Re: [Epic] Army composition, battle report

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:11:51 -0400 (EDT)

"DAVID C LADO, DEPT OF NEUROSCIENCE" <LADO_at_...> writes:
> > Is this true? Hordes of troops & guns are no longer more
> >than a match for the big war machines? Is so, damn, there goes my
> >whole army... =(
>
> It's interesting to me that I have seen several posts claiming that
> War Engines (WEs) dominate the game basically side by side with posts
> from people who want to tone down the critical hit charts becasue they
> are so vicious. Personally, I think it is a little insulting to the game
> designers to assume that (1) they wouldn't notice if war engines were
> dispraportionally powerful (I know they don't playtest well, but it's
> ridiculous to assume they never playtested WEs)

        It's not that I feel that War Engines are disproportionately
powerful. I just feel that a balanced army will win against a bunch
of specialists 9 times out of 10. An army without any durable war
engines isn't something I consider balanced. In general, I think an
army with one or two WEs will probably do better than an army with
none. An army with one or two WEs will also do better than an army
exclusively made up of WEs and flyers. Of course, this theory needs
more testing before I can feel more confident about it.

Mark
Received on Mon Apr 21 1997 - 16:11:51 UTC