychologically, but does it actually have an in-game effect? As far as I can tell, the only reason attacker/defender matters is in a time limit battle when the time limit expires.[/quote]

In gaming terms I think it has no effect at all, but there seems to be a general consensus among players that the attacking side should be just that and take some initiative. Otherwise I'm afraid there is a risk that people will never commit their forces and we'll see "Mexican standoff" games where no one wants to move first.

[GG]vD

[HG|barryjacko]

I think what we need to remember is how a person picks their army is a reflection of that persons personality. What we're in danger of is creating clone armies. Many a time I've tried to outthink an opponent in the selection stage only to be out-manouvered and slaughtered on the battlefield. Being a good General is not just about tactics on the battlefield but being creative in the selection process and varying the make up of your army.

Just my opinion of couse

HG|Jacko

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

I agree totally. However, as with any game that is, in the end, governed by 0s and 1s, there is a mathematical formula for picking the "best" forces, and it seems NTW is at the point where the majority of the players know that formula and pick the mathematically superior force. Honest, I think just limiting guard units and required line units would be good enough to get things a little more fair. Of course, people will then say "Oh, Saxon line has one more point of blah blah than French!" and the whole math war will begin again, but I think some regulation will certainly make for a more fun, and slight more balanced, game.

Ash

[[GG]Buxford]

I'm not saying limit cav or anything. I'm just sugesting , requirment of at least one light cav unit would add a little more historical accuracy to the mp game.