IcePack wrote:JPlo64 wrote:GoranZ wrote:One of the worst concepts for anything connected with CC.
Fundamental strategy is drag your games as much as possible if you are losing... Really? This is in the spirit of CC?
I finished my first game on 26-th and on 27-th I have another game on the same spot of the map? And I didn't decided anything from the games. How come? Apparently something is again connected with dragging the games, or playing it faster, as I did.
I guess no need to even think about this event from now on. After all I'm not here to intentionally drag a game, or to not decide anything about the games I participate in.
Player A plays Player B, sometimes A decides the game, sometimes B decides. I guess this is not for players that are so passionate about handpicking each of their games.
As for game stalling, yeah, kind of lame to do that... but that really has nothing to do with CR@W as a concept. It's a minor unfortunate bi-product. Rules prob could be tweaked to change that.
The rules actually envisioned this as a strategy, the idea being it mimics real battles etc. Where one army might hold on as long as they can before reinforcements arrive.
Battles in middle ages sometimes took days, weeks, in castles it could be months etc Thus, as far as the planned system goes this feedback means it was a success, not a failure.
Middle Ages ambush strategy... You are trying to ambush an enemy camp, the ambushing army attacks but finds the camp empty. And they are being ambushed afterwards. This was common outcome for many battles, and it was quite quick, all over within 24 hours.
Siege on a castle or town sometimes lasted for long time, months or years but it was mainly determined by ability to secure fresh source of water. No water=quick loss. BTW how come Siege! map is not used?
Open field battles lasted much less then months, few days or a week at most, depending on the armies resources and type of warfare.
Lords... they were not captured quite often since they rarely fought in the first lines. Sometimes they did but not always. And they save them selves much more then they were captured. This can also be mimicked(front line commander will boost his units moral meaning he can be captured but he can chose much more then one that is playing from the back)
I can go on, but as it is bannermen does not mimic anything that happened in the middle ages... except the middle age map.
JPlo64 wrote:I guess this is not for players that are so passionate about handpicking each of their games.
In middle ages you do chose the battlefield, regardless if you are in attack or in defense. Sometimes it wont happen that you end up choosing everything but you do make certain choices.
The current enemy I have has chosen everything from all 6 games he played... 6/6, I doubt such percentage has been noted in the history.
In the end I'm complaining because I have absolutely no control over my own situation prior to the battles, something that any army had in reality